Tmobile price increase

lazyjack

fitz2012 wrote: »

You could easily argue the terms are not ambiguous. The natural meaning is clear for month before April, is March RPI 3.3% for pre Oct terms, likewise for 'published' RPI it is 3.2%, for post Oct terms.

That's fair enough but on last year's increase, the very same T&C for some reason did not mean March RPI, they meant Feb RPI (which was published in March). So TM want the same T&C to mean two different things. Also, the letter very clearly contradicts the T&C, by stating 'current RPI'. How can TM get out of that ?

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

Thanks Stoney and d123, looks like the adjudicators will be judging cases on the same basis, which might help. Maybe it does all come down to the individual adjudicator, which is complete rubbish

The same for me too. I would think the adjudicators work to a standard formula, but may decide each case according to its merits. Of course, a breach of contract should be decided as the same for everyone irrespective on how the case is presented.

I've also heard of another pre-Oct win, I'll see if I can get more details.

Chimper

fitz2012 wrote: »

You could easily argue the terms are not ambiguous. The natural meaning is clear for month before April, is March RPI 3.3% for pre Oct terms, likewise for 'published' RPI it is 3.2%, for post Oct terms.

Consumer Law allows a decision maker to look to find a different interpretation, which is against the 'natural meaning' of the words used, to give certainty to any unfair or ambiguous terms (in this case the ambiguity is caused by the timing of TM's letters).

So, if a decision maker, wants the consumer to win, given the facts and circumstances of the case, he will make that finding and give the legal reasoning to make this happen!

Hence why you can have different legal interpretation on the same issue. Although I would hope the Courts would be more 'consumer' focused in their decisions, than OFCOM or CISAS who, have a business interest for the companies (my opinion).

I was on a pre-Oct contract and always thought that while the wording was different between pre and post-Oct contracts, the meaning was pretty much the same if you use a common interpretation.

T-Mobile always referred to the "current RPI". Now can you back-date what "current" means? Does it refer to the March RPI, which wasn't known until April, or to what was currently available in March?

The adjudicator must have taken it to mean what was currently available, as they sided with me.

Summer has just started, and we are currently having awful weather. True or not? If next month we have a heatwave, does that mean that I was wrong in stating the weather was awful. Of course not, you can only state the situation as you know it at the time.

Chimper

fitz2012 wrote: »

That's why for CISAS losers, I would consider starting Court action Because there certainly is a strong case for consumers to win.

Am I right in thinking that there could be more argument and counter-argument of the points in court? You would also have the advantage of seeing the judge's reaction to the points, and maybe modify your evidence accordingly.

Chimper

fitz2012 wrote: »

Lazyjack I agree. However, the letter, last year's action, correspondence, could also be seen as irrelevant, if following the natural meaning of the terms, without looking elsewhere for intentions or otherwise. Because you then start to 'add' words to the terms, like 'current' which is not there!

The only notice I had stated that the "current" rate was 3.3%, so T-Mobile added this term themselves. This also appears on their website. At no time did they ever say the "March RPI" or even the rate which will be announced in the future for March will be 3.3%.

Chimper

fitz2012 wrote: »

Yes, you are trying to persuade the Judge. You may not succeed on all your arguments. You would try to present alternative argument if needed. The Judge's are very helpful in a small claims court.

Like others here, I have tried to find understanding why some cases have lost at CISAS. I accept it is because of different legal interpretation and legal reasoning.

If the Judge wants the consumer to win, he will make it happen!

How do we find a judge with a T-Mobile contract

anna2007

lazyjack wrote: »

Out of the winners & losers, I would be interested to find out if anyone specifically mentioned that the price increase letter clearly stated 'current RPI'. I think this is critical to anyone's case as for me (bearing in mind I have no legal experience) it clarifies what TM mean in their T&C, or at the very least makes it ambiguous.

I agree, and mentioned it in both my CISAS application and emails to EE, it was one of my main reasons for disputing their claim that they used March RPI.

It definitely supports the argument for the current, published RPI rate of 3.2%, although even if the written notice hadn't referred to "current RPI", I think that's still the meaning I would have taken when reading clause 7.2.3.3, as it makes infinitely more sense than a future, unpublished RPI!

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

I agree, and mentioned it in both my CISAS application and emails to EE, it was one of my main reasons for disputing their claim that they used March RPI.

It definitely supports the argument for the current, published RPI rate of 3.2%, although even if the written notice hadn't referred to "current RPI", I think that's still the meaning I would have taken when reading clause 7.2.3.3, as it makes infinitely more sense than a future, unpublished RPI!

I never received a letter, only a text which pointed me to their website. On it they state "We've used the Retail Price Index (RPI) which is currently at 3.3%." This page went up at the beginning of April, I argued that it could not refer to the March rate which wasn't released until later in the month.

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

I never received a letter, only a text which pointed me to their website. On it they state "We've used the Retail Price Index (RPI) which is currently at 3.3%." This page went up at the beginning of April, I argued that it could not refer to the March rate which wasn't released until later in the month.

I saw that on the website too, I took a screenshot on 7 April and meant to use it in my CISAS application, but forgot

Chimper

fitz2012 wrote: »

The word 'current' in TM's letter or on their website, does not make it a 'term of the contract'. It is only information. It may well be their intentions.

A reasonable person may find difficulty in TM's legal case, because of the obvious mistakes, circumstances and facts. Unfortunately you would need an understanding and knowledge of legal interpretation in Contract Law to find and accept a contrary decision to your view.

Again legal interpretation has also to be considered in the context of commercial contracts and consumer contracts.

That's why unfortunately I see law as a game, which makes it interesting to be able to argue for and against. There will be winners and losers.

Sorry I can't accept that.

What if they put on the website that they put their prices up by 3.3% as January's RPI was 3.3%, or even that February's was 3.2%. Could they claim that those figures were only produced for "information"?

Surely, while not part of the contract, it is more than just for information purposes? It's the basis of the rise, and in their view they used the "current" rate.