Tmobile price increase

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:31PM

My response - 9th July

Dear Graham/Sandra,
Thank you for your email dated 5th July.
Appendix 1 and 2.
As you are aware this situation is current and on-going therefore it is important that action is taken quickly whilst it is still relevant, I am keen to try and ignite media interest, but I understand that this action may not be helpful to Ofcom in this instance, In order to help me decide if I should wait or not before contacting the media can you let me know:

*1The likely timescales involved before Ofcom decide if further action is appropriate;
*2If Ofcom do take enforcement action how long would that take to decide what action to take and likely enactment timescales?;
*3Would enforcement only apply to future use of the clause or would you seek to ensure T-Mobile corrected its current mistake?
*4If the later would Ofcom be able to:
1. Making T-Mobile rescind the price rise and refund sums taken or
2. Direct T-Mobile to write to all customers to give them 30 days to advise if they want to enforce their right to a penalty free cancellation?

Appendix 3
I must say I am very disappointed at your response to this. I had followed up my email of 1st July with a call to Ofcom on 3rd July to ensure that Ofcom was fully aware of the point I am making, for clarity I have bullet pointed these below:

I do NOT expect Ofcom to contact T-Mobile on my behalf to gain an opinion on how I have been treated.
T-Mobile told Ofcom that “T-Mobile confirmed that, in a small number of cases, its advisers had responded to complaints incorrectly due to a failure to correctly identify whether complaints related to v58 or v59 of its terms and conditions”
On TWO separate occasions T-Mobile confirmed to me that their stance remains unchanged REGARDLESS of which T&Cs I am on (as per the correspondence I sent you on 1stJuly and re-attached here)
1. That 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?
  1. *6What supporting evidence does Ofcom ask for when a CP makes a statement?
  2. *7Do you just accept their responses at face value?
  3. By your (lack of) response, ofcom – THE REGUATOR – seems to find it acceptable for T-Mobile to mis-lead it.
  4. In my opinion unless Ofcom responds forcibly to T-Mobiles attempt to mis lead it then the message Ofcoms behaviour sends to the industry is that where consumer abuse is concerned it is a weak regulator which can effectively be ignored as it does not have the resource/leadership/will/ability(?) to take any action let alone effective or punitive action.

i. *8 What message does Ofcom think its inaction over being mislead sends to T-Mobile?

*9 Now that I have clarified what I meant within Appendix 3 will Ofcom now challenge T-Mobile on this point?

Appendix 4,
I’m not sure if you are trying to deliberately avoid the question so I will reword as best and as simply as I am able to and add some background first:

Ofcom before conducting its consultation recognised:
- Price rises were not clear in CP contracts
- Harm was being done to the consumer
- So effectively the contracts were mis sold.
- There is no significant difference between this mis selling scandal and:
  - Endowment Policy mis-selling, and
  - PPI mis selling
  - In both of these cases the regulator required the industry to repay sums on contracts mis-sold

So the question is :
*10WHY does Ofcom not consider it appropriate that all companies under its regulation who have mis sold contracts force those companies to refund the amounts taken under the price rise clauses?
To follow the principles set in other mis selling scandals all customers should be allowed to submit a claim (to CISAS?) and only those cases where the company can prove that it CLEARLY AND ADEQUATELY bought the price rise clause to the attention of each customer should the price rise stand for that customer.

I have highlighted the questions (10) that I think require a response with a red astrix “*” and I look forward to receiving your responses shortly.

Regards

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:34PM

16 July 2013

Dear XXXX

I write in response to your email of 9 July 2013. For ease of reference, I have used the same sub-headings as in your response.

Appendix 1 and 2

You ask a number of questions in relation to any enforcement action Ofcom may take regarding this issue.

We are unable to provide any specific timescales as every case has to be considered on its own merits taking into account the evidence available. As mentioned in our email of 5 July, we are still considering whether further action by Ofcom may be appropriate in relation to the fairness of the terms, in line with our administrative priorities as set out in our published Enforcement Guidelines (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/draft-enforcement-guidelines/annexes/Enforcement_guidelines.pdf). In accordance with our procedures, if we do decide to open a formal investigation then we will announce this publicly via the Competition and Consumer Enforcement Bulletin on our website (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/).

