Tmobile price increase

arturbdg

anna2007 wrote: »

I've finally received my refund today, TM should have paid by 18 July, so over 2 weeks late. This was despite several emails, from both me and CISAS, chasing the refund (I'm still waiting to hear back from CISAS re what action they'll be taking against TM...).

I've raised a new complaint re the delayed refund, requesting £100 compensation as a resolution, which TM has politely declined. I haven't pushed for deadlock yet, CISAS has confirmed I'll otherwise have to wait the 8 weeks, but I'm prepared to be patient on this one

I have nothing against the adverts being displayed. If it was only about the adverts I would be the first one to go for it.

Problem is that they can use details of voice calls, messages or data that you have sent which I find obtrusive and this is what I have problem with.

Adverts are everywhere. Different story where basis of your contract is that you agree for them to use details of your calls, text and data for adverts and send them to the so called "partners".

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Just e-mailed Carmel Codd (and cc'd Olaf and the Executive Office) advising that I haven't received a reply to my last e-mail to the Exec Office which was sent 9 days ago reminding them of their obligations to provide my PAC and my refund.

Also advised them that I will not be contacting them again or taking further action to retrieve my PAC from them or request the refund - they are well aware of their obligations so why should I run around chasing them.

Finally I advised them that should I not receive my PAC and refund by the deadline (a week next Monday) that I shall be starting a new CISAS claim and claiming the maximum possible compensation (£5k) for their contempt of the CISAS process and of myself.

Lets see what that brings.

IanR2012

Another post-Oct Win

Although the plan was started mid-Feb 2013, T-Mobile tried to claim pre-October T&C's were valid.

The Adjudicator didn't accept this and went on to state that it doesn't matter which T&C's are valid, reasoning why either would end with the same result: Price rise above RPI.

Result: Cancellation of 1 contract, without charge, backdated and £50 compensation.

£200 compensation had been requested, but "insufficient evidence provided quantifying loss". Which is fair enough, contrary to my pre-October claim, T-Mobile managed to remain civil throughout and I only sent them 2 letters since they failed to engage, having only responded once within the 8 weeks.

The adjudicator also failed to see a reason for T-Mobile to supply an Unlock Code free of charge and advised that the normal process should be followed.

tr26

Just had an email from CISAS for my Pre-Oct contract.

Result: Win :beer:

I'm getting it backdated to April 9th and £50 compensation.

The adjudicator (Abigail Jennings) stated the reason being the ambiguity in the contract and mentioned the fact T-Mobile told me they used the February rate, then the April rate. The £50 compensation was for the fact that T-mobile told me i could not take my case to CISAS.

I'm very pleased, although judging by what people have said here I'll be waiting for my money and PAC.

NittyGritty

well finally getting somewhere with my refund and compensation, or at least it seems that way, got email from legal team, carmel codd,after numerous emails saying they sent it this morning (bit odd i find considering i emailed her this morningthey had 1 day left to meet deadline (7th of august)

my question is, should the refund appear in my bank after the 7th, and again i stress should! do i inform CISAS that refund still hasnt been recieved? or just wait a few days after 7th ? and then tell them,

also can/should i make another claim if so what should i claim for if anything (for not recieving refund on time) 7th aug

RandomCurve

IanR2012 wrote: »

Another post-Oct Win


The Adjudicator didn't accept this and went on to state that it doesn't matter which T&C's are valid, reasoning why either would end with the same result: Price rise above RPI.

Congratulations on the win!

Can you copy and paste the adjudicators findings re the highlighted bit above? I am still pursuing Ofcom and trying to get media interest and a quote on this would really help.

RandomCurve

I make that 28-2 to the consumer.

RandomCurve

AS I have a TM and Orange contract I can see some patterns emerging in EEs ploys to quote the wrong T&Cs to customers - I have alerted Ofcom (I think they actually exist) and will keep you updated on how that progresses.

lukat

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.

Add me to the other 6 waiting on outcomes. I just sent a complaint to CISAS recently. I had sent a letter refusing the price increase of TM and demanding my PAC and a zero balance without penalties back in April... I had posted about it on another thread related to TM increase. Wish me luck!

IanR2012

RandomCurve wrote: »

Congratulations on the win!

Thanks, a particularly satisfying one as, once the payments are back-dated the contract will only have run for 2 of the 24 months.

RandomCurve wrote: »

Can you copy and paste the adjudicators findings re the highlighted bit above?

It's a detailed and concise reasoning that covers a few paragraphs, but here it is:

b. The parties are in dispute as to whether the customer is bound to the Terms and Conditions version 58 or version 59. The company has provided a screenshot showing the customer is bound to version 58 of the Terms and Conditions. However it is unclear why this would be the case. The company’s website clearly shows that v59 of the Terms and Conditions came into force in October 2012 and the customer’s contract was taken out after this date.

c. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that it is relevant which terms the customer is bound to for the purpose of the RPI increase. Under the phrasing of v59, the relevant RPI is that "published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice".

d. I am satisfied that "as close as reasonably possible" is that RPI most recently published at the time of notice. Notice was given between 2 and 8 April 2013; the most recently published RPI was that for February 2013, published on 19 March 2013. This is 3.2%.

e. Version 58 of the agreement reads at Clause 7.2.3.3:
The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.

f. Clause 7.1.4 reads: We can increase any Price Plan Charge. We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will then apply to You once that notice has run out.

g. The company’s argument is two-fold. Firstly that the relevant RPI is March 2013, published on 16 April 2013. Secondly that it is not relevant that the RPI is not known at the date of notice of the price increase as the customer still had ample opportunity to cancel in the event the increase was in excess of the RPI.

h. Each term of a consumer contract must be in plain, intelligible language. Where a term is found to be ambiguous or unclear, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer must prevail.

Thought you might also like this, as the adjudicator gives a view that the Terms are unfair (in the way TM try to use them):

j. I find that the company is obliged, by its terms and conditions, to provide 30 days’ notice of the price increase. On the company’s interpretation of Clause 7.2.3.3 it is not known what the relevant RPI figure is at the point of notice. The customer could only be aware of whether the increase was sufficient to activate this clause on 16 April 2013. This provides less than 30 days in which the customer is fully aware of the binding (or otherwise) nature of the price increase before it is effective. I therefore find that the reliance on an as-yet-unpublished RPI figure does reduce the customer’s rights under the contract and I find this to be unfair.

k. Accordingly, I find that the company’s arguments fail. Clause 7.2.3.3 is ambiguous. The company’s interpretation would also result in the Clause being unfair to the customer as it reduces the time available to cancel the contract.