Tmobile price increase

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

daveuk1 - what's your opinion on how a court might view the inconsistency in decisions?

Also, would a court want to see all of the documentation relating to the unsuccessful claim (and the successful ones if these were used), or would the CISAS decision be enough?

If anyone wants to go down the small claims route, I'm happy to give any help I can, including my CISAS decision (although the ambiguity of the clause didn't feature in my decision) - I'm sure most, if not all, of the others who've had a good outcome would be too.

The ambiguity does show in mine if it's any help.

I did have a quick look at what it would cost to take court action. If they owe you money then it's between £25 - £35, depending on the amount you're claiming. Possibly free if you're claiming some benefits. For them to owe money you'd probably have to pay off the contract under duress then try to claim it back. You could only use this for an individual claim.

If you want the court to take any other action, then the fee appears to be £175. I'm not sure if you can use this route for class action or no.

Money Claim Online will give you all the information you need, if someone has time to go through it.

daveuk1

anna2007 wrote: »

daveuk1 - what's your opinion on how a court might view the inconsistency in decisions?

Also, would a court want to see all of the documentation relating to the unsuccessful claim (and the successful ones if these were used), or would the CISAS decision be enough?

If anyone wants to go down the small claims route, I'm happy to give any help I can, including my CISAS decision (although the ambiguity of the clause didn't feature in my decision) - I'm sure most, if not all, of the others who've had a good outcome would be too.

I'm not a litigator but the broad principle is that it's your claim so you can submit what you like (subject obviously to rules on admissibility). The more supporting documentation you can provide (that is relevant and actually helps your case) the better, but there's no obligation on you to provide every last shred of correspondence, or in fact any evidence at all - it may simply impact your chance of success.

Other than as a tactical manoeuvre in the hope that T-Mobile will negotiate a settlement rather than risk an unfavourable decision, I can't recommend pursuing this in court if you have lost at CISAS on a pre-Oct contract. I say this because I don't think any evidence of inconsistency at CISAS will influence the court deciding for itself whether there has been any breach of contract by T-Mobile and, obviously based on my own opinion, I don't believe that the court would find in favour of the consumer.

I believe that the CISAS adjudicators who have ruled against T-Mobile have conflated and confused two distinct issues: (1) whether the terms of the contract are ambiguous and therefore must be interpreted in favour of the consumer; and (2) whether T-Mobile have caused confusion by acting in an unusual, unpredictable and commercially moronic manner (by sending out notice in advance of the release of the contractually relevant RPI figure). I do not expect, although of course this is highly subjective and there is no guarantee, that a court would make the same mistake, should T-Mobile choose to risk it (which I agree they probably won't).

stoney73

daveuk1 wrote: »

I'm not a litigator but the broad principle is that it's your claim so you can submit what you like (subject obviously to rules on admissibility). The more supporting documentation you can provide (that is relevant and actually helps your case) the better, but there's no obligation on you to provide every last shred of correspondence, or in fact any evidence at all - it may simply impact your chance of success.

I must reiterate though, to the irritation of some no doubt , that I can't recommend pursuing this in court if you have lost at CISAS on a pre-Oct contract, although doing so might have merit as a tactical manoeuvre in the hope that T-Mobile will negotiate a settlement rather than risk an unfavourable decision.

Without seeming nit-picky though, you previously implied/said that everyone on a pre-oct contract that they would lose at CISAS anyway:p....and it seems more people are winning than not. (obviously I wish I hadn't been on the losing side). But...what you say does make sense.

@fitz2012 is this the Pre Action Notice letter that you were referring to? http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim/

daveuk1

stoney73 wrote: »

Without seeming nit-picky though, you previously implied/said that everyone on a pre-oct contract that they would lose at CISAS anyway:p....and it seems more people are winning than not. (obviously I wish I hadn't been on the losing side). But...what you say does make sense.

@fitz2012 is this the Pre Action Notice letter that you were referring to? http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim/

I didn't say anyone would lose. I did probably say that I didn't rate their chances of success based on my evaluation of the claim. As I've also said repeatedly though, what I think doesn't matter - it's whether you can get CISAS or a court to agree with you that counts

IanR2012

Just referred my complaint to CISAS this pm, after the required 8 weeks plus a few more days to wait a response from EE that never came.

Felt very good hitting the submit button on the CISAS Application

Thanks to all those that contributed to this post and developed the various approaches.

I'd decided early on that I didn't feel the pre-October contracts (like mine) had a high chance of success on the RPI approach so I also went with the "Contract concluded on phone at point of purchase" approach.

fitz2012 wrote: »

Money Claim Online.

My argument is breach of oral sales contract as in Angela Walsh v Tmobile case.

