Tmobile price increase

anna2007

21Twinkle wrote: »

Congratulations to everyone who took up the gauntlet to fight against the oppressive regime that is EE
I didn't expect such a result when I started this thread back in April
What next ?
Sky....Talk Talk ?

Have Talk Talk not been done fairly recently (even by Ofcom)?

Now, Sky - they truly are a law unto themselves... yep, let's go after them next

Hollaio

Is there something that can be done about T-mobile not complying with the CISAS decision? I've made them aware that the deadline has passed and they've not paid my compensation, provided them with my bank details should they wise to expedite the process and they seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude to it all - as if the deadline set by CISAS means nothing and they can do what they want.

d123

Hollaio wrote: »

Is there something that can be done about T-mobile not complying with the CISAS decision? I've made them aware that the deadline has passed and they've not paid my compensation, provided them with my bank details should they wise to expedite the process and they seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude to it all - as if the deadline set by CISAS means nothing and they can do what they want.

First step would be to inform CISAS, they should give you advice on what to do next.

anna2007

Hollaio wrote: »

Is there something that can be done about T-mobile not complying with the CISAS decision? I've made them aware that the deadline has passed and they've not paid my compensation, provided them with my bank details should they wise to expedite the process and they seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude to it all - as if the deadline set by CISAS means nothing and they can do what they want.

I'm still waiting for the refund of my plan charges (I did receive a cheque last week though for the compensation element), the CISAS deadline was yesterday.

I phoned CISAS this afternoon, did what Chimper suggested and asked first whether TM had confirmed to them that they'd complied with the decision. Guess what? They confirmed this yesterday... I'm obviously shocked that TM would tell a lie - can you imagine?!

It gets worse - when I informed CISAS that TM hadn't paid the refund, they actually defended TM, saying they believed that there were problems with processing Bacs payments!

I asked if there were any penalties imposed on TM for failing to comply within the timescale... but no, it appears that CISAS are more than willing for TM to walk all over them.

CISAS said they would chase it up, which is of no use at all (I told them during the call that I'd had an email from EE last night confirming when to expect the refund).

So, in answer to your question - no, it seems there's nothing can be done! I'd still let CISAS know, maybe if enough deadlines are missed...

TBH, TM's attitude is hardly surprising, at least they're consistent and treat the likes of CISAS with the same disregard as their customers.

toosey

I have never been informed by T-Mobile of any price hike.
I bet my rates have increased though

RandomCurve

Glad to see that MSE did publish a story, this was the potential "good news" I was hoping that we would get whilst I've been away.

Now that the story is published I can publish the correspondence I have been having with Ofcom. I am also going to publish:

• My entire claim,
• TMs defence and
• My response to that defence.

My result is not due until 29th July, but I've seen so many posts on here on the things TM are doing that I thought it may help, either for you to copy (if you think it relevant) or to avoid (if you can think of better arguments), but in any case it will give you some ideas on where to start.

For those who have been issued a PAC and threatened with a penalty charge then have a look at the unsolicited goods Act 1971 - make sure you make a claim for a LARGE sum in your CISAS claim.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 Chapter 30 s2 (1) and (2)

S2 Demands and threats regarding payment.

(1)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right topayment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, orasserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows areunsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another personwith a view to his acquiring them [F2for the purposes of his trade orbusiness], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall beliable to a fine not exceeding [F3level 4 on the standard scale].

(2) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right topayment, in the course of any trade or business and with a view to obtainingany payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent as aforesaid—

(a)threatens to bring any legal proceedings; or

(b)places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaultersor debtors or threatens to do so; or

(c)invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedureor threatens to do so,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to afine not exceeding [F3level 5 on the standard scale].

Level4 is £2,500, and Level 5 is £5,000



5 Offencesby corporations.
(1)Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporateis proved to have been committedwith the consent orconnivance of, or to be attributable toany neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other similarofficer of the body corporate, or of any person who was purporting toact in any such capacity, he as well asthe body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to beproceeded against and punished accordingly

RandomCurve

Sorry if the spacing is wrong below, it seems to happen when you copy and [paste from Word running on Windows 8.


Withoutprejudice clause 7.1.4 allows a price increase.

Myclaim against T-Mobile (TM) relates to how theirterms and conditions have been applied in regards to the price riseeffective 9/05/2013, and the behaviour of TM since I received the price rise letteron 6/04/2013.

Thiscase does NOT involve complex issues of law merely knowing:

· Thedifference in meaning between BEFORE and AFTER;

· TM2012 and 2013 price rise dates (Appendix13).



