Tmobile price increase

lukat

Got my PAC a week ago, and got the money today, a lil more than £300.
I feel like I should have received more like £3000 for all the stress and anxiety caused. But at least I am not an EE/T-Mobile/Orange customer anymore. Freedom! That's the most important thing.
And I am now on a monthly rolling contract!
Thanks again for this thread and everyone's contributions!
Looking forward to see the conclusions of the Ofcom investigation in the near future!

seankel1985

Hi guys, went down the CISAS route and just received Tmobiles defence for the case. Anyone any idea of what to do next? Below is a copy of their defence: -

1. On 2 September 2013, the Respondent’s name was changed from Everything Everywhere Limited to EE Limited. This was certified by the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales on that date (Company No. 2382161).

2. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart of the Claimant’s Claim relates solely to a business decision taken by the Respondent to increase its prices.

3. Rule 2(g) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) provides that the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about
i) bills and;
ii) communications services provided to the Respondent’s customers.

4. Rule 2(j) of the Rules provides that the dispute must not involve a complicated issue of law.

5. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant concerns the right of a customer to terminate their contract without paying a cancellation charge – it does not relate to a bill, or to communication services, and so falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g). It is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Scheme.

6. Further the dispute, as pleaded, necessitates the consideration of the legal interpretation of clauses contained within the Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) entered into between the Claimant and Respondent, applied as against facts, to ascertain whether a legal right of termination exists. The Respondent submits that such issues of legal interpretation require the evaluation and application of the law concerning contractual interpretation, an issue on which even the appellate courts often disagree. The law on contractual interpretation is complicated (see for example The Interpretation of Contracts, by Kim Lewison) and difficult to apply.

7. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme (as to do so would be a breach of rule 2(j)) and so pursuant to the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to
consider the Claimant’s claim.

8. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.

RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
9. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.

10. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters
into service agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access the
services. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.

11. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the
issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject to the
Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.

12. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent since 4 June 2012 in
respect to account number XXXXXX. The Claimant currently has two active
mobile numbers registered with the Respondent, being 07XXXXXXXX and
07XXXXXXXX
.
13. The Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the First Agreement”) with
the Respondent in respect of mobile number 07XXXXXXX (“the First Mobile
Number) on 4 June 2012. The Respondent issued the Claimant with a SIM
card which was allocated with the First Mobile Number, which was allocated
to account number XXXXXXX.

14. The Claimant entered into a further Service Agreement (“the Second
Agreement”) with the Respondent in respect of mobile number 07XXXXXXX
(“the Second Mobile Number”) on 21 August 2012. The Respondent issued
the Claimant with a further SIM card which was allocated with the Second
Mobile Number, which was allocated to account XXXXXX.

15. The Claimant entered into the Agreement via one of the Respondent’s
authorised retailers. The Claimant was provided with the terms and conditions
applicable to the Agreement at the point of entering into the Agreement.

16. The Respondent maintains a paperless environment with regards to
Agreements entered into with its customers but does not retain a copy.
However, the Respondent maintains a record of the applicable terms and
conditions that govern each Agreement entered into.

17. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is an extract from the Respondent’s billing
system which sets out the information captured as at 4 June 2012 and 21
August 2012 in respect to the First and Second Agreements. The terms and
conditions subject to the First and Second Agreements are referenced as being
Conditions Version 58.

18. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being
Conditions Version Number 58 (CVN58) applicable to the Agreements entered
into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions
governing the Agreements contains amongst other things the following;-
(i) Clause 2.1 – The Respondent will open an account in the Claimant’s
name and apply charges to it;
(ii) Clause 2.5.1 - Unless We agree otherwise, a new Minimum Term will
apply. Once that Minimum Term is over this Agreement will continue
until terminated;
(iii) Clause 7.1.4.- 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;
(iv) Clause 7.2.2. - You can only give Us notice to terminate this
Agreement by calling customer services. Your Agreement will
terminate 30 days from when We receive Your call, although You are
free to change Your mind and call Us to withdraw Your notice of
termination at any time during that period. You will be responsible for
all Charges up to and including the date that this Agreement terminates;
(v) Clause 7.2.3 - A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the
Minimum Term and:
(a) 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.

19. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 on or about the 2-8 April 2013 the Respondent issued
to the Claimant written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 3.3%
increase in price plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 9 May
2013. The Respondent submits that adequate Written Notice was provided to
the Claimant for the purposes of Clause 7.1.4.

20. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 3.3% is an increase above the
Retail Price Index (‘RPI’) (when calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months
before the month in which the Respondent issued the Claimant with written
notice of such increase.

21. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase
which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a
cancellation charge.

22. As at the date upon which the Written Notice was issued, the relevant month’s
RPI figure for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 of the Agreement is the RPI
figure published by the Office of National Statistics (“ONS”) representing
March 2013. The March RPI figure, published by the ONS Statistics was
3.3%. By way of the Monthly Statistical Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) published by
the ONS the following is stated:-
The RPI 12-month rate for March [2013] stood at 3.3%
The Bulletin is a lengthy document so has not annexed to this Defence but can
be made available to CISAS upon request.

23. The following is a summary of the RPI figures issued by the ONS month by
month for the period January 2013 to March 2013.
RPI Month RPI Percentage RPI Publication
Date
December 2013 3.1% 15 January 2013
January 2013 3.3% 12 February 2013
February 2013 3.2% 19 March 2013
March 2013 3.3% 16 April 2013

24. As the increase in charges of 3.3% set out within the Written Notice is not
higher than the RPI published for the month before the month in which the
Written Notice was issued (March 2013) of 3.3% the Claimant is not entitled
pursuant to Clause 7.2.3.3 of the Agreement or otherwise to cancel the
Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.

25. The RPI figure of 3.2% published by the ONS on 19 March 2013 as referred
to by the Claimant within his application relates to the RPI figure for
February 2013. The RPI figure published by the ONS in a given month
relates to the preceding month and not the actual month of publication.
Therefore the figure referred to by the Claimant as published on 19 March
2013 is actually the RPI figure for February 2013 and not the RPI figure for
March 2013.

26. The Respondent avers that published RPI figure for March 2013 is the correct
figure to use in accordance with the wording of Clause 7.2.3.3. Clause 7.2.3.3
specifically refers to the ‘Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage)
for the 12 months before the month in which we send You Written Notice.
(emphasis added). It follows, in line with the wording of Clause 7.2.3.3, that
the Written Notice being issued on or around 2-8 April 2013 relates to the RPI
figure for March 2013 published on 16 April 2013. Whilst the March RPI
figure was not issued until after the date of the Written Notice, that fact does
not affect the construction and interpretation of the Clause 7.2.3.3.

27. It is denied, if such is alleged, that the fact that March 2013 RPI figure had not
been published at the time the Written Notice was given restricts the
Claimant’s ability to give notice to cancel as pleaded or at all. Clause 7.2.2.3
provided that notice to cancel (no such right being admitted) was required to be
given prior to the new charge taking effect. The new charge was to take effect
on 9 May 2013. The March 2013 RPI figure was published on 16 April 2013.
The Claimant therefore still had ample opportunity if the relevant RPI rate
gave grounds to cancel (none being admitted) to give notice before the new
charge took effect.

28. Whilst the Respondent acknowledges the Claimant’s request to terminate his
Agreements within the minimum term period pursuant to Clause 7.2.2 the
Respondent submits that in processing the termination the Claimant would be
liable for the cancellation charges for the remainder of the minimum term
periods in respect of the Agreements. As at today’s date such figure would be
£140.24 in respect of the First Agreement and £195.00 in respect of the Second
Agreement, reducing on a daily basis.

29. Pending the outcome of the Claimant’s claim the Respondent has not
processed the Claimant’s request for termination; however it remains the
Respondent’s view that in doing so the Claimant remains liable for the
cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that in the event that the
adjudicator finds in the Respondent’s favour and the Claimant does not elect
subsequently to retract the termination request that it will process the
Claimant’s request to terminate the Agreement and back date such request to
30 days from receipt of the notice, subject to the Claimant paying the
cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that it would however also
accept the Claimant’s withdrawal of their request to terminate the Agreement,
should he so wish to withdraw such request.

30. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its
duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent has provided a response to the
Claimant in a timely fashion and such response has been consistent as
evidenced by the correspondence attached to the Claimant’s CISAS
application. Whilst the Claimant appears to dislike the content of such response
it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty of care to the
Claimant.

31. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant to allow him to cancel
the Agreements without payment of the relevant cancellation charges as set out
above. The Respondent further denies that it is liable to the Claimant to
provide a refund of any charges paid since receipt of the Claimant’s complaint
on 30 April 2013 as pleaded, or at all.

32. The Claimant claims the sum of £268.45 in compensation. The Respondent
denies that the Claimant is entitled to compensation in the sum of £268.45 as
pleaded or at all. If the Claimant had suffered actual loss he would have
pleaded that damage as a quantified sum and furthermore provided evidence to
support such a claim. The Claimant has not done so and as a consequence is
not entitled to any compensation. The Claimant is hereby put to strict proof as
to his purported loss.

33. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded, or at all.
The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly
authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.

Dated 18th…….day of…….October……..2013

Helen Young

seankel1985

Hi guys, would appreciate any advice with this. Have until 28th Oct to reply. I have been working off template letters created by others for this and lost when it comes to a reply for this.

stoney73

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/23/new-ofcom-ruling-lets-you-ditch-your-mobile-contract-if-the-pric/

anna2007

stoney73 wrote: »

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/23/new-ofcom-ruling-lets-you-ditch-your-mobile-contract-if-the-pric/

Thanks Stoney, Ofcom press release here:
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/10/23/protection-for-consumers-against-mid-contract-price-rises/

Very interesting that Ofcom has determined that any increase to the core price should be deemed to be of material detriment to the customer - surely this is relevant for all previous price increases and could be used by any customer wanting to challenge the CP (in the courts at least)?

Also, the guidance isn't due to come into effect for another three months, very considerate of Ofcom to allow the network providers time to impose more price hikes! Good to know though that T-Mobile/EE won't get another chance to apply an RPI increase without their customers being free to walk away.

boatman

Seems unfair, material detriment should have applied to all of us, this year and last year.

anna2007

seankel1985 wrote: »

Hi guys, would appreciate any advice with this. Have until 28th Oct to reply. I have been working off template letters created by others for this and lost when it comes to a reply for this.

There doesn't appear to be anything new in TM's defence that they haven't used in other cases. I'd suggest having a look through Random Curve's posts, as he's posted lots of useful stuff (first post at the top of this page, click on Random Curve's username, then 'find other posts by RC'). I had a quick look and post #2067, for example, may be of help, and there will be more further back. I posted up my response to the TM defence (a long time ago!), I'll find it and add the post number here.

I think most on here have responded to each point in the defence in turn, which breaks it down, it can look quite daunting seen as a whole. Obviously, if you disagree with any of TM's points, or it is factually inaccurate, then give your reasons why, and refer back to any documents that support your view, if necessary.

Also, keep your reply relevant to the statements in your initial CISAS claim, and the arguments made in the TM defence, as you're not supposed to introduce any new evidence at this stage.

Hope this helps and good luck!

EDIT - Can't find my reply to TM's defence (PM me if you'd like a copy), but some of the arguments I used are in the following posts:

944 (page 48)
1,253 & 1,255 (page 63)

A wee trip down memory lane for me there

anna2007

boatman wrote: »

Seems unfair, material detriment should have applied to all of us, this year and last year.

I agree, the issue with using the material detriment route was always that it wasn't clearly defined (and left to the network provider to decide?). Ofcom appear to have opened a big can of worms by categorically stating that ANY increase above the core price will be seen as materially detrimental - why would that be any different for previous price increases?!

ryan92

http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/price-changes/

The majority of our customers are affected by this change. However, if you recently joined or upgraded with T-Mobile the increase will be delayed until November 2013.

Is it right to assume there is going to be a rise for those who missed the last increase due to just joining them?

anna2007

ryan92 wrote: »

http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/price-changes/



Is it right to assume there is going to be a rise for those who missed the last increase due to just joining them?

Unfortunately, it looks like that rise will still go ahead, as the new Ofcom guidance won't come in until January.

The delayed increase for new customers was the main reason I decided to dig my heels in and fight to cancel my contracts, as it looked like a blatant attempt by TM to dodge the outcome of the Ofcom consultation, which was originally due in June.