Tmobile price increase

anna2007

DamePeggy wrote: »

There have been a number of excellent posts with specific instructions about key aspects of the process – like countering EE’s ‘ it’s a business decision’ argument, detailed replies to EE’s defence etc.

Finding these replies in this massive thread is no easy task. I wonder if a few of the main posters could point to the post numbers where they think the main bits of their advice can be found (I see that some have done so for some points in their replies already).

I note that the OP has posted again in the thread – perhaps s/he wouldn’t mind editing the original post to incldue these too perhaps. I tried to do this with my thread on my Orange comnplaint with CISAS (which is now progressing to the small claims court).

Thanks Dame Peggy, sensible advice. I'm happy to go through my previous posts and post the numbers here in the usual way.

Twinkle - would you mind copying the post numbers for anyone who does this into your original post, so others can easily find the info?

anna2007

Copy of my CISAS application summary (with the 750 word limit) is copied below. Obviously covers both the latest and older set of t&c's, but please feel free to adapt for your own use, if it helps.


EE Case Reference Number: xxxxxxx [you'll only have this if you've been corresponding with EE]
T-Mobile Account Number: xxxxxxxx

Iwish to request that CISAS investigates a complaint I have against T-Mobile,regarding two mobile airtime agreements that I instructed them to cancel on06/04/13. On this date, I receivedwritten notice from T-Mobile that they were applying a price increase to bothagreements, due to inflation and based on RPI, which they stated was currently at3.3%. On checking the ONS website, I sawthat the current RPI rate, as at 06/04/13l, was published on 19/03/13 and stoodat 3.2%. I then checked the terms andconditions (each of my contracts is subject to different agreements), and sawthat clause 7.2.3.3 allows me to cancel my agreements without penalty, if theprice increase is above the RPI rate. T-Mobile is refusing to let me cancel without penalty, which I believeis a breach of their terms and conditions. The disagreement between us has arisen due to different interpretationsof what the relevant RPI rate is.

Clause7.2.3.3 has been updated in the latest terms, and now explicitly states thatthe relevant RPI rate is the one published by the ONS before the written noticeis sent. As the written notice wasreceived by me on 06/04/13 and the latest RPI rate published by the ONS beforethis date was at 3.2% on 19/03/13, there can be no dispute that I am within myrights to cancel the latest agreement without penalty. The same clause in the older terms is ambiguous;however I believe that my interpretation of the relevant RPI rate is the morereasonable one, for the reasons outlined in my email to EE, dated20/04/13. EE are claiming to have basedthe price increase on the RPI rate published on 16/04/13, around 14 days afterthe written notice was sent. My reasonsfor rejecting this interpretation are fully outlined in my email of 20/04/13.

Thelatest email which I received from EE on 22/04/13, stated their positionrelating to cancellation remains unchanged, and further states that this istheir final position on the matter. In thisemail, EE also stated that my request to refer my complaint to CISAS wasdeclined. My understanding of the ADRscheme offered by CISAS is that it is independent of the network provider, andcan be used by me if I have a dispute that cannot be resolved with theprovider. EE went on to suggest that Iseek independent legal advice; I find it completely misleading andinappropriate for them to state this, when more suitable forms of redress, i.e.CISAS and the small claims court, are available to me. I would thereforerequest that CISAS reviews EE’s conduct regarding this matter, with a view toensuring that EE do not mislead other customers in this way.

Iwish to clarify that my complaint does not relate to the price increase; Ifully appreciate that this is a business decision EE have made, and that theterms allow a price increase up to RPI. Rather, my complaint relates to what I consider to be a breach ofcontract on the part of T-Mobile, by refusing me my right to cancel withoutpenalty, in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3.

Theresolution I am seeking from T-Mobile is that they allow me to cancel bothcontracts from the date I first gave notice on 06/04/13, and that nocancellation charges are applied. As Icannot afford to pay the cancellation charges outright, and because of creditrating implications, I have told T-Mobile that I will continue to pay anycharges on the account, but these payments are being made under protest. If CISAS accepts my application and laterfinds in my favour, I would expect all price plan charges between 06/04/13 andsettlement of the complaint to be refunded. However, I have added the total value of the remaining charges on theaccount in my application, as I am unsure how long it will take to settle thedispute.