My case is –TM have:

1. Applieda price increase at a rate that triggers my right to penalty free cancelationunder clause 7.2.3.3. (Appendix 1 -Price rise letter received 6/04/2013; and Appendix2&8– Version 59 of T&Cs – my contract starting 5/12/2012).

a. The rate (if any) thatshould be applied to my contract is February RPI 3.2% (Appendix 3) - the current inflation rate published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date I receivedthe price increase letter, not March RPI rate of 3.3% - published 16/04/2013 10days afterwards.

2. BreachedT&Cs by not allowing penalty free cancellation under clause 7.2.3.3 (Appendix 2 – T&Cs)

a. I wrote to TM on 06/04/2013(Appendix 4) requesting a penaltyfree cancelation.

3. Disregardedtheir obligation under clause 4.4.5.1 & 2 (right to withhold payment whenin genuine dispute),

a. I wrote to TMinvoking clause 4.4.5.1&2 on 14/04/2013 (Appendix 5)

4. Beeninconsistent with their explanation of which RPI has been used (My summarised transcriptof calls Appendix 6),

a. On 18/4/2013 I wasinformed by TM customer Service (150) that the January RPI rate 3.3% hadbeen used ,

b. On 18/04/2013 I wasinformed that TM (Exec Department) were not responding to queries until theirlegal team had reviewed the situation;

c. On 22/04/2013 Ireceived an email stating that the March RPI rate had been used (Appendix 7).

5. Deliberatelyignored the word “BEFORE” in T&C 7.2.3.3.

a. See letters from/toTM (appendix 7, 9 & 10) where TMquotes “Before” as being the clause, but ignores the word “before” in theirrationale.

i. Because this is suchan obvious mis-interpretation I wrote to TM with a pricing structure I willcharge should TM continue to make me expend time and effort in pursuing this (Appendix 9b)

6. Penalisedme (£246.98p) for requesting that TM comply with the T&Cs, and in doing sobreached the unsolicited goods act 1971 Chapter 30 S2(1)&(2)

a. Whilst I hadrequested a PAC code on a PENALTY FREE BASIS several times (Appendices 4,5,10) TM issued a PAC codeand charged the full termination fee (Appendix11) – despite the fact that:

i. I informed them inplenty of time not to make the charge (Appendix12);

ii. The PAC code wasnever used;

iii. TM “investigated” andstill decided to charge me

iv. TM has never providedevidence that I ever requested a PAC with a penalty.

v. T&C do not allowa charge on ISSUE of a PAC.

7. Breachedtheir duty of care by:

a. Deliberately ignoringthe word “before” in clause 7.2.3.3

i. Point 5 above andcorresponding Appendices; and

b. The wording of theprice rise letter (Appendix 1).

i. By using the wordCURRENT in a letter received 6/04/2013 the ONLY POSSIBLE rate that could be referencedis the February RPI rate published on 19/03/2013. January rate is PAST, Marchrate is FUTURE, NEITHER of which are CURRENT.



Redress sought–Details Appendix A:

1. Aback dated penalty free contract termination.

2. Paymentfrom TM per the scale of charges in Appendix9b

3. Compensationfrom TM for various breaches/mis information.

4. Compensationfor the issue and charge for an unsolicited PAC code.





Without prejudice Ialso contended the following 3 separate items:

1. Mycontract began on 5/12/2012 (Appendix 8)therefore TM should not be referencing ANY inflation rate to apply to mycontract until at least November 2013. Any reference to an inflation rate in February2013 (3 months after the contract began) is irrelevant as 9 months’ worth ofthe inflation incurred in that 12 month period is already incorporated into thecontract price.

2. Theprice rise is of Material Determent to me.

• Appendix X1

3. Anyprice rise term in a contract can only be fair and enforceable if it has been “…clearly and adequately drawn tothe consumer's attention”.

• Appendix X2

RandomCurve

What I am claiming from TM


Appendix A -Redress sought.



1. Penalty free cancellation back dated to 12thApril (Appendix 4) as allowed per clause 7.2.3.3.

a. As I do not know when this will be resolved orthe amount prepaid at 12th April I have included the entire amountdue under the contract from the March payment to the end of the contract – 20months x £15.49 = £309.80p

2. A PAC Code

3. An unlock code

4. An assurance that TM will not use the IMEI orany other means to block my phone

5. A personal apology from Mr Olaf Swantee

6. Total Compensation of £3,374.80p as detailed in:

a. 1a above(which is subjected to reduction based on when the case is decided)

b. 7-12 below.

7. Compensation from TM for failing in its duty ofcare and mis-leading me as to which RPI rate had been used (point 4 in claimsummary Appendix 6 and 7) £50

8. Compensation for breach of Clause 4.4.5.1&2 (point3 in claim summary ) Genuine dispute Appendix 5 £50

9. Compensation for not issuing a dead lock letter (Appendix15 – request and denial) £50

10. Compensationfor failing in its duty of care when wording the price rise letter in regard tothe RPI used Point 7b Appendix 1 £50.