For more information, section 5 of the Enforcement Guidelines as mentioned above sets out the procedures we follow for investigations. It includes a non-statutory target of six months from the opening of the investigation in which to complete it (Paragraph 5.7 on page 23).

As we have yet to reach a decision on what, if any, further action is required it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on what the possible outcomes of an investigation could be. However, as mentioned in our email of 28 June, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) may potentially be relevant in this case. For more information, paragraphs 2.27-2.31 and 6.8-6.12 of our Enforcement Guidelines include a general discussion of what action could be taken for any investigation under the UTCCRs.

Appendix 3
As mentioned in our email of 5 July, and in accordance with the Enforcement Guidelines, we will consider the evidence you have sent us alongside other evidence available in our assessment of whether further action should be taken. As you know, we are still assessing this matter and whether to commence a formal investigation and therefore we have not made any decision as to whether T-Mobile has misled Ofcom and/or its customers. For more information regarding Ofcom’s information gathering powers during an investigation, please see paragraphs 5.18-5.28 in our Enforcement Guidelines. Please note that we have not used our formal information gathering powers in our in communications with T-mobile on this matter to date as we have not yet decided whether to open a formal investigation.

Appendix 4
As mentioned in our email of 5 July, Ofcom’s consultation identified that consumer harm arises from a lack of transparency of price variation terms at point of sale and in contractual information. However, to clarify, this does not mean that we have concluded that CPs have mis-sold contracts. Our provisional view in the consultation was that the current rules relating to the provision of information (such as General Conditions 23-24) may not be providing effective protection for consumers. Therefore, our consultation included, amongst other options, a proposal for improved transparency of price variation terms. Any decision regarding the mis-selling of contracts can only be made after a formal investigation as we have already explained.

Yours sincerely

Sandra Sutton
Consumer Contact Team

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:36PM

Sent 16th July - really pushing on the Ofcom being mislead bit now (I will also publish what T-Mobile have been telling me re V58 and V59 shortly).

Dear Graham/Sandra,

Thank you for your email received earlier today and I have noted the points made, however I think you may still be missing the point re Appendix 3.

My concern is not if T-Mobile mislead me or not as a customer (I know exactly how T-Mobile have been manipulate and mis representing things to me), my concern is that T-Mobile has mislead Ofcom when responding to Ofcom, and Ofcoms apparent lack of concern over being mislead.

T-Mobile stated to you (as per your email to me dated 28 June):
"T-Mobile confirmed that, in a small number of cases, its advisers had responded to complaints incorrectly due to a failure to correctly identify whether complaints related to v58 or v59 of its terms and conditions"

I have supplied you with the evidence that this is NOT the case. On TWO separate occasions - I have sent you the emails twice already, and attached again for the third time - T-Mobile confirmed to me that T-MOBILEs RESPONSE IS THE SAME REGARDLES OF WHICH T&Cs I AM ON. That is clearly not the same as advisors "incorrectly identifying which T&Cs a customers is on", because even when T-Mobile were aware of which T&Cs a customer is on - the response is the same!

So for a third time of asking (I have a meeting arranged with my MP on this matter) can you CONFIRM that:

Ofcom understands the point above - that I believe T-Mobile have mislead Ofcom; and
Ofcom (the regulator) sees no harm in being mislead and will be taking no immediate action.
Can you also confirm that you have read and understood the attachments.

Regards

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:38PM

It seems T-Mobile and Ofcom have similar wording when they no longer wish to engage - note that Graham has asked Lynne to deal with this!!!! Obviously I was not going to let this lie!!!!!

On 19 July 2013 at 10:10 Lynn Parker <Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk> wrote:

Dear XXXXX,

I am writing in response to your email of 16 July, below. I am aware of your previous correspondence with Ofcom, and I am replying as a decision on whether to take any further action in respect of the issues you have raised lies within my team.