Ialso request financial compensation of £100, for the time I have spent inpreparing my communications to T-Mobile/EE, and for the stress, inconvenienceand upset caused by the poor customer service provided. I request a further £100 for the misleading informationprovided by EE relating to referral to CISAS.


Mobile Numbers:

Xxxxx xxxxxx (18 months, started14/12/12, payments remaining 13 x £16.51 = £214.63)

Xxxxx xxxxxx (24months, started 11/05/12, payments remaining 12 x £16.51 = £198.12) 412.75
Add £200 compensation £612.75 Total


Please also see following link to CISAS rules (4b) for details of what needs to be included in your CISAS application:

http://www.cisas.org.uk/CISASRules-12_e.html

EDIT: Sorry, copying the text over has messed up the spacing, will need to be tidied up if you use any of the text!

anna2007

anna2007 wrote: »

Thanks Dame Peggy, sensible advice. I'm happy to go through my previous posts and post the numbers here in the usual way.

Twinkle - would you mind copying the post numbers for anyone who does this into your original post, so others can easily find the info?

Post numbers for my previous posts which might be helpful for CISAS application:

210
409
587
944
1,253
1,255

anna2007

The adjudicator for d123's case accepted that clause 7.2.3.3 is ambiguous, might be worth submitting the following as supporting evidence for your CISAS application:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311.pdf

In particular:
Page 58, 12.4-12.5
Page 86, 19.3 & 19.6


Also,
Regulation 7 of the UTCCR's (1999) states that:

(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under Regulation 12.

daveuk1

I'd think that, while CISAS probably aren't bound by their own precedent decisions, the best supporting evidence you could present would be d123's case/decision reference, as that is exactly the reasoning that you want any adjudicator to follow. (Anna's case sounds like it is slightly different).

Obviously, that is subject to d123 being happy to share that information.

For the reasons I have previously stated ad nauseam, I'm not sure that you can otherwise rely on CISAS deciding all the similar cases the same way, if the adjudicators are left to their own reasoning, especially because most people will inevitably not make their case as well as d123 did.

stoney73

I received CISAS' decision, my claim failed. Basiacally the decision is that T-mobile is to halve the early termination charge. What bollox.

Conclusion

10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has not failed in its duty of care to the customer or breached its terms and conditions.

b. I recommend that the company allows the customer to end the contract with reduced penalty fees as explained in 9(l) of my decision. I draw attention to the fact that a recommendation is not binding on either party.

11. Therefore, my decision is that the claim does not succeed.

xxxxxxxxxx

Adjudicator

anna2007

stoney73 wrote: »

I received CISAS' decision, my claim failed. Basiacally the decision is that T-mobile is to halve the early termination charge. What bollox.

Conclusion

10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has not failed in its duty of care to the customer or breached its terms and conditions.

b. I recommend that the company allows the customer to end the contract with reduced penalty fees as explained in 9(l) of my decision. I draw attention to the fact that a recommendation is not binding on either party.

11. Therefore, my decision is that the claim does not succeed.

C A J Obolensky

Adjudicator

Stoney, sorry to hear that

Would you be willing to post 9(l) of the adjudicator's decision, so we can see his/her reasoning (strange that the penalty fees have been halved if the claim hasn't succeeded)?

Also, I seem to remember you posting before that you thought you might be overstating the financial amount claimed (I don't know if you revised this before you submitted your application) - do you mind saying how much you claimed?

aiutami

Massive thanks you to d123 and anna2007 for their CISAS application letters. Will be a big help for me and i'm sure many others.

ruflonger

My claim has been rejected :mad:

stoney73

anna2007 wrote: »

Stoney, sorry to hear that

Would you be willing to post 9(l) of the adjudicator's decision, so we can see his/her reasoning (strange that the penalty fees have been halved if the claim hasn't succeeded)?

