Tmobile price increase

stoney73

d123 wrote: »

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)

I did, but surely CISAS should have just not awarded any damages? I have other ongoing issues with t-mobile aswell including degraded signal since their swap over to 4g.

d123

stoney73 wrote: »

I did, but surely CISAS should have just not awarded any damages?

You would think so, but I was just sitting with a spare 5 minutes and trying to figure out their rationale.

I don't believe anyone is due large amounts of compensation for the simple breach, perhaps the adjudicators have the same opinion and have guidelines to decide the case in its entirety, hence, if one part fails, the whole case fails (I have no insider knowledge, but it does seem possible).

Chimper

Pleased to say another win here :T

Sorry, I'm on way out now but I'll post more details later today. Basically judgement is that the relevant month used is ambiguous, so found in my favour.

stoney73

Chimper wrote: »

Pleased to say another win here :T

Sorry, I'm on way out now but I'll post more details later today. Basically judgement is that the relevant month used is ambiguous, so found in my favour.

NIcely done.

powerful_Rogue

Chimper wrote: »

Pleased to say another win here :T

Sorry, I'm on way out now but I'll post more details later today. Basically judgement is that the relevant month used is ambiguous, so found in my favour.

Congratulations!

When you get back, could you let us know what wording you used in your CISAS application?

Lifes_Grand_Plan

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Congratulations!

When you get back, could you let us know what wording you used in your CISAS application?

And the name of your adjudicator.....

anna2007

I've been giving this a lot of thought (I'm genuinely gutted for those whose cases have been unsuccessful at CISAS), and trying to understand why some cases are succeeding and others aren't.

I don't think it matters whether you have argued your case in simple terms, or at great lengths. It also doesn't matter whether you have referred to the term as being unfair (d123 didn't, and his adjudicator found the term to be ambiguous). I also don't believe that it matters which adjudicator is assigned to your case, even though we've had different adjudicators giving different decisions.

The email ruflonger received from CISAS yesterday is quite telling - he was told that each case will be decided on its own merits - as ridiculous as it may seem, it therefore doesn't matter that we all believe the relevant RPI rate to be 3.2% and that TM have breached the contract terms.

CISAS also said the outcome will be dependent on your argument and supporting evidence. Having tried to look at it from the adjudicators' viewpoint, it occurred to me that the key evidence in determining whether the term is ambiguous, may well be the communications between the customer and EE, before the complaint was taken to CISAS. The important factor would therefore be how you argued your case to EE, not to CISAS. The adjudicators will be looking for the reasons why you disputed TM's RPI rate of 3.3%, and why you believe 3.2% is the correct rate, and whether these reasons are valid and reasonable enough to deem clause 7.2.3.3 to be ambiguous, and therefore unfair.

The adjudicator in Stoney's case commented that he queried the RPI rate in his emails to EE, however querying the rate clearly isn't enough - if the adjudicator thinks you haven't given your reasons why you dispute TM's rate, then he or she will accept TM's argument by default.

If the above does have a bearing on the outcome, there is obviously nothing that can be done now to improve people's chances who are already at CISAS (although the small claims court is still a good option, I would have thought the court will consider your arguments at the time you submit your claim). If, however, you have still to submit your CISAS application, it can't hurt to check over your correspondence with EE and make sure you've clearly explained why you believe the RPI rate of 3.2% is the correct rate.

I may be way off with this - maybe if Stoney, Ruflonger & Chimper (congratulations on your CISAS decision! :T) could have a look back at their emails with EE (before making your applications to CISAS) and let us know if you think you clearly explained your argument for the 3.2% rate to EE?

I've also been wondering whether the use of the various templates on the forum may actually be hindering people's chances - CISAS will be close to disappearing under a mountain of applications - for all we know, their case administrators might be dividing these into 'template' and 'non-template' piles as a means of managing the workload (and the outcomes). The number of views of the thread is an incredibe 50,000+, and we have no way of knowing how many viewers might have made use of the templates. It might therefore be best if people put their CISAS application summary into their own words, rather than relying on the tempates?

anna2007

d123 wrote: »

You would think so, but I was just sitting with a spare 5 minutes and trying to figure out their rationale.

I don't believe anyone is due large amounts of compensation for the simple breach, perhaps the adjudicators have the same opinion and have guidelines to decide the case in its entirety, hence, if one part fails, the whole case fails (I have no insider knowledge, but it does seem possible).

My claim only succeeded in part - the adjudicator found that TM responded to my initial complaint in a timely manner (even though they didn't!). The breach of contract and other CS issues were found in my favour.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

I think there is a bit of (unintentional) scaremongering / paranoia going on in the forum at the moment that we need to be careful of. I know people will come up with theories and everyone has a right to their opinion but it all needs judging on its own merits.

FWIW, my opinion is this:

Each individual result will come down to the adjudicator (hence me keeping track of them and their findings) and their own thoughts / feelings / bias / preconceptions. Obviously they will read the evidence from both sides and so keeping the evidence clear and concise will aide them and hopefully endear you to them a little for keeping their workload down. However there are so many potential grey areas that it will come down to which grey area the adjudicator focusses on and how they interpret it. Some will get lucky, others won't....

Which is why it makes the whole process a total farce - all of the cases are essentially the same, save for perhaps the pre/post October differences... so having one adjudicator finding in favour of the claimant and another finding against the claimant for essentially the same case, without possibility for appeal, is ridiculous. Again if we can keep track of inconsistencies such as particular adjudicators swinging a particular way then perhaps we can do something about it.

Hollaio

Just chiming in to say another win here (in part). I've been lurking this thread from the start and I based my defence on posts here with a few minor alterations.

Won't be giving out the name of the adjudicator as I don't think we should be tracking them and throwing around accusations but just want to say thanks to everyone who provided any input into this thread.

Edit: Whats the next step? How long do t-mobile have to comply?