Tmobile price increase

NittyGritty

d123 wrote: »

Congrats, they will have 30 days to comply.

do you know if they send a cheque or pay straight into bank account (you have set up from old phone contract)

Chimper

NittyGritty wrote: »

do you know if they send a cheque or pay straight into bank account (you have set up from old phone contract)

In a past episode with them they paid direct into the bank, others have reported getting cheques. Not a very helpful answer sorry will have to wait and see. I guess that no one's had any compensation yet.

d123

NittyGritty wrote: »

do you know if they send a cheque or pay straight into bank account (you have set up from old phone contract)

I queried their payment process (it used to be all cheques, now it seems that BACS should be used).

This was my first reply:

Your refund was requested internally on 22 June and will be refunded within approximately 30 days from then. This will be via BACS.

I reminded them of their 30 day limit, and then received:

Your concerns have been raised to our Legal Team, who have reviewed the account and refund request. They have asked that I assure you that we will comply with the terms of the settlement, by the specified due date, in accordance with our CISAS obligations.

So within 30 days of the acceptance, and supposedly by BACS.

RandomCurve

Got TMs defence today. Not as totally generic as some have received, but I recognise great swathes of it. The funniest thing is that if you look at the dates in section 12 and then section 14 TM totally contradict themselves (they have even emphasised the contradiction in capitals!) and then go on to defend a case I never even made? How on Earth do I respond to such stupidity??

ANY IDEAS GREATLY APPRECIATED because I'm too shocked to think at the moment.


Extract from TMS response:

12. On 05 December 2012 the Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent via an authorised third party retailer of the Respondent (namely A1 Communications). The Claimant was made aware that the
Agreement was subject to terms and conditions which were offered to the Claimant prior prior to entering into the agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. The Claimant was made aware that each Agreement
was subject to a minimum term period and he was provided with the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement at the point of entering into the Agreement.

13. Attached hereto at Schedule 1 is an extract from the Respondent’s billing system which shows the information captured on the Respondent’s billing system at the point of sale which states that the applicable terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement are Conditions Version Number 58 (“CVN 58”).

14. The Claimant refers to Conditions Version Number 59 (“CVN59”) within his supporting document (referred to in the document as APPENDIX 2 CURRENT TERMS OF SERVICE FOR PAY MONTHLY CUSTOMERS JOINING ON OR AFTER 30 OCTOBER 2012) however as such terms are not applicable to the Agreement between the parties the Respondent’s defence will deal only with the applicable terms, being CVN58. The Claimant’s Agreement is not subject to CVN59 and therefore not applicable to the dispute between the parties.

15. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of CVN58 applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

ANY IDEAS GREATLY APPRECIATED because I'm too shocked to think at the moment.

Still on holiday and struggling to send email from tablet, have sent from my gmail account instead

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

Got TMs defence today. Not as totally generic as some have received, but I recognise great swathes of it. The funniest thing is that if you look at the dates in section 12 and then section 14 TM totally contradict themselves (they have even emphasised the contradiction in capitals!) and then go on to defend a case I never even made? How on Earth do I respond to such stupidity??

ANY IDEAS GREATLY APPRECIATED because I'm too shocked to think at the moment.


Extract from TMS response:

12. On 05 December 2012 the Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent via an authorised third party retailer of the Respondent (namely A1 Communications). The Claimant was made aware that the
Agreement was subject to terms and conditions which were offered to the Claimant prior prior to entering into the agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. The Claimant was made aware that each Agreement
was subject to a minimum term period and he was provided with the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement at the point of entering into the Agreement.

13. Attached hereto at Schedule 1 is an extract from the Respondent’s billing system which shows the information captured on the Respondent’s billing system at the point of sale which states that the applicable terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement are Conditions Version Number 58 (“CVN 58”).

14. The Claimant refers to Conditions Version Number 59 (“CVN59”) within his supporting document (referred to in the document as APPENDIX 2 CURRENT TERMS OF SERVICE FOR PAY MONTHLY CUSTOMERS JOINING ON OR AFTER 30 OCTOBER 2012) however as such terms are not applicable to the Agreement between the parties the Respondent’s defence will deal only with the applicable terms, being CVN58. The Claimant’s Agreement is not subject to CVN59 and therefore not applicable to the dispute between the parties.

15. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of CVN58 applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-

It's virtually identical to mine (minus a few personal differences).

