Tmobile price increase

Lifes_Grand_Plan

anna2007 wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know what the current tally is on the forum, for cases found in our favour?

Ofcom has emailed me again today, out of the blue (I gave up on them a long time ago!), and they've got me riled up enough to waste time emailing a response

I have a list somewhere. Not comprehensive but a good start. Will post it tomorrow.

daveuk1

@diamonds

Personally, I find the woefully misguided nature of your repetitive "advice" more offensive than your stream of consciousness barrages.

Good luck with the SCC to anyone who is taking that route. Merits aside, it will be insightful to see how far TM take this one.

stoney73

anna2007 wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know what the current tally is on the forum, for cases found in our favour?

Ofcom has emailed me again today, out of the blue (I gave up on them a long time ago!), and they've got me riled up enough to waste time emailing a response

From what I've seen, its just myself and Ruflonger that got refused.

diamonds

daveuk1 wrote: »

@diamonds

Personally, I find the woefully misguided nature of your repetitive "advice" more offensive than your stream of consciousness barrages.

Good luck with the SCC to anyone who is taking that route. Merits aside, it will be insightful to see how far TM take this one.

Repetitive ? The poster has no choice but to go to court, excuse me for encouraging some not to take it lying down that Ofcom, Cisas and EE have treated them like crap breaching a contract, they could be any one of us - a consumer, led up a garden path and I'll proudly encourage someone to defend themselves over rants I should not do so.

anna2007

stoney73 wrote: »

From what I've seen, its just myself and Ruflonger that got refused.

Thanks stoney, I took a guess at the number found in favour (14?), as I needed to get the email back to them tonight.

Here's an extract from the Ofcom email re: the different CISAS outcomes - I didn't raise this issue with Ofcom previously, and they also knew the result of my own case which was never discussed, so Anna-Paranoia is setting in

"We note in your case that CISAS did accept your complaint and has ruled in your favour. However, CISAS' decisions do not override Ofcom's general duties and investigation and enforcement powers which are derived from various pieces of legislation. This is because CISAS' role is different to ours in that CISAS adjudicates on individual complaints about a provider on a case by case basis looking carefully at the specific evidence and details that have been submitted with the claim. It sometimes happens that cases may conclude with quite different outcomes even when the circumstances of those customers’ complaints appear very similar. This is because each adjudicator employed by CISAS assesses each case on its own merits. In this context, we would draw your attention to the fact that CISAS has found in favour of T-Mobile’s interpretation of v58 in other cases".

And my response:

"I am aware of a growing number of v58 CISAS cases being found in favour of the customer, and that more recently CISAS has been ruling consistently this way. Whilst I accept that there were initially a limited number of cases found in T-Mobile's favour (I know of only two, as opposed to 14 cases now found in favour of the customer), I do not agree that the complaints in this instance merely "appear very similar". All affected T-Mobile customers were notified of the same price increase, at the same time, and are subject to the same terms and conditions. The complaints regarding breach of contract are not just similar, they are identical, and it is grossly unfair that a small number of CISAS decisions have been found against the customer. I would appreciate Ofcom's view on how these cases could in any way be different from one another, when the key elements that brought about the breach of contract (the written notice, the disputed RPI rates, the contract and T-Mobile's refusal to allow cancellation without penalty) are all exactly the same from one customer to another?".

However, one thing the TM saga has taught me, is not to expect great things from an Ofcom response

RandomCurve

anna2007 wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know what the current tally is on the forum, for cases found in our favour?

Ofcom has emailed me again today, out of the blue (I gave up on them a long time ago!), and they've got me riled up enough to waste time emailing a response

My list is 12-2 to the customer, with another 6 waiting on outcomes. if 20 is the sum total of CISAS complaints on this and with ofcoms complete lack of interest then EE are laughing all the way to the bank - literally.

Ana2007 x2
Hullaio
Artbug
Chimpre
d123
adomoneil88
Lifes Grand Plan
Robsdesk
NittyGritty
DGKC
Cessnita

Stoney73 & Ruflonger
But I'm sure justice will be done in SCC even if it is TM settling the day before the hearing.