As we have previously explained, we are considering whether further action by Ofcom may be appropriate in relation to the fairness of clause 7.2.3.3 in version 58 and version 59 of T-Mobile’s terms and conditions, in line with our administrative priorities as set out in our Enforcement Guidelines. We will consider all the evidence you have sent us alongside any other evidence available in our assessment of whether further action should be taken.

Having reviewed all our earlier correspondence, there is little further I can add to what has previously been advised. As such, unless any new issues are raised, any future correspondence on this matter will be added to your case without response.

Yours sincerely
Lynn Parker
Director, Consumer Protection
From: Graham Howell
Sent: 16 July 2013 14:09
To: Carmen To; Lynn Parker; Sean O'Hara; Sandra Sutton
Subject: FW: Ofcom reference: 1-232302417
Importance: High

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:40PM

My email to ofcom of 21st July

Dear Graham/Lynn,

Thank you for your email below.

I agree that Ofcom have answered - as far as you are prepared to - my queries re V58 and V59 of the T-Mobile contract, and I thank you for that, and request that you keep me informed of progress. I will of course send you any further evidence that I obtain for you to add to the evidence file.

However my last two emails have NOT been in connection with the fairness of the price rise clauses within those contracts nor how they have been applied. The Emails have been solely about OFCOM BEING MISLEAD by T-Mobiles response to the questions you asked them. You state you are aware of my previous correspondence, but have you actually read my last email and it's attachments? If so you will immediately realise that this is an entirely different matter, and maybe my correspondence should be being responded to by a different department?

For the sake of clarity, I - as a consumer - have provided Ofcom - the industry regulator - with what I perceive is evidence of the dominant market leader in the mobile network sector (EE) MISLEADING Ofcom as to how it has handled the recent price rise. Whether or not EE have complied with legislation or have acted reasonably is irrelevant to the fact that Ofcom has, in my opinion, been MISLEAD, and it is HOW Ofcom intend to react to being MISLEAD that I am interested in. As Ofcom is the regulator that states "We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, ....." I think it only reasonable that you continue to corresponding with a consumer who fears that Ofcom itself is being "scammed".

In light of the above can you please respond to the questions raised in my last email (which is NOT in relation to the fairness of clause 7.2.3.3 in version 58 and version 59 of T-Mobile’s terms and conditions) which were:

can you CONFIRM that:

Ofcom understands the point above - that I believe T-Mobile have mislead Ofcom; and
Ofcom (the regulator) sees no harm in being mislead and will be taking no immediate action.
Can you also confirm that you have read and understood the attachments.

I will of course be asking my MP to raise the above as a Parliamentary Questions to Ofcom (amongst other things) should you fail to respond either clearly stating that you do not believe Ofcom has been MISLEAD and your EVIDENCE for that statement, or that you do think Ofcom has been MISLEAD and what action Ofcom intends to take. I will need ofcoms response BEFORE Thursday 25th

Regards

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:43PM

See who the response received today was from? I was gobsmacked too - but not so much that I could not pursue the point about Ofcom being mislead so one final email sent to today to follow.

On 22 July 2013 at 12:21 Graham Howell <Graham.Howell@ofcom.org.uk> wrote:

Dear XXXXX
Thank you for your further email.
My colleagues and I have read all the correspondence you have submitted and, as we have indicated to you, Ofcom is considering whether taking further action may be appropriate. There is really nothing further I, or any of my colleagues, can say at this point.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Howell

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:44PM

So now we wait - if anybody else wants to email Ofcom and ask why they do not seem to be concerned that tM are misleading - then please feel free!

Dear Mr Howell,
Thank you for taking the time to respond personally to my email.

I fully understand that Ofcom are unable to comment further on action regarding V58 and V59 of T-Mobiles contracts, and I am not seeking further clarification on that.

My question relates solely to my belief that Ofcom has been MISLEAD by T-Mobile.
What I need to know is based on the evidence I have submitted to you (which clearly shows that T-Mobile are treating customers on V58 and V59 with the same response as part of their corporate policy) does Ofcom believe it has been MISLEAD when T-Mobile claimed to ofcom "that, in a small number of cases, its advisers had responded to complaints incorrectly due to a failure to correctly identify whether complaints related to v58 or v59of its terms and conditions". This is simply NOT A TRUE STATEMENT as evidence by correspondence (attached).

