Tmobile price increase

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

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)?

No, I can't find my original complaint, but I'm sure I didn't bring up any legislation, I don't think adjudicators like being told points of law, my entire rebuttal comments (I posted them up in post 1244) to T-Mobiles defence only concentrated on 7.2.3.3 and the immediate cancellation.

ruflonger

anna2007 wrote: »

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)?

At the comment stage - I think that is probably the problem in my case. I just find it bizarre that that where there has been such a response from customers to the same problem that CISAS cannot see that the case are the same but because we don't have the experience to necessarily argue our points in the right way we're effective at a disadvantage.

I think in cases like this there should be a group adjudication, but I lost so I would say that.

I am paying to terminate my agreement having finally got through to some sensible in EE who has agreed to a lower cost of termination than was in ee CISAS defence. Whilst not the outcome I would have preferred I'm not prepare to see out the T-mobile contract especially if they decide to do the same thing next year.

stoney73

anna2007 wrote: »

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)?

Definitely at the comments stage, though I believe also at the application stage.

d123

stoney73 wrote: »

Definitely at the comments stage, though I believe also at the application stage.

Trying to argue a point of law was never a good way to go, CISAS was to deal with the breach of contract, and that was always going to be the way to argue.

It should be accepted that the adjudicator is aware of the Unfair Terms Regulations, and would apply them if they thought it was required.

I made the point about arguing the case as simply as possibly and concentrating on the "immediate cancellation" term, back in May. I suppose it's unfortunate it got swamped by the many long and detailed point by point debates that followed.

People should avoid pushing points of law and OFCOM guidelines, I'm sure this backfired with the adjudicator.

stoney73

d123 wrote: »

Trying to argue a point of law was never a good way to go, CISAS was to deal with the breach of contract, and that was always going to be the way to argue.

It should be accepted that the adjudicator is aware of the Unfair Terms Regulations, and would apply them if they thought it was required.

I made the point about arguing the case as simply as possibly and concentrating on the "immediate cancellation" term, back in May. I suppose it's unfortunate it got swamped by the many long and detailed point by point debates that followed.

People should avoid pushing points of law and OFCOM guidelines, I'm sure this backfired with the adjudicator.

In all fairness, I tried to argue all the points(both the RPI percentage AND the immediate cancellation issue). whether some were applicable or not. I'm not a lawyer. There wasn't an official guideline on how to do this the correct way. I work in I.T., this is not the sort of thing that crops up much in my field.

And surely CISAS should be able to understand that the ordinary layman is already at a disadvantage trying to argue their case against fully trained lawyers? Else what's the point? Surely the relevant facts speak for themselves? even if they are intermingled with irrelevant facts?



Oh well. Gave it a try. Still waiting for clarification on why CISAS recalled their email...

lazyjack

Disappointed to hear of some claims being rejected.

I can't quite work out why when one simple fact still exists. ALL customers who called to cancel without penalty had their contracts breached when they were denied by T-Mobile.

The fact that some customers put their case across better than others does not change this.

tsandcs

well I haven't commented for a while, in that time tmobile have notified credit reference agencies, and referred my supposed debt to a collection agency (which has gone up, considerably) I let the agency know what the problem was in detail and have heard nothing back, they are probably busy somewhere jumping on my credit record, I cannot understand why CISAS would in effect take Tmobiles side on some cases, nevertheless I have the answer.

Am gonna tell Kevin Bacon on them :beer:

but seriously, I was going to put things through CISAS tonight, but don't know if I want to risk it, strongly considering small claims court, but do I have a claim if I haven't paid them, and they effectively don't owe me money?

ruflonger

ruflonger wrote: »

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.

Just to round my day off, I got charged by a cow on the road and had my mountain bike written off, I guess I can't blame EE for that one

Chimper

Unfortunately I missed most of what happened here yesterday so was surprised to find out the latest situation. CISAS appear to have made a complete mess of this. As Anna says, the RPI was either 3.2% or it wasn't. No matter how you argue your case makes no difference.

If CISAS decide the rate was 3.2% then everyone should be allowed to leave penalty free. If they're unsure what the correct rate was then they must find in favour of the customer.

If the adjudicators (they who have letters after their names) don't know then how is the average person suppose to understand it.

Ofcom are the ones that regulate this business and it's about time they stepped in and took control. It's pointless leaving CISAS to decide on individual cases when the fundamental case is the same for each of us.

d123

Out of curiosity, of the people who have had adjudication decided against them, how many were claiming a monetary amount as damages or compensation but were arguing simple breach of contract? (unlike Anna who had significant other CS issues involved in her case)