Tmobile price increase

diamonds

Chimper wrote: »

I think the only MAD one here is you lol

Yes questioning everything under legislation makes me MAD(?) lol, but sheep usually question themselves and thus the defendant is winning already...who succeeds further in all things, educating, knowing and using LAW ? The sheep or the pro-active type ? :rotfl:





:cool:

anna2007

diamonds wrote: »

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

Thank you

For info, EE hardly handed the cheque over willingly - it's been a fairly long, drawn-out fight, and they've only coughed up now because CISAS ruled in my favour, and that decision is binding on EE.

I have to agree with others that court should be your next step if unsuccessful at CISAS (the vast majority of the adjudicators are legally qualified and breach of contract is within the remit of CISAS). At least that way it costs you nothing for the first attempt, and you get a second attempt at court (and all the prep's been done!).

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

Enjoy spending the money

I have a night out in Glasgow on Saturday, now being generously funded by EE, so I'll most definitely enjoy spending it

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Can the people who have had their claims turned down not club together to fund the cost of one person's Small Claims Court action and then if they lose, everyone would only lose a few quid, but if they win then they pay the monies back and everyone else can go the same route with the knowledge and experience of the first person's case.

I chased CISAS last week and was told I should hopefully have my result either way by middle of next week. Not long now, fingers crossed time.

tr26

Chimper wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your help. I've basically commented on a few on T-Mobiles points and made it clear it's the ambiguity of the terms allowing them to 'choose' what rate they they want. Couldn't really say much as i think i covered it all in my opening argument.

I guess i just have to sit back and wait for an adjudicator to be appointed now.

diamonds

anna2007 wrote: »

I have a night out in Glasgow on Saturday, now being generously funded by EE, so I'll most definitely enjoy spending it

£200 and Glasgow... WARNING all MSE'ers in the Strathclyde area. Sat 13th July 2013 there will be all kinds of Everything Everywhere in your region! Lock up your sons, drink and taxi doors !!!




Bet karma gets you, EE will have no signal for your T-Mobile sim on Sat lol

They play nasty, you have been warned

(yes O/T-Mob/EE staff prowl the boards in unofficial capacity even after dumping the official Orange Company Rep)

RandomCurve

tr26 wrote: »

Thanks for your help. I've basically commented on a few on T-Mobiles points and made it clear it's the ambiguity of the terms allowing them to 'choose' what rate they they want. Couldn't really say much as i think i covered it all in my opening argument.

I guess i just have to sit back and wait for an adjudicator to be appointed now.

If TM have told you it was the Jan RPI they used, and then it was the March RPI - then you can say that by their own actions the clause - in conjunction with the timing of the letter - must be ambiguous as even TM themselves could not work out which month the clause refers to.

tr26

RandomCurve wrote: »

If TM have told you it was the Jan RPI they used, and then it was the March RPI - then you can say that by their own actions the clause - in conjunction with the timing of the letter - must be ambiguous as even TM themselves could not work out which month the clause refers to.

They did tell me that. I mentioned it in my opening claim with CISAS and have just 're-mentioned' it in my response to their defence. I'm feeling hopeful, but i think a lot comes down to which adjudicator im appointed.

Just wish i had more patience now while i have to wit for an adjudicator and then a decision.

anna2007

diamonds wrote: »

£200 and Glasgow... WARNING all MSE'ers in the Strathclyde area. Sat 13th July 2013 there will be all kinds of Everything Everywhere in your region! Lock up your sons, drink and taxi doors !!!

At least I won't have to worry too much about losing my sim card, seeing as all calls and charges are courtesy of TM at the moment

anna2007

tr26 wrote: »

They did tell me that. I mentioned it in my opening claim with CISAS and have just 're-mentioned' it in my response to their defence. I'm feeling hopeful, but i think a lot comes down to which adjudicator im appointed.

Just wish i had more patience now while i have to wit for an adjudicator and then a decision.

You'll be one of only a few who were told by TM in writing that they were referring to January RPI, that's bound to help your case.

Waiting for the decision is the least fun part of the whole process, hope they're quick in deciding your case