Tmobile price increase

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Hollaio wrote: »

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.

Can (will) you detail your win "in part" and what that means at all? Also info on what points your judgement was won on etc.

Hollaio wrote: »

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.

That's absolutely your prerogative. However two comments on that being:

1. The people who are losing cases who may have provided help with your case previously might appreciate a little help in return.

2. No accusations are being thrown around, everyone is accountable for their actions and must decide cases in an open and transparent way - if they do their job properly (which I believe they do) then they have nothing to worry about - this is merely to show how different adjudicators might focus on different points of law / parts of the argument and as a result how other forum users can work with that. There is no claim from me (or anyone else I believe) that these people have done anything wrong.

So again if you don't wish to share then that's fine but we're not looking to shame / blame anyone here

Hollaio

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

Can (will) you detail your win "in part" and what that means at all?

T-mobile are required to cancel my contract without penalty, backdated etc. The parts I lost on did not come from this forum and the adjudicator was right to reject them so I wouldn't worry about it. I believe my win was also centered around ambiguity.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Hollaio wrote: »

T-mobile are required to cancel my contract without penalty, backdated etc. The parts I lost on did not come from this forum and the adjudicator was right to reject them so I wouldn't worry about it. I believe my win was also centered around ambiguity.

Thanks for the info.

In answer to your previous question, I think further up someone mentioned that T-Mobile have 4 weeks to comply with the judgement so you just have to await them contacting you and if they don't within the time frame then you have to let CISAS know.

I guess T-Mobile will be in contact sooner rather than later since you now have free service until they terminate the contract, Having said that though, when have T-Mobile ever used common sense

Hope this helps.

anna2007

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

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....

I really don't think anyone is scaremongering, or being paranoid - just trying to figure out why we are getting mixed results at CISAS

I understand why you might want to monitor the outcomes for the various adjudicators, however I'm not convinced you'll be able to draw any meaningful conclusions from an analysis of the results (assuming you get enough of a response). If any one adjudicator rules in favour for one case and against in another, does this mean he/she is being inconsistent? Or is it simply the case that CISAS is doing what it has already confirmed it will do and taking each case on its own merits? Similarly, if an adjudicator consistently rules one way or the other, how do you know that's not down to the individual cases assigned to them, rather than their own personal views or bias?

If you think about the evidence that we have submitted in support of our CISAS applications, and strip out the documentation common to us all (the t&c's, the written notice, the legislation, the RPI rates published by the ONS), the one variable is the communications we have each had with EE. I think it's entirely possible that how we've argued our case in these emails could be a deciding factor for the adjudicator as to whether the clause is ambiguous or not.

anna2007

Hollaio wrote: »

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?

Congratulations on your CISAS decision
Just to add, you've got 6 weeks to accept or reject the decision (you can do this by email or phone) - CISAS will write back with the date TM must comply by (4 weeks from the date CISAS acknowledge your acceptance).

If you need to request a PAC code, CISAS have confirmed to me that this should be done through the Legal Team, rather than Customer Services, as they will be aware of the CISAS decision.

Chimper

As some of the information in this thread seems to be disappearing onver its own weight, I'll try to keep this as brief as I can, without leaving out anything I feel will be helpful.

My contract was a Pre Oct one (not that I believed it made any difference), and I did not ask for termination of contract until after the March rate was announced.

I've always kept my emails to T-Mobile brief and to the point, never at any time quoting clause numbers. The main point I made was that when the announced a 3.3% increase the current RPI was only 3.2% (current was the word used on their website) and my contract should allow penalty free cancellation. I never even mentioned which month I used. I believe that at the time someone on here thought that being too brief would work against me. My thinking was that they should prove the point rather than me disprove it.

This tactic did work against me in part, as CISAS cut my compensation as I hadn't included dates and names of those I spoke to during my initial attempts to cancel the contract. I'm not worried over that as I almost didn't ask for anything, until reading that no compensation could be made unless claimed.

Rather than use templates on here, I wrote my complaint then compared it to ones suggested to see if I'd missed anything obvious.

