Tmobile price increase

stoney73

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

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:

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

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:

Have to admit, I was worried about your claim, glad it came right in the end though.
I believe it is just myself and Ruflonger that have had negative decisions?

RandomCurve

I've just had another conversation with Ofcom!

I was chasing them up on when I was going to receive a response to a recent email - they finally decided I will receive a response today! But the funny thing is a section of the conversation went something like this:

Me - can you tell me if Ofcom will xxxxxx
Ofcom - I can't give an official response to your email as I am in the customer contact team
Me - Can you put me through to someone who can give me an official response?
Ofcom - that will come from the written team
Me - Can you put me through to them?
Ofcom - No they don't take voice calls they only respond in writing
Me - Sorry I never released you had people who can only talk and people who can only write - what about Graham will he respond I]Graham is head of Ofcom[/I
Ofcom - I don't think Graham will respond as he is not customer facing.
Me - okay so the head of an organisation that looks to protect consumers from sharp practice is not customer facing?

I decided to get back to the point at that stage.

I think I need to get out more as I found that one of the funniest conversations I have had in a while!

IanR2012

Good overall result, but I feel the Adjudicator incorrectly reasoned this part:

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.:

Even if T-Mobile did feel they were right (which I doubt), it is still within CISAS's scope and they should therefore have issued a deadlock letter, not claimed it was a Business Decision.

Thanks for posting the detail.

diamonds

More Ofcom 'telco' CISAS round and round the roundabout...shocking, will be waiting eagerly on poster who has to go the small claims court ruling that CISAS ruled a contract t&c was 'fair' to be breached, then the house will come tumbling down



In other news trying to get a name/dept/address from EE for a Subject Access Request under Data Protection Act has been a nightmare but I can confirm such and it maybe useful for getting copies of previous terms and conditions per contract commencement and changed terms during your minimum period with specific dates of changes on your account


EE Ltd.
Disclosures Team
800 Park Avenue
Aztec West
Almondsbury
Bristol
BS32 4TR


They have 40 days from receipt under the DPA to supply such, handy for Small Claims Court

If it helps one EE customer on Orange or T-Mobile its worth posting

lazyjack

IanR2012 wrote: »

Good overall result, but I feel the Adjudicator incorrectly reasoned this part:



Even if T-Mobile did feel they were right (which I doubt), it is still within CISAS's scope and they should therefore have issued a deadlock letter, not claimed it was a Business Decision.

Thanks for posting the detail.

I can't get my head around how EE think it's their right to decide if it's within CISAS's scope or not. Surely it's up to CISAS what they take on.

As stated way back, EVERY decision EE make is a business decision, that doesn't make them all fair or acceptable.

IanR2012

lazyjack wrote: »

I can't get my head around how EE think it's their right to decide if it's within CISAS's scope or not. Surely it's up to CISAS what they take on.

Because the penalty for doing so is insufficient. If you convince your unhappy customers their only option is SCC then most will back down I guess.

tr26

Just had my adjudicator appointed. Its Miss Abigail Jennings.

diamonds

tr26 wrote: »

Just had my adjudicator appointed. Its Miss Abigail Jennings.

Next! hee hee, good tidings tr26 !

powerful_Rogue

Can you knock it on the head please. I along with a lot of other people have been in this thread since day one, everyone working together to try and get the right result from T-Mobile.

All you seem to have done since youve come along is moan, whinge and complain. I cant speak for others, but personally im getting bored reading your totally off topic replies. If you've got an issue with another member, stick them on ignore.

stoney73

Ignoring the obvious off topic trolling, does anyone know how long a SCC case typically takes to reach to its conclusion?

I've just sent off the Pre Action Notice to T-Mobile, which means a mandatory 28 days wait to see if they respond. I suppose when they don't its a matter of applying to the SCC?