Tmobile price increase

daveuk1

RandomCurve wrote: »

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.

The adjudicator made an expressly non-binding recommendation to that effect. It was not part of the decision. Also, any clause is open to manipulation in that if the other party to the contract doesn't challenge something, what the contract says may be irrelevant. The fact that TM used a different (and quite possibly wrong) mechanism to calculate the relevant RPI last year doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they were right or wrong this year, nor does it show that the contract terms are inherently unfair.

RandomCurve wrote: »

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?

We already know that the letter must have been printed some time (presumably not all that long) before it was sent out at the beginning of April. What difference would it make if it was 1, 2, 7, 10 days etc after the announcement of the Feb RPI?

RandomCurve

daveuk1 wrote: »

..... Also, any clause is open to manipulation in that if the other party to the contract doesn't challenge something, what the contract says may be irrelevant. The fact that TM used a different (and quite possibly wrong) mechanism to calculate the relevant RPI last year doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they were right or wrong this year, nor does it show that the contract terms are inherently unfair.

Got to disagree with you on this one.
If the contract had said "published before we write" - like the new contract does - then we would not be having this debate, and TM would have use the same months RPI both times i.e. it is clear and unambiguous and not open to manipulation!

daveuk1 wrote: »

..... We already know that the letter must have been printed some time (presumably not all that long) before it was sent out at the beginning of April. What difference would it make if it was 1, 2, 7, 10 days etc after the announcement of the Feb RPI?

If it is the day after I think it signals an intention to use the Feb rate - if that means anything in law or not I don't know, but I would certainly mention that if I was taking this to the SCC, together with why the letter itself does not explain that they are using an "anticipated" rate.

RandomCurve

If anybody was subject to TMs price rise last year - can they now ask for penalty free termination back dated to April 2012, as the Feb 2012 rate was higher than the March 2012 rate?

The rationale is that now TM have clarified that their price clause actually means that the March rate should be used rather than the February rate - as reasonably assumed to be a correct interpretation - then the new evidence (provided by TM themselves!!) re-opens the opportunity to cancel although the 30 day period is over?

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

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

TM included my customer notes when they submitted their defence, there are 2 entries dated 27 & 28 Mar, which say "Memo loaded on Date by memo loader process", which I take it means the letters were printed on these dates. TM were probably printing letters every day in the 2 weeks prior to 2 Apr, when they started sending out the 2 million + letters.

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

TM included my customer notes when they submitted their defence,

Funny you mention that, they did similar in mine, but they also included a screen print of the landing page of my account, showing my details including account password.

I thought about a complaint to the Information Commissioner for the DPA breach, but then felt churlish after winning at CISAS .

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

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.

The other strange thing was that CISAS tried to "recall" the email with the decision shortly after Stoney received it. He queried this with CISAS but they didn't reply.

As daveuk1 points out, the 50% fee is only a recommendation. I suggested to Stoney that if it was something he'd be willing to go for, he only accepts on the condition that TM confirms they agree to it.

anna2007

d123 wrote: »

I thought about a complaint to the Information Commissioner for the DPA breach, but then felt churlish after winning at CISAS .

I say go for it - TM have been nothing but churlish to you, another win and you can stick two fingers up at them for a second time

powerful_Rogue

Just submitted my complaint to CISAS. Just got to wait now!

Just thought id bring this image back up incase anyone else wanted to use it

.

RandomCurve

Did anybody on v59 contract (post Oct 2012) receive a response from TM saying that they had used the January RPI after the March RPI rate was published?

I was initially informed they had used the January RPI (I think all contracts holders were), but TM switched that to being "able to use the one published as close as reasonable possible to the date of writing" - March. Have any v59 contract holders been told anything different?

Reason I am asking is that I am in correspondence with someone who may be able to help us out here (sorry can't say more at he moment), and TM have told them that mine is an isolated error of mis-information.

boatman

Please print more, not heard that argument before.