Tmobile price increase

makemesumdosh

C'mon guys,
What's with all the disagreements, the purpose of this thread is t-mobile and their above rpi price rise

Lifes_Grand_Plan

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Sorry guys, soooo excited. Not read the full decision yet but essentially T-Mobile have been instructed to allow immediate cancellation, backdate refund to date of original request for termination and provide a PAC.

My claim only succeeded "in part" so I guess the bit that didn't succeed was the compensation. Will read it properly later but need to go pick my little one up from nursery.

WOO HOO!!!

anna2007

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Sorry guys, soooo excited. Not read the full decision yet but essentially T-Mobile have been instructed to allow immediate cancellation, backdate refund to date of original request for termination and provide a PAC.

My claim only succeeded "in part" so I guess the bit that didn't succeed was the compensation. Will read it properly later but need to go pick my little one up from nursery.

WOO HOO!!!

Congratulations LGP, so pleased to hear you've had a good result :T

RandomCurve

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Sorry guys, soooo excited. Not read the full decision yet but essentially T-Mobile have been instructed to allow immediate cancellation, backdate refund to date of original request for termination and provide a PAC.

My claim only succeeded "in part" so I guess the bit that didn't succeed was the compensation. Will read it properly later but need to go pick my little one up from nursery.

WOO HOO!!!

Congratulations.

RandomCurve

Booked an appointment with my MP for 29th July 4:15pm.

I will focus on ofcom claiming EE had acted reasonably and ofcoms inaction even now that CISAS is ruling in our favour.

Also have some "behind the scenes" stuff with Ofcom that I will discuss with him and put on the forum soon.

ruflonger

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Sorry guys, soooo excited. Not read the full decision yet but essentially T-Mobile have been instructed to allow immediate cancellation, backdate refund to date of original request for termination and provide a PAC.

My claim only succeeded "in part" so I guess the bit that didn't succeed was the compensation. Will read it properly later but need to go pick my little one up from nursery.

WOO HOO!!!

Well Done:T

diamonds

RandomCurve wrote: »

Booked an appointment with my MP for 29th July 4:15pm.

I will focus on ofcom claiming EE had acted reasonably and ofcoms inaction even now that CISAS is ruling in our favour.

Also have some "behind the scenes" stuff with Ofcom that I will discuss with him and put on the forum soon.

Thanks RC, look forward to a update.

stoney73

ruflonger wrote: »

Well Done:T

How are things going with taking T-Mobile to the SCC?

IanR2012

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Fantastic, well done!!!

They made you wait though! Isn't that about 4 weeks since your adjudicator was appointed.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Right guys, managed to have a proper look at the decision overnight. I'm obviously ecstatic about the win but was intrigued to understand why my claim only succeeded "in part". Now having read the decision I am a little surprised by the inconsistencies and reasoning for the part of the claim that didn't succeed but still not complaining. Here is the detail:

Firstly finding in my favour that I should have been allowed to cancel:

e. Consumer contract law requires all terms in consumer contracts to be clear and unambiguous. In circumstances where a contract clause can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, contract law considers it reasonable to interpret the clause in favour of the party which did not draw up the contract, in this case the customer.

f. The customer has put forward an alternative interpretation of clause, suggesting it is unreasonable for the company to rely on an as yet unreleased RPI figure, and that the only contemplated RPI figure can have been the most recently released figure. This would be that of February 2013, published on 19 March 2013, which was 3.2%. This would activate clause 7.2.3.3 and allow the customer to seek immediate termination of the contract.

g. In view of my findings it is clear there are two possible interpretations of the correct RPI to use. Applying the principle outlined above it is therefore appropriate to apply the customer’s interpretation of clause 7.2.3.3. Doing so results in a price increase by the company that is greater than RPI. I am therefore persuaded that the company was in breach of the contract and should have accepted the customer’s immediate notice of cancellation given on 8 April 2013.

h. The clause provides for immediate cancellation and as this has not been done the customer is entitled to a refund of all monthly recurring charges incurred since notice was given on 8 April 2013. The customer’s e-mail to the company, dated 11 April 2013, shows that the customer did request a PAC code and as a result of my other findings I find the customer is entitled to this. Accordingly I direct that the company shall immediately terminate the contract and refund the charges incurred after 8 April 2013 and provide the customer with a PAC code.

Than regarding the claim for compensation for time wasted chasing this, obstructive nature of TM and refusal to provide a deadlock letter:

i. By reviewing the timestamps of the e-mail correspondence it is clear that the majority of queries were responded to with a period of a few days, and the others were answered within a reasonable time period. I am satisfied therefore that the customer service provided by the company was of a prompt and professional nature.

j. The company’s responses to the deadlock request on 1 May 2013 and 6 May 2013 reveal its reasoning for not providing a deadlock letter. This was due to its insistence that this issue fell outside the scope of the CISAS scheme. As noted above I am satisfied this is not correct, but find that this was done with a genuine belief that the company’s stance was the correct one. On 6 May 2013 the company stated that “further correspondence may not be entered into”. I find that, after a suitable period of time of addressing the customer’s issues, it is not unreasonable to seek to bring a discussion to a close when the correspondence become repetitive. Therefore I am persuaded it acted reasonably in both circumstances, particularly as in the e-mail dated 1 May 2013 it did suggest seeking alternative independent advice.

k. I therefore see no reason for the company to provide an apology or further explanation beyond that already contained within their defence document to the customer. In the absence of any substantive evidence demonstrating the customer’s financial loss, over and above that of the charges accrued since the attempt to terminate the contract, I also find no grounds for financial compensation in addition to backdating the refund to 8 April 2013.

Obviously he felt that a week to a week and a half is acceptable for T-Mobile to return a template response for my cancellation requests, fair enough. What irks me is he seems to believe that T-Mobile genuinely believed they were in the right, rather than the reality of the situation that T-Mobile didn't want to admit they were wrong because a) they knew it could cause the house of cards to come falling down on them and b ) they thought people would be fobbed off and give up. On this basis he also said they didn't need to apologise. Finally on this point the adjudicator didn't take into account the time and effort I had put into fighting t-mobile on this (which I did say I could provide evidence for on asking yet they didn't ask - instead just refusing that part of the claim) or the fact that t-mobile may have told me to see independent advice yet without them issuing deadlock letters CISAS would not take the matter further.

The biggest inconsistency of all IMHO is despite the fact that T-Mobile's defence was identical to the one they used against Stoney earlier in the thread, and despite I used a cut and paste of the response that Stoney used (with a few more bits added), Stoney's claim got turned down yet mine succeeded :mad:

Very finally this time, the conclusion of the adjudicator:

10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has breached a term of the contract.

b. The reasons given by the customer are sufficient to justify cancellation of the contract, a refund of all of the customer’s monthly recurring charges since 8 April 2013 and provision of a PAC code.