Tmobile price increase

stoney73

anna2007 wrote: »

Sorry, but this strikes me as fundamentally wrong, and unfair.

Either the relevant RPI rate is 3.2%, or it's not.

Either TM have breached the t&c's, or they haven't.

And why should consumers be expected to argue their case like lawyers!! :mad:

I agree.
I haven't received any clarification from CISAS yet regarding the recommendation re the ETF , nor about them recalling the email informing me of their decision.
Puzzling indeed.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

stoney73 wrote: »

I agree.
I haven't received any clarification from CISAS yet regarding the recommendation re the ETF , nor about them recalling the email informing me of their decision.
Puzzling indeed.

Obviously wait and see what clarification they can provide, but (assuming not much) then I would wait and see what other results come back for other people, I foresee a few twists and turns yet.

ruflonger

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

People who have had your cases rejected (or even approved), who was your adjudicator please?

Will be interesting to see if certain adjudicators swing certain ways with this.

I was excited / positive before.... much less so now, even if I did use d123's rebuttal to the T-Mobile defence :S

Also stoney123 and ruflonger, did you use the "precedent set in 2012 argument"?

adjudicator - M. Coombes Davies B.Sc., B.Arch., Ph.D., RIBA, C.Arb.

I did use the precedent set in 2012 argument

daveuk1

ruflonger wrote: »

adjudicator - M. Coombes Davies B.Sc., B.Arch., Ph.D., RIBA, C.Arb.

I did use the precedent set in 2012 argument

As a slight aside, does anybody else find it exceedingly irritating when people put bachelor's degrees after their name?

Turns out this one has rather a long list of qualifications, is a barrister of 25 years call...and that PhD is in law.

http://www.civitaslaw.com/members/mair-coombes-davies.aspx

Oooh...and she's the head of the CISAS panel of adjudicators.

anna2007

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

People who have had your cases rejected (or even approved), who was your adjudicator please?

Will be interesting to see if certain adjudicators swing certain ways with this.

I was excited / positive before.... much less so now, even if I did use d123's rebuttal to the T-Mobile defence :S

Also stoney123 and ruflonger, did you use the "precedent set in 2012 argument"?

Thomas M Earley LLB (Hons), PGDL, MCIArb

The original adjudicator assigned to my case was Abigail Jennings - I'm not sure how much, if any, input she had into the adjudication - the case was with her for two weeks before being transferred.

I know what you mean about feeling positive - I was too after yesterday's decisions and before Stoney's and Ruflonger's posts today

I said a while back I wasn't sure if people could rely on the decision on my own case, due to the poor defence TM made against my claim. After today's news, I'd say that does seem to be the case...

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Thanks guys, will keep an updated post of the good and the bad.... so far we have:

Successful:
Thomas M Earley (anna2007)

Unsuccessful:
M. Coombes Davies (ruflonger)
Miss Caroline Oblensky (stoney73)

stoney73

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

Thanks guys, will keep an updated post of the good and the bad.... so far we have:

Winners:
Thomas M Earley

Losers:
M. Coombes Davies

My adjudicator was Miss Caroline Oblensky. Bad lol.

ruflonger

ruflonger wrote: »

I have started the process of terminating the contract however I am being quoted a higher figure for termination than appeared in the CASIS document. It stated there that the charge would be £x doing down on a daily basis but it has gone up from this figure. So I have complained and asked someone to justify why this is the case and why I am being charge for requesting the PAC code.

I haven't the time to go down the SCC route which is partly what imagine EE where banking on.

I have now spent over an hour on the phone to EE as they are disputing the termination cost in their deference letter to CISAS !!! :mad:

I apparently now owe more than that figure which was supposed to be decreasing on a daily basis

Even with the termination cost added on I can get a deal with talk talk which is better on a sim only deal which would be over less than if I stay with EE and continue to see out the contract.

anna2007

Stoney, ruflonger & d123 - did you include the argument/supporting evidence re unfair contract term/ambiguity? If so, was this at the application or comments stage (or both)?

d123

Some bad news in the thread, as a comment, people who are still in the process of adjudication need to keep it simple IMO.

For example, I notice one of the cases lost had adjudicator comments on the disparities and fact there were 2 sets of T&CS, I cannot see how that should have come up, I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it in the complaint or rebuttal.

Adjudicators don't want to decide on long complicated arguments with superfluous facts and arguments, and by doing so you are handicapping your case.

Anyone who gave notice before the 16th of April should be relying on the immediate cancellation reference (at least for pre contracts, I haven't read the post T&Cs to see if it references immediate or not. Post customers can focus on the "last published rate" that has been mentioned.

It's a simple argument, the rate in force at the time of cancellation, and the fact the termination was immediate makes any future rate irrelevant, and any confusion in the terms should be decided in favour of the consumer.

I know there have been some well written but long analyses type posts of every point possible, I think this type of initial complaint and rebuttal to the T-Mobile defence is the cause of failure.

Find a strong point and concentrate on it, try and keep the rebuttal to T-Mobiles defence short, certainly under a page if possible.