Tmobile price increase

IanR2012

anna2007 wrote: »

"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".

Is there any suggestion by T-Mobile of what the correct response to V59 customers should have been?

anna2007

IanR2012 wrote: »

Is there any suggestion by T-Mobile of what the correct response to V59 customers should have been?

Yes (sorry!) - they state earlier in the email:

We considered that the approach T-Mobile took on this occasion was reasonable in the context of T-Mobile’s explanation that, for the most recent version of its Ts&Cs (v59), it had used January’s
RPI and the wording of the clause “published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice”.

IanR2012

anna2007 wrote: »

We considered that the approach T-Mobile took on this occasion was reasonable in the context of T-Mobile’s explanation that, for the most recent version of its Ts&Cs (v59), it had used January’s RPI and the wording of the clause “published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice”.

Unbelievable!

For my post October complaint, January RPI has not been mentioned once. Although I'm now waiting for their Defence (today is the last day)

But more unbelievable is that OFCOM feel it is acceptable that T-Mobile can reason 2 different months RPI's (not even consecutive months) for the same price rise.

diamonds

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.

Ofcom do nothing unless the Minster part funding them or the EU tells them, all complaints against Ofcom conduct should go here https://www.gov.uk/government/people/maria-miller

RandomCurve

IanR2012 wrote: »

Unbelievable!

For my post October complaint, January RPI has not been mentioned once. Although I'm now waiting for their Defence (today is the last day)

But more unbelievable is that OFCOM feel it is acceptable that T-Mobile can reason 2 different months RPI's (not even consecutive months) for the same price rise.

This is why I was asking who was on a V59 contract a week or so ago.

I'm about to go away for a few days, but I will publish all of my correspondence with Ofcom early next week - some of it is quite breath taking!!!

Apart from the fact I was waiting for one more response from Ofcom before publishing there is a potential second reason, which I can't go into now, other than to say by the time I return on Monday there may be some good news on the forum!!!

RandomCurve

IanR2012 - part of one of my responses to Ofcom on TM claiming (to Ofcom only as far as I can tell) that they had used January. You might find some of it useful if TM defence refers to the January RPI.


Confirmation of the behaviour that ofcom considers reasonable in relation to the V59 contract – and the evidence that is based on.

a) It is reasonable that TM required 37 days to write to customers applying the January RPI (excludes weekends and bank holidays)

1. The above is reasonable in light of the fact that Orange (part of the EE group) also applied the January RPI and they wrote to customers within 15 days (excludes weekends and bank holidays) i.e. TM required an additional 22 working days or 146% more time than Orange.

b) It is reasonable that TM were unable to inform customers of the February RPI even thought they had 12 days to do so, when In 2012 TM only took 6 days days to write to customers to implement the February RPI increase (both “days taken” figures EXCLUDE weekends and Bank holidays). i.e TM had 100% more time than in 2012, but are claiming it was not reasonable to write to customers in that time frame.

1. It is reasonable that TM claim that it was unreasonable to use the February RPI when the deadline of 9th May for the price rise is a TM imposed deadline. Nobody has forced TM to use 9th May as the price rise deadline, they could have just as easily have used 19th May as the implementation date if timing was an issue, but it is more reasonable to use the January PAST rate than for TM to have planned better and to have moved the price rise implementation date.

2.The above is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the V59 clause is indeed unfair and open to abuse by TM

c) It is reasonable to state in the price rise letter that took 37 days to prepare that TM are using the “Current” RPI when in they now claim to be using a “Past” RPI (at the time of writing the RPI that was in existence/of the now/ present was the February RPI, at that time January RPI was a past RPI)

1. It is reasonable that the price rise letter did not clearly articulate that the January RPI was being used?

d) It is reasonable that a clause that allows for an annual rate of inflation is allowed to overlap an annual inflation rate already used.