Please confirm if Ofcom will be taking action against T-Mobile for misleading the regulator. And if you do not intend to take action on this why not?

I thank you in anticipation of a response to the question being asked.

Regards

XXXXX

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:48PM

Email chain below clearly shows that TM don't care which T&Cs you are on - they are going to tell you the same story! ofcom have this correspondence so they can see that TM have mislead them. I had deliberately pushed TM on this point as I thought it may come in handy later (which it is doing).

29thApril

Dear Mandy,

Thank you for your email of29 April, apologies for the delay in responding but I have been away from myemails.

Maybe I have misunderstoodthe terms and conditions that apply to my contract, are the T-Mobile legal teamadvising that both the Pre and Post October 2012 contracts refer to the samemonths RPI? If so that would explain why all T-Mobile customers receivedthe same letter at the same time, and why I am having difficulty understandingT-Mobiles position on this. Can you clarify this for me please?

Regards

XXXXXX

6thMAY

Case Reference: XXXX

Account Number: XXXXXX

Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your further email dated 1 May 2013.

I reference to my previous email, I confirm that ourLegal Team are advising on both the Pre and Post October 2012 contracts.

I trust the above is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely

6thMAY

Thankyou Mandy, but does that mean they are treating Pre and Post October 2012contrast in the same way i.e RPI is the same month for the same reasons?

Regards

XXXXX

Mandy Lowery

Executive Office, EE

6thMAY

Case Reference: XXXXX

Account NumberXXXX

Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your further email today, 6 May 2013, I amwriting to confirm the following.

The Pre and Post October 2012 contracts are subject tothe same increase based on the same RPI. Should you remain unhappy with this you are free to seek alternateadvice.

I trust the above is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely

Mandy Lowery

Executive Office, EE

RandomCurve · 22 July 2013 at 10:55PM

AND FINALLY - yet again TM confirm that they are applying the same RPI to V58 and V59. Again Ofcom have this correspondence and so know that TM did not "in a small number of cases fail to correctly identify which T&Cs a customer was on". As I said above - feel free to email Ofcom and ask why they are not concerned that they have been mislead, better still if you have your own emails from TM which show that TM don't care which T&Cs you are on then send them to Ofcom too.

16 May

Case Reference: XXXXXXX

Account Number: XXXXXXX

Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]

Dear XXXXXXX,

Thank you for your further correspondence dated 12 May2013 regarding the recent price increase. I am writing to confirm thefollowing.

Our terms and conditions give us the right to increaseour price plan charges provided the increase is no higher than RPI and weprovide customers with written notice of the change.

Clause 7.2.3.3 of these terms and conditions state thatthe relevant rate of RPI will reflect the 12 month period before the month inwhich we send customers written notice.

We wrote to our customers between 02 April and 08 April2013 informing them of the changes to their price plan charge. In accordancewith our terms and conditions, the relevant measure of RPI should thereforereflect the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.

The Office of National Statistics published its officialrate of RPI for this period in April. The official measure of RPI for thisperiod is 3.3%. This is in line with the 3.3% price increase that will takeeffect from 10th May.

This means that customers wishing to end their contractwith us, in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3, will not have the right to leavewithout providing us with 30 days notice or paying the cancellation charge thatmay apply.

I confirm that you do not have the right to cancel youragreement without penalty. For your information, please find below the link tothe Terms and Conditions of your agreement.

http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/shop/terms-and-conditions/terms/

This will be my final response in this matter. Should you remain unhappy, you are free toseek alternate advice.

Yours sincerely

Mandy Lowery

Executive Office,EE

c.c. Olaf Swantee, Chief Executive Officer,

17 May

Mandy,

Thankyou for your email - I trust this means that I can now go to CISAS.

Youshould be aware that the T&Cs you have quoted below ARE NOT the T&Cs inmy contract I am on clause 59 T&Cs (as you have correctly identified inprevious correspondence) which means you have to apply the rate PUBLISHED BEFORE the date youwrite.