Only yours is Post Oct Case as far as I am aware.

RandomCurve

It is interesting that from my correspondence with Ofcom - and seeing Anna2007 correspondence, how quick Ofcom are to take the side of TM. I have told Ofcom I will be discussing this with my MP especially in light of the following email exchange:

1. I]the above is evidence that TM have mislead Ofcom[/I and is evidence that this is a corporate strategy by T-Mobile to confuse customers; I assume in an attempt to prevent the less legally savvy customers from pursuing a case – thus saving T-Mobile the cost of a CISAS defence, and keeping customers who may have been entitled to leave penalty free – the very behaviour that the REGULATOR – which quotes on its website “We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive.“ - should be alert to and coming down hard on.
2. The above is about as “sharp” as practice can get!!!
3. *5So if T-Mobile has deliberately mislead Ofcom what will Ofcom do?

Ofcoms response so far is the standard - we note your comments and will keep them on file. I assume this actually means "Thanks, now go away as I've put this in the bin and need to dash of for another lunch with Mr Swantee :wave:"

lazyjack

When you read a response like that from OFCOM, the industry 'regulator', is it any wonder these companies try things on ? As RC states, EE are literally quids in even with a few CISAS defeats.

OFCOM, get yourself a backbone, do the proper thing and instruct EE to write to ALL affected customers, confirming they are actually entitled to cancel penalty free due to above RPI price increase.

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

My list is 12-2 to the customer, with another 6 waiting on outcomes. if 20 is the sum total of CISAS complaints on this and with ofcoms complete lack of interest then EE are laughing all the way to the bank - literally.

Thanks RC - I remember Chimper saying he knew of another win, bringing it up to 13 - close enough - and maybe there'll be another win by the end of today

I would hope that there are many, many more customers, both following the thread and not, taking their complaints to CISAS - or maybe I'm too optimistic

anna2007

lazyjack wrote: »

When you read a response like that from OFCOM, the industry 'regulator', is it any wonder these companies try things on ? As RC states, EE are literally quids in even with a few CISAS defeats.

OFCOM, get yourself a backbone, do the proper thing and instruct EE to write to ALL affected customers, confirming they are actually entitled to cancel penalty free due to above RPI price increase.

The most infuriating part of Ofcom's latest email:

"T-Mobile confirmed that in a small number of cases its advisers had responded to complainants incorrectly due to a failure to correctly identify whether complaints related to the most recent version of its terms and conditions (v59) and the previous version (v58), which applies to customers on older contracts".

And my response:

"This comment gives me most cause for concern, as Ofcom appears to have accepted T-Mobile's explanation at face value, without reviewing the evidence in the correspondence, which clearly demonstrates that their statement is false. In my own case, I had two contracts with T-Mobile, one where version 58 applied, and the other where version 59 applied. In T-Mobile's email to me dated 19 April 2013 (passed to your Customer Contact Team as evidence), they are very clear on the distinction, dealing with each version separately, and even quoting both versions of clause 7.2.3.3. There is obviously no room for error in this instance, yet T-Mobile have stated that March RPI is the relevant rate for both contracts.

Ofcom has accepted that T-Mobile advisers were confused over which were the applicable terms relating to customer complaints: this is a rather basic (and obviously fundamentally important) element of the customer's complaint . Given that these customers were dealing with EE's Executive Office (and in some cases their Legal Team), does Ofcom genuinely consider it reasonable for T-Mobile to claim that such a mistake was made?

T-Mobile's reference to "a small number of cases" is also wholly inaccurate. I personally know of a significant number of T-Mobile customers, on both v58 and v59 of the terms, who were all told that March RPI was the relevant rate in relation to clause 7.2.3.3: not one of them was told by the Executive Office that January RPI was the relevant rate, therefore their argument regarding advisors' confusion over the two sets of terms is rather a pointless one. Could Ofcom confirm how many complainants' cases it reviewed in order to confirm whether T-Mobile's statements on this issue were factually accurate?".

Either the Ofcom staff involved in reviewing the issue haven't done a very good job, or Ofcom are intentionally ignoring the evidence available to them...