Tmobile price increase

d123

fitz2012 wrote: »

I hope your expected win does not now become a loss. I also hope there has been no undue influence on CISAS from EE.

Be nice to see some more CISAS wins here. Good luck to those waiting for decisions.

I had a change of adjudicator with the same explanation email, I still won my case with the replacement adjudicator.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

arturbdg wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

As most of you I am awaiting a CISAS decision. Originally Mr Thomas Earley been appointed as my adjudicator and as such I was quite happy as he made some cases in favor to the customers.

Surprise surprise - today's letter from CISAS:

"Further to our previous correspondence, we write to advise that the original appointed adjudicator is unable to make a decision in the above matter due to unforeseeable circumstances and therefore a substitute adjudicator has been appointed.

....and so forth"

Now I don't want to jump into any conclusions but maybe our open discussion have an impact on adjudicators and as such it might be worth to keep some things quiet

Artur

I too have had my adjudicator replaced. Will PM you details.

RandomCurve

psilvester wrote: »

The same happened to me on my first claim which was rejected as they did not consider me to be at deadlock.



Quote:
Thank you for your recent application to use our scheme. Unfortunately, we cannot assess your application as of yet as the documents you have uploaded to the system do not open due to an error. Please send all of your supporting evidence to [EMAIL="info@cisas.org.uk"]info@cisas.org.uk[/EMAIL].

The email they sent me (from [EMAIL="CISAS@IDRS.ltd.uk"]CISAS@IDRS.ltd.uk[/EMAIL]) was as follows - in full:

Dear Mr X

We acknowledge receipt of your application to use CISAS.

However, it appears we have not received the documents you attached to your online application form. Could you please re-attach them by return of this email?

Upon receipt of your documents we will be more than happy to assess your application for you.

Kind regards,

Monica Aguiar
CISAS

Still no harm done as I caught it in time.

RandomCurve

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

I too have had my adjudicator replaced. Will PM you details.

Does changing the adjudicator give increased time for the result, or do they still work within the same timeframe?

Strange so many are being replaced.

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

Does changing the adjudicator give increased time for the result, or do they still work within the same timeframe?

Strange so many are being replaced.

I don't think so, but then the adjudicator change happened in one day in my case, I had the "your adjudicator is xxx" first thing in the morning and the "your adjudicator has changed to xxx" about lunchtime.

The decision arrived 2 days later.

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

Does changing the adjudicator give increased time for the result, or do they still work within the same timeframe?

Strange so many are being replaced.

It is strange - and mine was replaced too! Same wording as others above.

I had been waiting over 2 weeks for the decision when I found out about the change in adjudicator, and it was another 13 days until I received the decision.

Things seemed to be speeding up for a while (for both CISAS acceptance and adjudication), not sure if this is still the case, they're no doubt quite busy at the moment, with people reaching the end of the 8 week wait to go to CISAS.

EDIT - For those wondering why their adjudicator's been replaced, I did query this with CISAS at the time, and was informed, rather unhelpfully, that:

"Unfortunately the adjudicator was unable to deal with your case expeditiously and we therefore had to appoint a new adjudicator".

Chimper

arturbdg wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

As most of you I am awaiting a CISAS decision. Originally Mr Thomas Earley been appointed as my adjudicator and as such I was quite happy as he made some cases in favor to the customers.

Surprise surprise - today's letter from CISAS:

"Further to our previous correspondence, we write to advise that the original appointed adjudicator is unable to make a decision in the above matter due to unforeseeable circumstances and therefore a substitute adjudicator has been appointed.

....and so forth"

Now I don't want to jump into any conclusions but maybe our open discussion have an impact on adjudicators and as such it might be worth to keep some things quiet

Artur

I'm guessing here, but the adjudicators appear to work for for a variety of dispute resolution organisations. Some also work in various legal capacities. It's quite possible that their current case is taking longer than anticipated, and therefore another adjudicator is substituted.

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

I'm guessing here, but the adjudicators appear to work for for a variety of dispute resolution organisations. Some also work in various legal capacities. It's quite possible that their current case is taking longer than anticipated, and therefore another adjudicator is substituted.

Rather than a replacement, maybe the second adjudicator was to reach consensus on the decision, where the original ajudicator lacks experience and/or isn't entirely convinced by the argument either way? Only thinking this beacause it seems to be happening a fair bit (and TM have warped my usual reasoning). Please don't shoot me LGP for trying to second guess CISAS's actions - just putting it out there

RandomCurve

stoney73 wrote: »

"Adjudicator’s findings and reasons 9. I find that:

k. In light of my observations above, I do not accept that the company has breached its terms and conditions or failed in its duty of care owed to the customer. As such, the claim cannot succeed.

l. I recommend that, under the circumstances, the company allows the customer to leave the contract with reduced termination fees of 50% of the amount due at the point of submitting the dispute (8th May 2013) and provides the PAC codes. I suggest that the company takes the notice from the date of publication of this report, as opposed to

5

backdating the termination fees from 30 days of the original notice given by the customer. I draw attention to the fact that a recommendation is not binding on either party. "

I do think that not being able to appeal the decision is quite poor. Especially when other (similar)claims are being accepted. Surely there are enough of these claims to be judged as a single entity?

This seems very strange.

Whilst you can not appeal can you ask for a rationale? If TM have not breached T&Cs and have not breach its duty of care why are they deciding that you can terminate with a 50% terminating fee? The decision should just have been you can't terminate without a penalty.

Personally I would pay the 50% termination fee- under duress - and then take TM to the SCC as TM have used a rate before it was published, and interpreted which month they can use differently in 2012 and 2013 under the same circumstances - so by TMs own actions the clause must be open to manipulation and is therefore unfair.

RandomCurve

Anybody here also on the "What mobile" forum?
http://forum.whatmobile.net/showthread.php?p=383699

somebody there claims they were told that the price rise letter was printed on 20th March - the day after the FEB RPI was published!

Jimbotheitbod:

"....just a 'notice on the account saying the letter was printed on the 20th March'...."

Can you find out if they have any evidence of this?