Tmobile price increase

Chimper

ruflonger wrote: »

Decided to try http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk which seems to be the HM Courts & Tribunals Service Internet based start to the small claims court. You need to provide short statement to maximum 1080 characters of what you are claiming for and why which I don't think I can condense the saga into so I am not sure if this is the right route go. If anyone has gone through this process or can provide any advice I would be grateful.

My experience from a few years ago and a completely different type of case, is that the process is quite easy. I don't think you need to state your full case at this time, just the main reasons for it. I think your full case can be supplied at a later date, assuming it goes to court. Your local court will help if you have any queries on this, so give them a call. Any case is held locally to you.

If it gets to court the judge is likely to ask if you've tried an arbitration service, but he doesn't need to know the outcome. If you haven't he'll likely order both parties to try this first. As you've been to CISAS you can tell him that you have but it failed.

Remember you'll have a judge there to hear both sides, assuming TM turn up. So you can argue your case verbally.

Good luck.

d123

diamonds wrote: »

And who do you think pays for the hundreds of pounds per case ? EE ? No bottom line is us ALL, the consumer.

If anyone can quote a court outcome in similar circumstances to ANY company at stage 1 of a CEO complaint, a company backs down unless its legal team is like EE's.

Do you think EE is Government owned? The costs do not impact all consumers, it isnt taxpayers money.

The CISAS costs are paid by EE and will impact their profits (by a minute amount). The charges are another cost to do business borne by EE, and have no direct impact on consumers in general or even EE customers specifically. Do you really think EE are going to increase charges again to specifically recover the costs?

tr26

I've just had T-Mobiles defence to my claim. They're basically saying they can use the 3.3% because its the march rate and it doesn't matter that it was published in April. I have 7 days to submit my response. My claim focussed on the ambiguity as well as the rate used.

Does anyone have any advice how I should respond?

Thanks

diamonds

d123 wrote: »

Do you think EE is Government owned? The costs do not impact all consumers, it isnt taxpayers money.

The CISAS costs are paid by EE and will impact their profits (by a minute amount). The charges are another cost to do business borne by EE, and have no direct impact on consumers in general or even EE customers specifically. Do you really think EE are going to increase charges again to specifically recover the costs?

Ofcom is part government funded, the rest by leasing properties it owns from Oftel inheritance and from fines handed out. That came from a Freedom of Information request to the Chief Exec of Ofcom.

Telcos paying approx. £500 per ADR case does impact consumers - end users pay for that in pricing of products/services.


The more CISAS cases per telco, the more EE brands products/services charges go up - another circle you ARE in and why YOU got these change of charges MID TERM YOU are currently fighting, but you are still in a loop of a circle, CISAS charges COST EE brands money, they recoup that from YOU the CONSUMER.


A breach of contract is a LEGAL matter not ADR, keep being a sheep and feeding the Ofcom/ADR/Telco incompetent system though rather than have a court rule on a matter of LAW...which stops the circle/loop/cycle system of yesteryear of a decade.


Ofcom, ADR and telcos don't want you to break their 'cozy' system when CONTRACT LAW is broken because ALL 3 lose out with consumer telecom rulings in a Her Maj Courts & Tribunals Service.

The magic roundabout....


bbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh bbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh black sheep have you any prob, no sir no sir with LAW I got my 3 bags full

Chimper

tr26 wrote: »

I've just had T-Mobiles defence to my claim. They're basically saying they can use the 3.3% because its the march rate and it doesn't matter that it was published in April. I have 7 days to submit my response. My claim focussed on the ambiguity as well as the rate used.

Does anyone have any advice how I should respond?

Thanks

The relevant parts of my CISAS decision, found in my favour - pre-Oct - state:-

"Neither party could have been aware of the RPI figure for March 2013 at the time that notice was given as it had not yet been published. The only figure publicly available was that of 3.2% as published on 19 March 2013. This was the latest RPI figure available in the month before the company gave notice.
I am mindful that consumer contracts must be in plain, intelligible language. If a consumer challenges a term, and it is found to be unclear or ambiguous, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail."

Maybe you can use something from that.

Chimper

diamonds wrote: »

Ofcom is part government funded, the rest by leasing properties it owns from Oftel inheritance and from fines handed out. That came from a Freedom of Information request to the Chief Exec of Ofcom.

Telcos paying approx. £500 per ADR case does impact consumers - end users pay for that in pricing of products/services.


The more CISAS cases per telco, the more EE brands products/services charges go up - another circle you ARE in and why YOU got these change of charges MID TERM YOU are currently fighting, but you are still in a loop of a circle, CISAS charges COST EE brands money, they recoup that from YOU the CONSUMER.

And just how is that going to make any difference by going to court first? Court costs are not only paid for by TM, and as you say they eventually get it back from the consumer, but also by the customer. In addition the court will ask, and may even insist, that an arbitration service is your first course of action.

Also the fact that once you've taken it to court there is no way that CISAS will look at it. It's a lose lose situation. You don't need to worry about being called a sheep by following the best course of action

IanR2012

diamonds wrote: »

Telcos paying approx. £500 per ADR case does impact consumers - end users pay for that in pricing of products/services.

The more CISAS cases per telco, the more EE brands products/services charges go up - another circle you ARE in and why YOU got these change of charges MID TERM YOU are currently fighting, but you are still in a loop of a circle, CISAS charges COST EE brands money, they recoup that from YOU the CONSUMER.

Your argument is self-defeating. A £500 CISAS cost is substantially less than it would cost EE to defend an action in Court. It wouldn't even cover the expenses of the Legal Team to travel to Court for the day.

Take your argument to its end conclusion and it's better to not complain about their Breach of Contract.

diamonds

anna2007 wrote: »

I've just received a cheque in the post from EE for the compensation element of my claim - £200 - thanks Mr Swantee :T

I'm assuming the account charges will be refunded by Bacs when the account closes after the 30 days? Best get on with ordering new sim cards, haven't got around to that yet

Its amazing how EE jumps to stop ANYONE going to court, because it cheaper to pay some off than get away with their UNLAWFUL behaviour en masse and lose revenue - exactly why I say GO TO COURT people.

Great news Anna

diamonds

Chimper wrote: »

And just how is that going to make any difference by going to court first? Court costs are not only paid for by TM, and as you say they eventually get it back from the consumer, but also by the customer. In addition the court will ask, and may even insist, that an arbitration service is your first course of action.

Also the fact that once you've taken it to court there is no way that CISAS will look at it. It's a lose lose situation. You don't need to worry about being called a sheep by following the best course of action

Best course of action in any breach of CONTRACT is LAW, not a ADR paid for by the Telco you are complaining about, that's not impartial nor independent nor does it stop EE (or any Telco) continually ripping off consumers for revenue in contracts...see the wider picture and stop these kinds of things happening.

A small claims court would not throw out a breach of contract to any ADR 'profit making company' the defendant is paying for...are you MAD ? lol

Chimper

diamonds wrote: »

Best course of action in any breach of CONTRACT is LAW, not a ADR paid for by the Telco you are complaining about, that's not impartial nor independent nor does it stop EE (or any Telco) continually ripping off consumers for revenue in contracts...see the wider picture and stop these kinds of things happening.

A small claims court would not throw out a breach of contract to any ADR 'profit making company' the defendant is paying for...are you MAD ? lol

I think the only MAD one here is you lol