Anyway the CISAS decision, in brief, included the following:

I am satisfied that the claim relates to a communication service and I do not consider this to be a complicated issue of law.

Prior to the change coming into effect the customer gave notice to terminate his contract without charge, on the basis that the RPI figure published in March 2013 was 3.2% and that the company had therefore increased its prices higher than the increase in RPI in the month before it gave notice.

It is clear from the parties’ submissions that there is a dispute over the relevant RPI figure for the purposes of clause 7.2.3.3.

The customer has taken the figure published on 19 March 2013 (which is the RPI figure for February 2013) whereas the company relies upon the figure published on 16 April 2013 (which is the RPI figure for March 2013).

Having considered the clause and the differing interpretations of the parties, I am satisfied that the clause is ambiguous as to which RPI figure should be applied.

Neither party could have been aware of the RPI figure for March 2013 at the time that notice was given as it had not yet been published. The only figure publicly available was that of 3.2% as published on 19 March 2013. This was the latest RPI figure available in the month before the company gave notice.

If a consumer challenges a term, and it is found to be unclear or ambiguous, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

Whilst I find that the company was entitled to opine that the matter was outside the scope of CISAS, the company gave the impression that the customer could not approach CISAS at all.

I am satisfied that the customer was entitled to rely upon clause 7.2.3.3 in order to cancel his contract immediately without charge. In view that the company refused the customer’s request for cancellation pursuant to clause 7.2.3.3 I find that it breached a term of its contract with the customer. Further, in light of my observations above, I am satisfied that the company acted unreasonably in refusing the customer’s request to refer his complaint to CISAS and, I therefore find that the company breached its duty of care to provide its customer services with reasonable care and skill.

I am satisfied that the customer was caused stress and inconvenience by the company’s failure to process his termination request and by refusing his request to refer his complaint to CISAS.

Thomas M Earley

Note that CISAS use the term "published" RPI, while I only ever used "current". They also say that the month used in clause 7.2.3.3 is ambiguous. This decision should be the same for everyone, so why some succeed while others fail I don't know.

Maybe it is down to the way we've argued our individual cases. However if this critical clause is considered to be ambiguous by CISAS then how we've put our cases forward shouldn't matter.

Does it all fall down to this one conclusion - "If a consumer challenges a term, and it is found to be unclear or ambiguous, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail." I always thought clause 7.2.3.3 was clear, so did T-Mobile, although in a different way. The fact that we were both clear on what it meant makes it ambiguous to a third party, if you see what I mean. Maybe if I was unsure what it meant then I might have failed.

:think:

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

Congratulations on your CISAS decision
Just to add, you've got 6 weeks to accept or reject the decision (you can do this by email or phone) - CISAS will write back with the date TM must comply by (4 weeks from the date CISAS acknowledge your acceptance).

If you need to request a PAC code, CISAS have confirmed to me that this should be done through the Legal Team, rather than Customer Services, as they will be aware of the CISAS decision.

In my acceptance, I've asked CISAS to ensure that I'm issued a PAC. I'll have to keep an eye on this, thanks, in case I need to ask for one myself.

Did you get a contact for the Legal Team?

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Contrast this in Chimper's decision:

Chimper wrote: »

Anyway the CISAS decision, in brief, included the following:

Neither party could have been aware of the RPI figure for March 2013 at the time that notice was given as it had not yet been published. The only figure publicly available was that of 3.2% as published on 19 March 2013. This was the latest RPI figure available in the month before the company gave notice.

With this in Stoney's decision:

stoney73 wrote: »

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.

daveuk1

stoney73 wrote: »

...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.

That's not reasonable - it's patently commercially ridiculous. It also, however, should have been utterly irrelevant.

d123

Things are moving quickly, I had this from CISAS this morning.

Further to our previous correspondence, the Company has advised us that they have complied with the adjudicator’s decision and you should be hearing from them shortly. Please note that the company have until 16/07/2013 to take the action ordered in the decision.

And a new PAC arrived from T-Mobile via text message. Just awaiting my refund now.