Tmobile price increase

d123

daveuk1 wrote: »

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.

Except you are making up words that aren't there, the term does not say that.

higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice

lazyjack

daveuk1 wrote: »

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.

Yes but the point I am making is their price increase letter clarifies what T-Mobile actually mean in their T&C. If they were referring to a future RPI, they would have stated that.

Also, at the point of receiving the letter, the customer has to have the ability to make a decision whether the increase is above RPI or not. This is impossible if the RPI has not yet been announced, hence the use of the term 'current RPI'.

Of course, there is the possibility that T-Mobile are blatantly lying by stating they used the March RPI which was announced in April. Just a thought.........

EDIT: The fact that we are discussing this issue so much also proves that it is ambiguous, which then falls on the side of the customer.

daveuk1

d123 wrote: »

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.



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?

Nice - yes I am, thanks. Incidentally, at no point have I insisted that I'm right. Quite the contrary.

d123 wrote: »

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.

No, actually it wouldn't. The rate for the 12 months before the month they sent you notice doesn't change depending on when in the month they send you the notice. It's still the rate for March, albeit that neither you nor T-Mobile knew at that point what that rate would be.

d123 wrote: »

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.

And that comes down to whether or not the term is ambiguous. You think it is. I think it isn't and have explained exactly why in what is probably now excruciating detail.

daveuk1

Chimper wrote: »

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?

As I said previously, the best help for those yet to make a claim with CISAS would be the sharing of the full decisions of those who have already had their cases decided (possibly in conjunction with their CISAS applications). There's not much more in terms of other information that can be added to what's already here. Rather than trying to decide what's worth listening to and what's not, the acid test is what's worked - people should go with that, providing they can apply it to their own situations.

daveuk1

fitz2012 wrote: »

If you follow the literal interpretation approach, 'natural meaning' of the words, then yes, as I said March is the relevant month.

However, this is in the arena of consumer law, and responded to the legal submissions to CISAS by EE, who said they were predicting the the unknown RPI!

At time of letter the current, known and published RPI is 3.2%. Even with natural meaning of March RPI, how could a Judge support T mobile, that relevant RPI is 3.3% which customers would have to wait for to be known!

It is also easy to imply 'the current, known, or published RPI' at time of letters. Although you find the contract clear, the timing of T mobile letters, gives uncertainty to the natural meaning, so making the clause ambiguous (in my view).

As it is a consumer contract, I am personally more persuaded by finding a favourable consumer interpretation, even though that would be against the natural meaning of the clause.

The terms may not be unfair, but for certainty, how could a Judge allow March RPI to be the relevant RPI, when it was not then known.

Because the clauses have various dates and triggers, re cancellation notice etc, there has to be certainty, at the relevant time of the letter. Only the known RPI of 3.2% gives that.

Alternatively, you may be hung up on literal interpretation and unable to find the ambiguity

If you can establish the natural meaning of the clause with certainty, in any given situation, and it is not unfair, there is no legal latitude to apply a different meaning in favour of the consumer, solely because it is a consumer contract.

The right to cancel in 7.2.3.3 is not prejudiced by customers not being able to exercise that right until 16 April, even if they received notice some time between 2 April and 8 April. It doesn't say that customers must cancel immediately, it says that they must give notice to immediately cancel before the price rise takes effect. They would still have had over 3 weeks to give that notice.

lazyjack

daveuk1 wrote: »

If you can establish the natural meaning of the clause with certainty, in any given situation, and it is not unfair, there is no legal latitude to apply a different meaning in favour of the consumer, solely because it is a consumer contract.

The right to cancel in 7.2.3.3 is not prejudiced by customers not being able to exercise that right until 16 April, even if they received notice some time between 2 April and 8 April. It doesn't say that customers must cancel immediately, it says that they must give notice to immediately cancel before the price rise takes effect. They would still have had over 3 weeks to give that notice.

You still can't explain why their letter refers to 'current RPI' though. As I explained above, this clarifies what T-Mobile actually meant in their own T&C.

Current RPI can only mean one thing - in place at that particular time.

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

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.

You do agree though that EE's claim to have predicted March RPI (in an attempt to wrangle out of their obvious mistake) is ridiculous?

The very fact that they were able to manipulate the term in this way (especially given their different interpretation in previous years), means that the extra word (published or actual) is necessary in order to interpret the correct meaning and remove the ambiguity, otherwise they would never have been able to manipulate it in the first place.

anna2007

fitz2012 wrote: »

Another strong argument regarding the various clauses is last years T mobile price rise, timing of letters and the RPI used.

The Court can look at previous dealings to construe the contracts meaning.
Were the letters around the same time of year, but last year used the then known RPI at the time of the letter ? I would suggest that would give greater meaning to T Mobile intentions of the terms and add weight to the consumer case.

Yes, TM used the current, published RPI rate when implementing last year's increase. I think this is entirely relevant and included it in my argument to CISAS (as have others).

daveuk1

anna2007 wrote: »

You do agree though that EE's claim to have predicted March RPI (in an attempt to wrangle out of their obvious mistake) is ridiculous?

The very fact that they were able to manipulate the term in this way (especially given their different interpretation in previous years), means that the extra word (published or actual) is necessary in order to interpret the correct meaning and remove the ambiguity, otherwise they would never have been able to manipulate it in the first place.

I absolutely agree it's ridiculous. And clearly untrue. You won't hear any moral defence of their actions from me. My point is that it ought to be legally irrelevant and I think they probably tied themselves up in knots unnecessarily by making such a claim. There's no room for manipulation. Neither TM nor the customer can change what the relevant RPI rate ought to be according to the contract, whatever they say. Which is why I'm equally adamant that post-Oct customers (on which subject it's gone rather quiet) ought to be able to terminate.

If TM used the wrong RPI in previous years then it would have been open to customers to have invoked 7.2.3.3 then but the fact that nobody did doesn't mean that they were right then and wrong now.

IanR2012

fitz2012 wrote: »

If you follow the literal interpretation approach, 'natural meaning' of the words, then yes, as I said March is the relevant month.

I've got to be honest, I certainly was which is why I went the route I did and find myself agreeing with daveuk1's reasoning.


But, if I understand you correctly, this sheds new light on the subject for me:

fitz2012 wrote: »

However, this is in the arena of consumer law, and responded to the legal submissions to CISAS by EE, who said they were predicting the the unknown RPI!

Are you saying "in the arena of consumer law" Courts, Judges, Arbitrators may look beyond the black and white to get to the "truth"?


By the way, CISAS appear to be speeding up. Application submitted at 14:10, accepted and forwarded to T-Mobile 15:45.