Toclarify I agree TM T&Cs give you the right to increase prices, however mypoint is that you have used an RPI rate higher than allowed.

As you have quoted the wrong T&Cs below canyou confirm that TMs stance remains unchanged even when applied to the correctT&Cs?

Ifso as per my last email there are number of points that you have not addressedas follows:

[*]Please confirm that transcripts of the requested calls are to be sent
[*]Please provide the details of:

[*]which company I should be taking action against
[*]The address and full names of where I can serve notice on Mr Olaf Swantee and employee ID50047561 under the unsolicited goods Act.

Finallycan you confirm that you have STOPPED the termination charge you were intendingto charge to my account on 22nd May as I have clearly stated in allcorrespondence that the basis of the issue of a PAC code should be on apenalty free basis to me, and I would not like to think that I had YETANOTHER claim against TM.

Regards

XXXXXXX

22ndMAY

Case Reference: XXXXXXX

Account Number: XXXXXXX

Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@orange.co.uk"]executive.office@orange.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Dear XXXXXXX,

Thank you for your further email dated 17 May 2012, Iwrite regarding the following.

Once your dispute has been ongoing for 8 weeks you areable to take your complaint to CISAS, as stated in my email dated 9 May 2013. I apologise for the incorrect informationgiven in my previous correspondence, however, our position remains the same.

Our terms and conditions give us the right to increaseour price plan charges provided the increase is no higher than RPI and weprovide customers with written notice of the change.

Clause 7.2.3.3. of our terms state that we will use astatistical measure of RPI published on a date as close as reasonably possiblebefore the date we provide our customers with written notice.

We wrote to our customers between 02 April and 08 April2013 informing them of the changes to their price plan charge. In accordancewith our terms and conditions, the relevant measure of RPI should reflect anRPI figure published on a date as close as reasonably possible to the date weprovide notice.

The Office ofNational Statistics published its official rate of RPI for the period 1 April2012 to 31 March 2013. The official measure of RPI for this period is 3.3%.This is in line with the 3.3% price increase we notified customers of in Aprilto take effect from 10th May.

This means that customers wishing to end their contractwith us, in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3, will not have the right to leavewithout providing us with 30 days notice or paying the cancellation charge thatmay apply.

Calls are recorded for training purposes and not allcalls are recorded. However should you require information held on your accountyou would need to request a Subject Access Request. There may be a charge forthe information, depending upon what information you require. I have sent arequest form to you via Royal Mail.

The Legal address for EE is as follows:

UK Legal

Everything Everywhere

Hatfield Business Park

HATFIELD

Hertfordshire

AL10 9BW

The Port Authorisation Code (PAC) for your number XXXXXXXwas issued to you, as you requested this. I note that you have chosen not touse this, however have been charged. I have requested this be refunded to youas soon as possible. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

I trust the above information is of use to you.

Yours sincerely

Mandy Lowery

Executive Office, EE

c.c. Olaf Swantee, Chief Executive Officer, EE

RandomCurve · 23 July 2013 at 10:50AM

Seems there is not much more I can do re Ofcom now - apart from urging all of you to contact them too.
I will raise all of this with my MP on Monday, and send Graham weekly requests for updates.

I'm really not sure if Ofcom are sitting on the fence hoping this will all just blow over (if so - bad strategy - as I won't let this rest) or if they genuinely need a little breathing space to put a case together against T-Mobile. The optimist in me wants to believe the latter.

On 23 July 2013 at 09:11 Graham Howell <Graham.Howell@ofcom.org.uk> wrote:

Dear XXX,
Thank you for your further email.
I appreciate your concern but I have already said that Ofcom is considering whether further action is appropriate and I cannot say more than that.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Howell

Dear Mr Howell,

Thank you for your email , I'll assume that means that you are only "Considering" taking action regarding T-Mobile (the dominant company in the market) misleading Ofcom (the industry regulator).

Can you please contact me again when Ofcom has made a decision on whether or not to take action, both on ofcom being mislead and T-Mobiles T&Cs V58 and V59.

Regards

XXXXXX

Tmobile price increase

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free