When contract made by telephone Orange did not tell me there was a term that allowed a price increase, so it is not part of my agreed oral contract. As Judge Trent said printed terms and conditions were irrelevant, the contract was concluded on the phone.

Since EE also incorrectly quoted the V59 Clause 7.2.3.3 during the complaint back-and-forth I do have the "excess of RPI" included in my complaint, so will have to see how I get on.

I've quite possible over-complicated the complaint, simultaneously approaching it from different directions, but I will wait and see.

Due to a mistake on the written notice that actually detailed a price reduction, I've added a "no 30 days notice" approach just for good measure.

Well done to all those that have been successful so far. And even those that haven't have still cost EE time with Counsel and cost of Arbitration.

You never know all this "noise" with the Arbitrators might just help swing the balance with OFCOM and put an end to mid-term price increases.

d123

IanR2012 wrote: »

Just referred my complaint to CISAS this pm, after the required 8 weeks plus a few more days to wait a response from EE that never came.

Felt very good hitting the submit button on the CISAS Application

Thanks to all those that contributed to this post and developed the various approaches.

I'd decided early on that I didn't feel the pre-October contracts (like mine) had a high chance of success on the RPI approach so I also went with the "Contract concluded on phone at point of purchase" approach.



Since EE also incorrectly quoted the V59 Clause 7.2.3.3 during the complaint back-and-forth I do have the "excess of RPI" included in my complaint, so will have to see how I get on.

I've quite possible over-complicated the complaint, simultaneously approaching it from different directions, but I will wait and see.

Due to a mistake on the written notice that actually detailed a price reduction, I've added a "no 30 days notice" approach just for good measure.

Well done to all those that have been successful so far. And even those that haven't have still cost EE time with Counsel and cost of Arbitration.

You never know all this "noise" with the Arbitrators might just help swing the balance with OFCOM and put an end to mid-term price increases.

A mistake I think.

It isn't necessary to go all Kavanagh QC.

This is a simple case, and all the superfluous argument and waffle needs to be avoided. (Why cause confusion by even mentioning multiple T&C versions?)

The whole argument should revolve around the 2 parts of the T&Cs, 7.1.4 and 7.2.3.3.

7.1.4 = 30 days notice, making the date to discuss 9 April

7.2.3.3 = RPI of 3.2% on the 9 April, and the increase which was officially announced on that day was 3.3%, the customer then gave notice to immediately terminate and EE have breached the contract by refusing the immediate termination.

As long as the notice to immediately terminate happened before the RPI increase on the 16 of April muddied the waters, that should be all you need to complain about.

Try and work by the principle of K.I.S.S.

IanR2012

d123 wrote: »

A mistake I think.

As acknowledged, with hindsight.

Since I don't have a time machine my CISAS Application has had to make the best of the phone calls and letters prior.

daveuk1

fitz2012 wrote: »

T mobile / EE the incompetent fools obviously messed up with RPI increase.

At relevant time Published and known RPI is 3.2% but they increase by 3.3%. Idiots!

What, in your view, was the relevant time? Because the contract terms don't say anything about the "relevant time" but they do say that the relevant RPI is the RPI "for the 12 months before the month in which [T-Mobile] send you written notice", so the RPI for March in this case, I presume you'd agree. Which was 3.3% was it not?

fitz2012 wrote: »

How can you interpret the relevant term to allow EE to predict the RPI ! Now that is funny !!

Do you really think a Judge will allow that nonsense ?! I would like to hope not, because allowing 'predicting in the future' truly does overstretch the imagination of legal interpretation :rotfl:

Is there anything in the terms or the law that says EE can't predict the RPI? Seems a pretty bloody stupid business strategy to me, but nothing to stop them that I can see. The court will allow that nonsense providing it reflects what the parties have agreed (i.e. what the contract says).

lazyjack

daveuk1 wrote: »

What, in your view, was the relevant time? Because the contract terms don't say anything about the "relevant time" but they do say that the relevant RPI is the RPI "for the 12 months before the month in which [T-Mobile] send you written notice", so the RPI for March in this case, I presume you'd agree. Which was 3.3% was it not?

In the letter that EE sent out to advise of the price increase it clearly stated they were using the 'current' RPI of 3.3%. The 'current' RPI, as of 3-9 April was 3.2%. They did not state anywhere on the letter that they were using a 'future' RPI which had not yet been published.

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that completely blows away their argument that they were using the March RPI which was published on April 16th.

d123

IanR2012 wrote: »

As acknowledged, with hindsight.

Since I don't have a time machine my CISAS Application has had to make the best of the phone calls and letters prior.

Granted, but when you submit your rebuttal to T-Mobile's defence remember to keep it simple and concentrate on those 2 points.

You are welcome to use parts of my (successful) answer to T-Mobile if you wish.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61935239&postcount=1244