12. The Claimant has entered into several Renewal and Upgrade Agreements with the Respondent since July 1999. Prior to the dispute between the parties the most recent Upgrade Agreement (“the Agreement”) was entered into on 6 August 2012.

13. On 6 August 2012 the Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent in respect to the Mobile Number via the Respondent’s telephone sales department. The Claimant was made aware that the Agreement was subject to terms and conditions which were offered to the Claimant prior to entering into the Agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. A copy of the terms and conditions were subsequently despatched to the Claimant. The Agreement was subject to a 24 month minimum term period.

14. Attached hereto at Schedule 1 is an extract from the Respondent’s billing system which shows the order processed on the Claimant’s account on 26 August 2012 in respect to the Mobile Number. The order shows that a Samsung Galaxy S3 White handset, Terms and Conditions, conditions version number 58 (“CVN58”) and a letter confirming that the Agreement was subject to a new 24 month minimum term period.

15. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of CVN58 applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-

daveuk1

RandomCurve wrote: »

Got TMs defence today. Not as totally generic as some have received, but I recognise great swathes of it. The funniest thing is that if you look at the dates in section 12 and then section 14 TM totally contradict themselves (they have even emphasised the contradiction in capitals!) and then go on to defend a case I never even made? How on Earth do I respond to such stupidity??

ANY IDEAS GREATLY APPRECIATED because I'm too shocked to think at the moment.


Extract from TMS response:

12. On 05 December 2012 the Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent via an authorised third party retailer of the Respondent (namely A1 Communications). The Claimant was made aware that the
Agreement was subject to terms and conditions which were offered to the Claimant prior prior to entering into the agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. The Claimant was made aware that each Agreement
was subject to a minimum term period and he was provided with the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement at the point of entering into the Agreement.

13. Attached hereto at Schedule 1 is an extract from the Respondent’s billing system which shows the information captured on the Respondent’s billing system at the point of sale which states that the applicable terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement are Conditions Version Number 58 (“CVN 58”).

14. The Claimant refers to Conditions Version Number 59 (“CVN59”) within his supporting document (referred to in the document as APPENDIX 2 CURRENT TERMS OF SERVICE FOR PAY MONTHLY CUSTOMERS JOINING ON OR AFTER 30 OCTOBER 2012) however as such terms are not applicable to the Agreement between the parties the Respondent’s defence will deal only with the applicable terms, being CVN58. The Claimant’s Agreement is not subject to CVN59 and therefore not applicable to the dispute between the parties.

15. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of CVN58 applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-

Assuming that date in para 12 is correct, I'd say they've just handed you victory on a silver platter, not that you needed them to. Just point out methodically why their whole argument is premised on the wrong set of terms, refer back to the post-Oct terms..."published before" etc etc, don't over-egg it with irrelevant detail and await the presumably inevitable decision in your favour.

makemesumdosh

The 2 weeks is up for TM to reply to CISAS is up on Monday regarding my case, so should I expect the cut and paste defence email or does it take a while longer ?

if things go on much longer I will be out off contract

d123

makemesumdosh wrote: »

The 2 weeks is up for TM to reply to CISAS is up on Monday regarding my case, so should I expect the cut and paste defence email or does it take a while longer ?

if things go on much longer I will be out off contract

Defence should be in within 24 hours of the deadline, don't worry about the time, CISAS will backdate the decision if you win.

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

Assuming that date in para 12 is correct, I'd say they've just handed you victory on a silver platter, not that you needed them to. Just point out methodically why their whole argument is premised on the wrong set of terms, refer back to the post-Oct terms..."published before" etc etc, don't over-egg it with irrelevant detail and await the presumably inevitable decision in your favour.

You would think so, but I think what TM have done here is intentional. They have no good defence for post-Oct, and are banking on CISAS accepting their statement that the earlier terms apply.

As daft as this sounds (given the start date of the contract), CISAS made a couple of glaring errors in their adjudication for my own case, which were a result of them accepting the account information held on TM's systems, and missing other important facts/information.

I agree on the importance of pointing out the relevant facts in the comments back, e.g. refer to the date the contract started/the date v59 terms were effective from (even provide the relevant page number in the t&c's - page 1!), all obvious stuff to us as customers, but anything that helps the adjudicator focus on the facts that disprove TM's argument.

For TM to claim that terms dated before 31 Oct apply to a contract started in December shows just how desperate they are, but it's probably about the best move TM can make in the circumstances