Tmobile price increase

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

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:

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:

You had the same adjudicator as me Chimper, much of his findings reads similar to my own case, except he didn't comment on the ambiguity (he didn't need to, as TM rather stupidly relied on the 'business decision' argument in their defence).

The point you make about being clear on your interpretation makes sense and could well have a bearing on whether the case is successful or not... I suppose only CISAS knows the answer to that one.

Well done again

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

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?

When I emailed CISAS to accept the decision, I asked for a TM contact for obtaining the PAC - they said to contact the Legal Team (but gave no contact details!).

I see CISAS has emailed d123 again, saying TM will be in contact shortly. However, I'll try and get a contact email address in the meantime and let you know.

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

When I emailed CISAS to accept the decision, I asked for a TM contact for obtaining the PAC - they said to contact the Legal Team (but gave no contact details!).

I see CISAS has emailed d123 again, saying TM will be in contact shortly. However, I'll try and get a contact email address in the meantime and let you know.

There's always the contact at the executive office that I could email. I'm sure he'd be happy to sort it out for me. He was always so helpful, I think his favourite quote was:

Whilst I appreciate you may not be entirely satisfied with my response, I trust I have confirmed my position in relation to this matter.

:rotfl:

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

You had the same adjudicator as me Chimper, much of his findings reads similar to my own case, except he didn't comment on the ambiguity (he didn't need to, as TM rather stupidly relied on the 'business decision' argument in their defence).

The point you make about being clear on your interpretation makes sense and could well have a bearing on whether the case is successful or not... I suppose only CISAS knows the answer to that one.

Well done again

It might well be worth trying for those that haven't completed their cases yet. I can't see how it will harm your complaint in any way, but use your own judgement.

You are sure they used the month where the RPI was only 3.2%, no iffs no buts - use your own wording. Good luck.

anna2007

anna2007 wrote: »

When I emailed CISAS to accept the decision, I asked for a TM contact for obtaining the PAC - they said to contact the Legal Team (but gave no contact details!).

I see CISAS has emailed d123 again, saying TM will be in contact shortly. However, I'll try and get a contact email address in the meantime and let you know.

Chimper - Just remembered I received an email from the TM Legal Team in May, sent from [EMAIL="executive.office@orange.co.uk"]executive.office@orange.co.uk[/EMAIL]
I was told to respond to the same email address, so a PAC code request marked for their attention should find its way to them... I'd still spell out the CISAS decision to them though, we know how easily Legal Teams can make mistakes

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

Chimper - Just remembered I received an email from the TM Legal Team in May, sent from [EMAIL="executive.office@orange.co.uk"]executive.office@orange.co.uk[/EMAIL]
I was told to respond to the same email address, so a PAC code request marked for their attention should find its way to them... I'd still spell out the CISAS decision to them though, we know how easily Legal Teams can make mistakes

Thanks. It's the same email address that I've been communicating with throughout this. I'll wait a few days to see if I hear from CISAS otherwise I'll email them. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear how I got on anyway

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Latest updates:

Successful:
Thomas M Earley x 2 (anna2007 and Chimper)

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

stoney73

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimper
Anyway the CISAS decision, in brief, included the following:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoney73

Quote:
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.

Whilst I admit I probably didn't make as good an argument as the people who were accepted, I'm not a lawyer. Surely, this should be a blanket decision for everyone arguing the same case?

daveuk1

stoney73 wrote: »

Whilst I admit I probably didn't make as good an argument as the people who were accepted, I'm not a lawyer. Surely, this should be a blanket decision for everyone arguing the same case?

Yes it should but there's no process for class action-type claims to be lodged with CISAS, so they have no mechanism or mandate to issue a blanket decision (although you might reasonably expect them to decide similar cases similarly).

On the other hand, AFAIK there is nothing to stop you pursuing T-Mobile in the small claims court and including other people's successful CISAS claims in your evidence (providing you can get hold of said successful claims).

d123

Chimper wrote: »

Thanks. It's the same email address that I've been communicating with throughout this. I'll wait a few days to see if I hear from CISAS otherwise I'll email them. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear how I got on anyway

Have you replied to your decision email and accepted?

You should get 2 emails pretty quickly thereafter. The first confirms the acceptance (mine arrived Tuesday morning after accepting Monday afternoon), and the second was today advising that EE have confirmed that they have complied with the decision.

I also received the PAC from EE, I haven't had an email from them yet to confirm how they intend to refund, so I've just emailed the Exec Office and asked them how they intend to refund now that they have lost .