Also, I seem to remember you posting before that you thought you might be overstating the financial amount claimed (I don't know if you revised this before you submitted your application) - do you mind saying how much you claimed?

I was originally claiming £397(an amount equal to one contracts early termination charge), but then amended the amount to £25 per contract(in an effort to appear reasonable, having realised it would hamper getting the claim approved)

"Adjudicator’s findings and reasons 9. I find that:

a. It seems from the papers submitted as evidence that the crux of this dispute lies with the customer’s assertion that the company has applied the wrong RPI increase. The customer submits that the contract terms are ambiguous and unfair.

b. The company submits that the claim falls outside of the scope of the CISAS scheme. I consider the main issue of the claim is in regards to the application of clauses within section 7 of the terms and conditions. As such, I accept that under the CISAS rules, I can consider this part of the claim because the customer asserts that the company has breached its terms and conditions.

c. I note that reference is made to pre October 2012 and post October 2012 contracts. The customer entered into the agreement prior to October 2012 and as such, it is this contract I have considered when reading the evidence.

d. The company wrote to the customer on 6th April 2013 informing him of the increase in charges as from 9th May 2013. I note that although the RPI index was not published until after the letter was sent out, the company had predicted the RPI as 3.3% which was correct. I note that the customer queried this in an email to the company. The company responded to the customer on three occasions on 11th and 29th April 2013 and again on the 2nd May 2013.

e. I note that the company confirms in its email dated 11th April 2013 that the increase was based on the January 2013 RPI of 3.3%. It is reasonable to accept the company’s comments that a prediction for the RPI for March 2013 was based on the financial analysis of the information available at the time the company made its business decision.

4

f. I note that in the company’s second response to the customer, sent by email on 29th April 2013, the customer was told that the increase was based on the March 2013 RPI as predicted. The company asserts that as the prediction was accurate, the customer is not able to terminate the contract as the company did not increase the charges at a higher sum than that of the RPI of 3.3%.

g. The final email from the company, sent on 2nd May 2013, confirms for a third time that the increase of 3.3% was based on a prediction, which was correct. Whilst I note that there is a discrepancy in where originally the RPI figure was taken, the amount of 3.3% remains the same in all of the correspondence. The company apologised in this email for any confusion that may have been caused.

h. In light of my observations above, I am satisfied that the company increased its charges in line with the RPI for the month prior to the notice given. In the interest of clarity, the notice letter was sent in April 2013, for the RPI increase as it was in March 2013, to be applied on the account from May 2013. I note that the customer refers to ‘published’ figures in his submissions. Having carefully considered the papers, I accept that the customer has been charged the correct RPI increase and that therefore, he is not in a position to use clause 7.2.3.3 to terminate the agreement. I consider that the company has addressed the customer’s concerns in a timely and professional manner and that it has explained the increase in charges, which I accept are correct. I accept that had the company’s predicted RPI increase for March 2013 been incorrect, and resulted in an increase higher than the RPI, the customer would have been in a position to cancel the contract.

i. I acknowledge the customer’s comments in regards to the company informing customers of increases in accordance with the RPI prior to its publication.

j. Having read the terms and conditions submitted as evidence, I do not accept the customer’s claim that clauses are not clear or ambiguous. For the reasons given above, I accept the company’s interpretation of the clause in question.

k. In light of my observations above, I do not accept that the company has breached its terms and conditions or failed in its duty of care owed to the customer. As such, the claim cannot succeed.

l. I recommend that, under the circumstances, the company allows the customer to leave the contract with reduced termination fees of 50% of the amount due at the point of submitting the dispute (8th May 2013) and provides the PAC codes. I suggest that the company takes the notice from the date of publication of this report, as opposed to

5

backdating the termination fees from 30 days of the original notice given by the customer. I draw attention to the fact that a recommendation is not binding on either party. "

I do think that not being able to appeal the decision is quite poor. Especially when other (similar)claims are being accepted. Surely there are enough of these claims to be judged as a single entity?