We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tmobile price increase
Options
Comments
-
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.
Yup, it is indisputably moronic but... the contract says that the price rise mustn't exceed the March rate (or else the termination right under 7.2.3.3 is triggered). Whether they do it by accident, coincidence, sheer luck etc and whether they tell you they are using the RPI for January or in fact the mark the CEO got in his Economics A-level (I know...he's german), provided they end up below the March RPI rate, they haven't, in my view, breached the contract terms. Not entirely intuitive, I admit, but that's the way it is, or at least is supposed to be.0 -
Seems a bit harsh, particularly as Ian opened his post by saying he'd submitted his complaint this afternoon.A mistake I think.
It isn't necessary to go all Kavanagh QC.
The way each of us approaches our CISAS applications is going to differ, possibly with you and Random Curve at opposite ends of the simple/complex spectrum!
I went into great detail in my application - personally, I would never have been comfortable with submitting anything less, because I'd have felt I was missing out relevant points. That's just how I do things, each to their own
0 -
I don't know why I keep getting embroiled in this - I don't seem to be able to resist
Well, as you highlight that's the fun of legal interpretation, being able to argue either way!
True, but I would venture that some arguments are stronger than others.
But a straightforward interpretation, would be that the relevant time is the date of T mobile's letter in April. Now the known RPI at that time for the 12 months before is 3.2%. March RPI of 3.3% is not yet known.
That time is only relevant for establishing the relevant RPI, in that the relevant RPI will be the one for the month before whatever month TM sent out the notice. The relevant RPI is therefore, as you acknowledge, the RPI for March. That it is not known is not strictly relevant to what the contract says because it does not, for example, refer (as it does in the post-Oct contracts) to the most recently published RPI.If EE used 'current RPI' in there letters then, that would also be 3.2%. Not that it is in the clause, but supports the customer, and I would say for a Judge in finding against T mobile.
As per my last post, it ought not matter what rate TM say that they are using, providing that their increase ends up below the relevant RPI.A literal interpretation of the month before, yes, would indeed be March. But the RPI is unknown! Predicting the future RPI although a legal argument is really pushing the boundary.
Predicting the future is not a legal argument. It's a bad commercial strategy, or a big mistake. But that's irrelevant. The relevant RPI for the purposes of 7.2.3.3 is the one for March. That's what the clause says in black and white.What the above clearly does show, however, is the ambiguity of the clauses, so, as it is a consumer contract, I would find the most favourable interpretation (that is the known RPI as opposed to unknown RPI or allowing predicting in the future).
Again, I beg to differ. The clause is clear. TM send out price increase notice. If price increase is higher than RPI for month before month in which they send out notice, customers have right to terminate. There is certainty and this can be applied to any price increase at any time, albeit that customer may not be able to exercise right to cancel until relevant RPI is known. You are hung up on the idea that the possibility that TM might be able to guess the RPI in advance (as they claim to have done but obviously haven't) somehow makes the clause ambiguous or unlawful. It doesn't.0 -
Yup, it is indisputably moronic but... the contract says that the price rise mustn't exceed the March rate (or else the termination right under 7.2.3.3 is triggered). Whether they do it by accident, coincidence, sheer luck etc and whether they tell you they are using the RPI for January or in fact the mark the CEO got in his Economics A-level (I know...he's german), provided they end up below the March RPI rate, they haven't, in my view, breached the contract terms. Not entirely intuitive, I admit, but that's the way it is, or at least is supposed to be.
Luckily then your grasp of the term doesn't match up with many others idea (including the adjudicators where the complaint has been argued on that point and upheld).
While I understand you having a fixation on your idea of what it means, it doesn't make it right.7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
It does not mention March, or any specific month, it says "for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice ", and goes on to say "You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement ".
With me so far?
So, when they sent the notice, the rate for the 12 months before the month they sent the notice would be 3.2% ie the current rate in force in the month before the notice.
As the rate was 3.2% during that month, and the increase was 3.3% 7.2.3.3 comes into play and the consumer must then give the notice of immediate termination.
Due to the rules on confusing terms, it doesn't really matter what the rate was in the other half of that month, or the other half of the following month, the interpretation most in favour of the consumer is what counts.
That should be the basis of the argument.====0 -
CISAS application is away. Big thank you to all for your help. I will obviously keep the thread updated when I receive further information.0
-
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.]
My CISAS Application was, out of necessity, quite concise. With 4 separate issues (including appalling Customer Service) condensed to 750 words there wasn't much opportunity for anything else.
It's my originally letters back-and-forth that meandered a bit. But I did start in a different place, I wasn't actually provided any T&C's by T-Mobile when I purchased the plans and nor were they referenced, so started with "What authority do you have to increase my costs, I wasn't made aware of any right you have to increase costs at the point of purchase and you haven't supplied me with any T&C's since".
It's only when they supplied an extract of the (wrong) T&C's that I had the evidence they had used the wrong RPI.
I will certainly be referencing your rebuttal when I come to formulate my own, I'd be foolish not to. So I thank you for sharing it.0 -
Doesn't the very fact that there are several viewpoints on here prove that the clause is ambiguous?
Rather than argue the point wouldn't it be better to help those that still have to put their case to CISAS?0 -
True, but what the contract doesn't say is whether it's the published rate for March, or the actual rate for March - hence the ambiguity!
I see the point, and obviously it's at the heart of the successful CISAS cases, but you wouldn't ordinarily infer extra words into a contract term, unless they're necessary to construe it. There is surely only one rate for March, the one published in April that the ONS calls "The RPI 12-month rate for March".
The rate published in March was the rate for February.0
). This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards