Tmobile price increase

RandomCurve

lukat wrote: »

Hello everyone,
An update on my CISAS case.

I wrote the first stage of the CISAS case by myself, focusing on two things:

-false advertising (unlimited not being unlimited because of speed caps/limitation to the service, and therefore T-Mobile not providing the service I pay for - see the Advertising Standards Authority's decision: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2262095/tmobile-gets-slapped-wrists-for-its-deceiving-full-monty-tariff)

-the RPI price increase, the fact that it is wrong (3.3 instead of 3.2) and that T-Mobile are enforcing an RPI on me that they didn't know at the time I received the letter.

Does that look like the same kind of answer most members who won have received?

What is the best strategy for me to succeed? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

And if anyone is willing to look through it (check if it is the same answer they received?), I would really appreciate if they could then send me portions of what they replied to T-Mobile's defence.

Thank you all for keeping this thread alive and for all the posts you have written that have been a great help to me so far. I feel like I am getting close to a positive result after the nightmare I have been through with T-Mobile / EE since September last year.

Yes that is the "Standard defence". I used the following (I have updated for your circumstances).

My contract was Post Oct 2012 so the wording and construction of the claim is somewhat different - maybe one of the others who have won their Pre Oct 2012 case can help you.

Defence points 1 - 7

My claim is not inregards to T-Mobiles business decision to increase prices; it is in the applicationof the clause that allows such an increase. There are no complex issues of lawinvolved in this case there are two simple points to resolve:

· Does Unlimited mean Unlimited? Especially when there are no qualifications to the term drawn to my attention during the sales process.
· Can T-Mobile rely on an unpublished National statistic when writing to me when the letter states current RPI (3.2%), but they now claim they were referring to a FUTURE rate (3.3%).

As my claim isclearly connected with both the amount billed for the provision ofTelecommunications services and the services being provided it does fall within CISAS’s remit.

It is interesting to note that T-Mobile consider this to be acomplex area of law, as under the UTCCRs business to consumer contracts arerequired to be
“19.3It follows that what is required is that termsare intelligible to ordinary members of the public, not just lawyers. They needto have a proper understanding of them for sensibleand practical purposes. It is not sufficient for terms tobe clear and precise for legal purposes, except in contracts normallyentered only on legal advice. ”
and if EE have deliberately created complexT&Cs then that in itself is in breach of the UTCCRs.

lukat

RandomCurve wrote: »

Yes that is the "Standard defence". I used the following (I have updated for your circumstances).

My contract was Post Oct 2012 so the wording and construction of the claim is somewhat different - maybe one of the others who have won their Pre Oct 2012 case can help you.

Defence points 1 - 7

My claim is not inregards to T-Mobiles business decision to increase prices; it is in the applicationof the clause that allows such an increase. There are no complex issues of lawinvolved in this case there are two simple points to resolve:

· Does Unlimited mean Unlimited? Especially when there are no qualifications to the term drawn to my attention during the sales process.
· Can T-Mobile rely on an unpublished National statistic when writing to me when the letter states current RPI (3.2%), but they now claim they were referring to a FUTURE rate (3.3%).

As my claim isclearly connected with both the amount billed for the provision ofTelecommunications services and the services being provided it does fall within CISAS’s remit.

It is interesting to note that T-Mobile consider this to be acomplex area of law, as under the UTCCRs business to consumer contracts arerequired to be
“19.3It follows that what is required is that termsare intelligible to ordinary members of the public, not just lawyers. They needto have a proper understanding of them for sensibleand practical purposes. It is not sufficient for terms tobe clear and precise for legal purposes, except in contracts normallyentered only on legal advice. ”
and if EE have deliberately created complexT&Cs then that in itself is in breach of the UTCCRs.

Thanks RandomCurve!
The answer you provide is quite simple and straight to the point.
Do you think it is in my interest to keep it short. My original CISAS complaint was quite lengthy... I am thinking keeping it short this time would hit where it hurts and hopefully lead to a win!

Regarding the second point, that T-Mobile is able to see the future... it perfectly describes the unfair price increase and absurdity of it all. But if Trailing is right (CISAS will disregard the RPI factor anyway unfortunately as they state T Mobile declare it's from the last 12 months, and sadly in the last 12 months there was once or twice if I remember where it was 3.3%), does it not mean that the "T-Mobile knows the future" point will be disregarded?

I am tempted to copy/paste RandomCurve's answer as I believe the simple/efficient/straight to the point strategy has already helped a lot of people on this thread.
However, if you know of anything to be added that could convince CISAS and was a decisive point in many of the wins, please let me know!

Could you also explain to me what the 19.3 point refers to? What is the UTCCRs business to consumer contract?

My contract was what I believe is called v58? "Terms of service for pay monthly customers joining before 30 October 2012".

Thank you!

RandomCurve

lukat wrote: »

Thanks RandomCurve!
The answer you provide is quite simple and straight to the point.
Do you think it is in my interest to keep it short. My original CISAS complaint was quite lengthy... I am thinking keeping it short this time would hit where it hurts and hopefully lead to a win!

Regarding the second point, that T-Mobile is able to see the future... it perfectly describes the unfair price increase and absurdity of it all. But if Trailing is right (CISAS will disregard the RPI factor anyway unfortunately as they state T Mobile declare it's from the last 12 months, and sadly in the last 12 months there was once or twice if I remember where it was 3.3%), does it not mean that the "T-Mobile knows the future" point will be disregarded?

I am tempted to copy/paste RandomCurve's answer as I believe the simple/efficient/straight to the point strategy has already helped a lot of people on this thread.
However, if you know of anything to be added that could convince CISAS and was a decisive point in many of the wins, please let me know!

Could you also explain to me what the 19.3 point refers to? What is the UTCCRs business to consumer contract?

My contract was what I believe is called v58? "Terms of service for pay monthly customers joining before 30 October 2012".

Thank you!

Feel free to "copy and paste". I responded to each and every paragraph of TMs Defence document.

19.3 UTCCRs - can be found here:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/

Others have won on the RPI issue. If you follow the logic that you have used above then in the past 12 moths the rate has also been LOWER than 3.3% and if you are reading (and T-Mobile are claiming - which I doubt) that they can use any rate in the last 12 months then they have to use the LOWEST rate!

The RPI argument you need to make is that T-Mobile can decide in any fashion that hey want what rate they want to increase your contract by, but if they go over the RPI for the month before the month in which they write to you then you can cancel your contract. The PUBLISHED rate was 3.2% and the price rise letter said CURRENT rate 3.3%. If T-Mobile meant to use a FUTURE rate the letter should have said that. Additionally T-Mobile have to give you 30 days notice of the price rise, but as the March RPI was not published until Mid April. T-Mobile have not given you 30 days notice.

Can someone else on the Forum publish/send Lukat their case on a V58 contract?

RandomCurve

I assume T-Mobile have also threatened to issue a PAC code on a penalty basis if you lose the claim. If so you may want to use the following response:



Para 28 – The whole of this paragraph of the defence is evidence of howT-Mobile deliberately ignore the wording of my PAC requests. T-Mobiles defence clearly quotes my termination request as being for “a back dated penalty free contract termination”, but T-Mobile go onto state (threaten?) that “....in theevent that the adjudicator finds in the respondent’s favour and the Claimantdoes not elect subsequently to retract the termination request that it willprocess the Claimants request to terminate the Agreement and back date suchrequest to 30 days from the receipt of the notice, subject to the Claimantpaying the cancellation charge.” The only termination I have requested ison a penalty free basis as T-Mobile themselves acknowledge in para 28 of theirdefence, therefore should the adjudicator rule in T-Mobiles favour there is noPAC request for T-Mobile to process – other than on a penalty free basis, andnothing for me to retract. This whole Para of the defence amply demonstrateshow T-Mobile is deliberately mis-interpreting my correspondence.

I put T-Mobile to strict proof that I ever requested a PAC code andearly termination on anything other than a penalty free basis.

Should the adjudicator rule in T-Mobiles favour and should T-Mobile thenissue a PAC code on anything other than a penalty free business then this wouldbe a clear breach of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 and I will call on the adjudicatorof this claim as a witness in anysubsequent court proceedings.

RandomCurve

My contract was V59, but T-Mobile submitted a defence based on V58 - crazy but true. Whilst I never had to respond to that defence I did - and with a little rewording you may be able to utilise some of the below:


Without Prejudice:

Para 15 iv a

This is not myclause however as the March RPI was not published until AFTER the letters weresent and the price rise letter referred to “Current RPI” Then the RPI used inthe letter cannot possibly be the same RPI as used for the actual price rise asat the time of receiving the letter (6th April) the February RPIpublished on 19th March was CURRENT and the March RPI published on16th April was FUTURE. I also note that the clause does not includea “published before” statement which may, by its omission, bring some ambiguityinto the clause.



Para 16 – Again notmy clause, but the defence “adequate written notice” does not equate to 30 daysnotice as required if the rate being used was published on 16thApril and the price rise is effective 9th May.



Para 17 – not mycontract as this rate was not published before they wrote to me as required byV59 of the T&Cs’ However whilst the month used appears to be strictlycorrect( for V58 of the T&Cs), given that the price rise letter was issuedbefore the actual publication then if the V58 letter also stated “current RPI”then I would have thought that the February rate would be correct. I guess itgoes back to Para 15 re ambiguity in the clause.



Para 18 – 3.3% isthe rate applicable to March, but at the time the price rise letter wasreceived stating Current RPI the March RPI was a Future RPI and February RPIwas the current RPI. However my contact is V59 and that states that the rateused must be PUBLISHED BEFORE I receive the letter i.e. published before 6thApril. March RPI was published (according to the chart in T-mobiles defence atpara 20) on 16th April – 10 days AFTER I received my letter.



Para 20 – NOT RELEVANT


Para 22 –I wasaware that T-Mobile made an announcement in the press as a joint statement withOrange (also part of EE) on 1st March 2013, however I have neverclaimed (in correspondence nor in my CISAS claim) that the announcementconstituted written notice to customers so I have no idea why T-Mobile havementioned this here as part of their “made-up” claim to defend? However I wouldobserve that if T-Mobile had announced they were going to use 3.3% on March 1stfor an RPI that was not going to be published – and was therefore unknown untilApril 16th - then they took a reckless risk, but that is irrelevantto my claim. Also I would have thought That the time period between 1stMarch (announced using 3.3%) and the letter being sent (Mine received 6thApril) Is Ample time for T-Mobile to have composed a letter that clearlyarticulated which months RPI was being used.



Para 23 – I havenot made any comments in my claim on the fairness or otherwise of V58 clause7.2.3.3. Indeed even in my claim re V59 of 7.2.3.3 I make no claim as to theambiguity or otherwise of the clause so I don’t understand why T-Mobile havereferred to this in their defence to their own made up claim. I would observethat if customers on V58 have been told the same as I have in my claim atAppendix 6 and 7 I.e:

1. We are applying theJanuary rate, and then;

2. We are notanswering questions until their legal team have reviewed the situation, andthen;

3. We are applying theMarch rate

Then my conclusion would be that T-Mobiles ownactions must prove that the term in conjunction with the timing and wording ofthe letter must have been ambiguous otherwise T-Mobile would have given oneconsistent definitive answer from the start. I will address this point laterwhen we are back on my actual claim in connection with V59 of the T&Cs



Para 24 – NOT RELEVANT


Para 25 & 26 –again although not relevant to my V59 clause. If I was a version 58 T&Ccustomer then I would argue that a “strict interpretation” of the clause isonly suitable in business to business dealings, as this a business to consumercontract the term has to be clear to non-legal people and it is not sufficientthat it is strictly correct in a legal sense. Also it is inconsistent ofT-Mobile to argue for a strict interpretation of clause 7.2.3.3 regarding themonths RPI that is referred to, but when it comes to the length of notice to begiven under clause 7.2.2.3 (the strict interpretation is 30 days notice) T-Mobilewant a looser interpretation of “Ample notice”. Either both clauses need to beinterpreted strictly or neither clause – as a business to consumer contract. Iwould argue for neither clause having a strict interpretation as this is abusiness to consumer contract. It is also useful to compare and contract thatT-Mobile consider less than 30 days to be “Ample Notice”, but when they had inexcess of 30 days to compose their price rise letter there was not enough timeto word it clearly enough to articulate which months RPI they were using. So byT-Mobiles own actions even 30 days may not be “Ample notice” for a consumer toresearch, consider, and compile a claim against a price rise that has beenmis-applied.

boatman

"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".

I still take it to mean that they cannot increase their charges by more than the lowest RPI figure in the 12 months before the month in which they inform you.
“Annual rate rises will be awarded at a value equal to the lowest level of RPI in the prevailing 12-month period.”
http://www.supplybusiness.com/previous-articles/spring-09/frankley-speaking/

RandomCurve

boatman wrote: »

"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".

I still take it to mean that they cannot increase their charges by more than the lowest RPI figure in the 12 months before the month in which they inform you.
“Annual rate rises will be awarded at a value equal to the lowest level of RPI in the prevailing 12-month period.”
http://www.supplybusiness.com/previous-articles/spring-09/frankley-speaking/

Did you test this one out with CISAS? If so and it won it is a much easier argument to make than the ones we have been using.

I know when you floated this idea a while back DaveUK (?) thought it would not hold water (but he also thought apart from the V59 contracts no argument stood a chance).
Personally now I have had rulings on my own TM case (V59) and an Orange Contract and seen some of the other rulings, I think if you constructed the argument carefully you could win on this or at least claim that it is ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.

lukat

I thought that out of the 30+ members of this forum who won through CISAS, a lot of them we pre-october v58 contract and that it was easier to win if pre-october as T-Mobile had then revised their terms making it harder to complain? Or am I in the wrong?

IanR2012

lukat wrote: »

it was easier to win if pre-october as T-Mobile had then revised their terms making it harder to complain? Or am I in the wrong?

I feel it was an easier win post-October. Although TM muddied the waters by trying to claim those customers were on pre-October contracts.

The post-October T&C's explicitly stated the RPI "Published" in the month prior to us sending you notice.

The pre-October T&C's didn't specify "Published", so different interpretations could be achieved as to which was the correct RPI.

SteveyAsp

I won on both Pre and Post October Contracts, the Adjudicator said that the way the RPI clause was worded it was open to different interpretations depending on wether you were the Company or the Customer and in this situation the Customer's interpretation should be taken.