11. Compensationfor the additional work I had to go through as per Appendix 9b

a. *Emails x 6*£50=£300.00 (excludes 8 emails in relation to the unsolicited Goodsand Service Act breach as that is incorporated into the claim at point 10below)

b. Calls £65.00

i. 26/4– 25 mins = £10+£1x£25=£35 (Customer services)

ii. 9/5– 5 mins =£10+£1*5=£15 (Customer Services)

iii. 3/6– 5 mins =£10+£1*5=£15 (my bank re DD gurantee)

c. Preparation of CISAS claim £50

d. Invoice preparation (this Appendix) £50

e. Interest – waived £0

f. Total £465.00

12. Damagesfor the breach of the unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. I informedT-Mobile on several occasions (email and phone) – Appendix11 and 12) that they were not entitled to take funds from my account forthis. T-Mobile even had their “investigation team” review the situation on 9thMay and STILL made the charge. T-Mobile were then vague to say the leastregarding when a refund would be made (Appendix S 5)“as soon as possible”, and even offset the following months payment against theamount they owed me before repaying me thereby taking the June payment a weekearly (Appendix S 6) £2,400 (for which I will give up my right to pursue this throughthe courts).

a. Note this is considerably less than the finesavailable under the legislation as TM actual took the funds from my accountdespite being informed before they did that they were not entitled to takethese funds, Further TM actually said that they had “Investigated” this and Ireceived a text on 10th May(funds taken from my account on 22nd May) stating that after investigation the charge stillstands, so as funds were taken that would be a level 5 breach by TM, OlafSwantee and staff ID50047561.




http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30

Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 Chapter 30 s2 (1) and (2)

S2 Demands and threats regarding payment.

(1)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right topayment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, orasserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows areunsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another personwith a view to his acquiring them [F2for the purposes of his trade orbusiness], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall beliable to a fine not exceeding [F3level 4 on the standard scale].

(2) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right topayment, in the course of any trade or business and with a view to obtainingany payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent as aforesaid—

(a)threatens to bring any legal proceedings; or

(b)places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaultersor debtors or threatens to do so; or

(c)invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to afine not exceeding [F3level 5 on the standard scale].

Level4 is £2,500, and Level 5 is £5,000

RandomCurve

Put this one in as a "test case" - Darn just noticed the spelling mistake ...Doh


Appendix X1 WithoutPrejudice – The price rise is of Material Detriment to me.



TheRPI that T-Mobile have imposed is the March RPI rate of 3.3%, however the wageinflation index over the same period is only 1.1% therefore the price rise mustbe a real terms increase to me and therefore is of material determent. I canprove my income has not increased over the 12 months in question, however Ishould not be required to do so unless TM are also required to prove that theircosts have increased by 3.3% (as according to their annual accounts they havereduced indirect operational savings of 3.1% and are on target to reduce directcosts by £485m).

RandomCurve

Another test case - If I win on this one then the flood gates open for you all!!!!


Appendix X2 - WithoutPrejudice – Any price rise term in a contract can only be fair and enforceable providedthe details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.



Theprice rise T&C is unfair and unenforceable as per the OFT guidance endorsedby ofcom. It is not sufficient that the clause is in the T&Cs which I havebeen deemed to have read, TM are required to ensure that the price rise term is clearlyand adequately drawn to my attention andI contest that TM have not done this.



Page 58 of the OFT guidance, relating to price variationclauses, states:



12.4A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the followingways.30



•Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within narrowlimits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. Assuch they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to theconsumer's attention.



•Terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable,as paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations indicates, subject to the sameproviso.



•Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are free toescape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free to cancel, theymust not be left worse off for having entered the contract, whether byexperiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture of a prepayment) orserious inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences.



Evidence that TM havenot complied with OFT guidance:

1. TMat NO point made specif reference to the price rise clause in the T&Csduring the sales process,

2. Theprice rise clause is buried on page 13 of 17

3. Thetext is not:

a. bold or

b. highlighted or

c. bigger or

d. Differentin any way to any other clause

4. Acopy of the contract was not sent to me with the phone

5. Alladverts included the monthly price below/next to all of the fixed elements ofthe contract; this is mis leading (be it deliberately or otherwise), asevidence by the fact that when the first mobile company applied a mid termprice rise practically EVERYONE was dumbstruck..

6. Theprice never said “initial” or “subject to change” etc

7. Asper other mis selling scandals (Endowment policies/PPI) the onus is upon theseller to prove that the relevant clause was is clearly and adequately drawn tothe customers’ attention.