1. i.e. the last price increase referenced the February 2012 annual rate and therefore included January 2012 inflation, by applying the January annual inflation rate in 2013 TM have double counted the January 2012 inflation rate – they have effectively applied 12 months of inflation to an 11 month period, this is of obvious advantage to TM as the January annual rate in 2013 is higher than the February 2013 annual rate. The January 2013 rate should be adjusted to reflect 11 months (which the contract does not allow for), therefore surely the February (or later) RPI should have been used.

e) It is reasonable that TM can apply an annual inflation to a contract less than 6 months old (3 in my case), but then credit the increase back to the customers account until the anniversary of the contract, thereby circumventing any announcement that ofcom may make regarding the enforceability of mid term price rises in the summer.

1. i.e. it is reasonable that even if ofcom announces that price rises can’t be made after say July 2013 TM customers will experience price rises until April 2014 due to this tactic as the price rise has already been advised.

f) It is reasonable for TM to simply apologise to ofcom for not issuing deadlock letters to customers, as effectively TM know that customers are likely to lose interest in the issue, therefore saving TM the cost of defending a CISAS case, and – if they lose allowing TM to keep customers on contracts who would have left

1. What evidence have ofcom got as to the number of customers not given deadlock letters and the subsequent ”drop out rate” compared to CISAS claims?
   1. i. If for any reason you can not tell me what evidence was received can you at least confirm that ofcom is monitoring the situation.
   2. Will ofcom require TM to write to all customers who were not issued deadlock letters informing them that they should have been issued deadlock references and are now entitled to put in a CISAS claim?

g) What evidence did TM provide that most customers on V59 contracts who challenged which rate was used after 16th April were informed that the January rate was being used (I know of none, but I know plenty who were told it was March rate post 16th April).

1. If for any reason you can not tell me what evidence was received can you at least confirm that ofcom has seen evidence that supports the above.

arturbdg

I must say that this is a big twist of events. I remember that in early stages everyone assumed (including me) that V59 contracts are clear and it is a sure win.

Now all of a sudden V58 are sure winners and V59 aren't.
It is odd. I think I would stick to the point where T-Mobile never communicated the fact that they are using different RPI's for either of the contracts and even if they would that would be simply discriminatory as I don't see why either of customers should be treated differently from the other.

anna2007

IanR2012 wrote: »

Unbelievable!

For my post October complaint, January RPI has not been mentioned once. Although I'm now waiting for their Defence (today is the last day)

But more unbelievable is that OFCOM feel it is acceptable that T-Mobile can reason 2 different months RPI's (not even consecutive months) for the same price rise.

That's the infuriating part, it's almost as if Ofcom are blatantly ignoring (or simply don't comprehend) just how ridiculous and bizarre TM's explanations are, perhaps they think if they bury their heads in the sand for long enough it'll all just go away?

It will be interesting to see if TM go down the same route as with Random Curve's case and claim you're on v58, or whether they'll now bring Jan RPI into the defence - keep us posted

anna2007

Chased up my refund of plan charges with the legal team this morning, given that TM has until tomorrow to comply with the CISAS decision.

When no response was received, I forwarded the email to the Executive Office and CISAS. Just received the following from the Executive Office:

Needs to go to Helen in Legal

Sue Wake
Team Manager

No "Dear", or "Yours Sincerely", and this is despite the fact that the forwarded email clearly shows that it already has gone to Helen in Legal.

Haven't had to deal with the Executive Office in quite a while, but it's great to see that they remain as courteous, professional and helpful as ever

powerful_Rogue

anna2007 wrote: »

Chased up my refund of plan charges with the legal team this morning, given that TM has until tomorrow to comply with the CISAS decision.

When no response was received, I forwarded the email to the Executive Office and CISAS. Just received the following from the Executive Office:

Needs to go to Helen in Legal

Sue Wake
Team Manager

No "Dear", or "Yours Sincerely", and this is despite the fact that the forwarded email clearly shows that it already has gone to Helen in Legal.

Haven't had to deal with the Executive Office in quite a while, but it's great to see that they remain as courteous, professional and helpful as ever

I would be emailing back and questioning the lack of manners shown!