Tmobile price increase

ryan92

In that case ouch my sister is with them and upgraded in March so she missed the increase ! Can we try and get out penalty free or will we just have to accept it? I was hit withe orange price increase and so happy to be away from them!!

anna2007

ryan92 wrote: »

In that case ouch my sister is with them and upgraded in March so she missed the increase ! Can we try and get out penalty free or will we just have to accept it? I was hit withe orange price increase and so happy to be away from them!!

One of my TM contracts was taken out in December 2012, and I received a letter in April 2013 to say the price would go up from November 2013. If your sister didn't receive notice of a price increase from TM around the time she upgraded, then there shouldn't be an increase for this year.

There won't be any future increases for the price plan charges on your sister's contract, as the new Ofcom guidance come into effect January, and TM notify customers of any price increase in March/April each year

RandomCurve

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?

The Ofcom wording is the new rules apply to contracts that START in 3 months time - so anybody on a pre 23 Jan 2014 contract can still ENJOY a price increase.

Implementation


1.28 Ofcom will adopt the approach set out in the guidance three months after the date of publication of this statement. It will apply in relation to any new contracts entered into on or after that adoption date.

This is clearly nonsense and is just Ofcom not having the Balls to apply the rules retrospectively (in as much as consumers should have the sums taken over and above the original contract price refunded).

I will (of course!!!) be writing to Ofcom asking them why - as they have clearly identified consumer harm - they are not taking a test case to court so sums can get refunded.

I will also be asking them to:

1. Publish a template letter for consumers to copy to their mobile operator requesting a refund of any price increase sums;
2. Rule that any Operator receiving the letter that does not agree to the refund MUST issue a CISAS case reference number in their reply; and
3. Publish a template CISAS case

If they took that action they would not even have to take a test case as Operators will immediately refund the increases due to the cost of going to CISAS.

I'll post the letter here when it is written (hopefully this weekend)- and you can all feel free to copy/amend and send to Ofcom too.

And YES Ofcom still sitting on the fence re taking action over T-Mobile!

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

The Ofcom wording is the new rules apply to contracts that START in 3 months time - so anybody on a pre 23 Jan 2014 contract can still ENJOY a price increase.

If you look at General Condition 9.6 as it currently stands (and which will continue to apply to existing contracts taken out prior to January 2014 when the updated GC comes into effect), it already allows customers to exit their contracts without penalty due to material detriment. The crucial point is that Ofcom have now defined what is meant by 'material detriment', i.e. ANY increase in the price plan charge will be of material detriment - I took this to mean that existing customers are protected too, as Ofcom's definition can obviously be applied to the current GC.

It would surely open the floodgates for CISAS claims (and be a complete PR disaster) if a network provider tried to impose price increases post-January on existing customers until their contract end, but not new customers for the duration of their contracts?

RandomCurve

anna2007 wrote: »

If you look at General Condition 9.6 as it currently stands (and which will continue to apply to existing contracts taken out prior to January 2014 when the updated GC comes into effect), it already allows customers to exit their contracts without penalty due to material detriment. The crucial point is that Ofcom have now defined what is meant by 'material detriment', i.e. ANY increase in the price plan charge will be of material detriment - I took this to mean that existing customers are protected too, as Ofcom's definition can obviously be applied to the current GC.

It would surely open the floodgates for CISAS claims (and be a complete PR disaster) if a network provider tried to impose price increases post-January on existing customers until their contract end, but not new customers for the duration of their contracts?

I totally agree - and that is why I think all consumers should be able to claim back price increases already imposed -i.e. material detriment is now defined.

I was wondering now if "material Detriment" does not necessarily apply only to financial detriment, but also to a material detriment to your consumer rights, and that it is the detriment to your rights that constitutes the issue and not the financial implications?

RandomCurve

I've just sent the email below to Ofcom (media and MP copied in - distribution list below (My MPs name removed))



Dear Lynn,

I am glad to see that Ofcom has now published its Statement on price rises in fixed term contracts. Whilst it is welcome news that future price rise will not be allowed I am still perplexed as to why Ofcom has not applied the rules retrospectively to ensure that all consumers who were subject to a price rise are reimbursed for the sums taken under the price increases clauses.

I will not quote from your statement as you clearly know what was written, but the wording around transparency, surprises etc. can only lead one to the conclusion that the price rises already imposed under these clauses are likely to fall foul of the UTCCRs, so please can you explain to me why Ofcom is not taking a case to the courts under your consumer protection enforcement powers to have the price rises ruled void?



Whilst that case is pending can Ofcom protect the consumer by taking the following actions:

1. Publish a template letter for consumers to copy to their mobile operator that requests a refund of any sums taken from their accounts over and above that of the originally agreed contract price.
   1. Your consumer protection legal staff can draft the best the case, but I would have thought it would be along the lines of the UTCCRs re price increases not being transparent, companies passing risks to consumers that they could have foreseen and the principle of good faith. And now possibly also material detriment as that is now defined as “Any increase”
2. Rule that any Operator receiving the letter that does not agree to the refund MUST issue a CISAS case reference number to the consumer in their “rejection” reply; and
3. Publish a template for consumers to send to CISAS (which I assume would be almost a copy of the letter being sent to the operator.
   1. This is required to ensure CISAS do not reject cases just because the consumer (who is not required to be a legal expect – and who Ofcom is supposed to protect) has referred to the price rise rather than the implementation of the price rise.

The above should be clearly sign posted on your website and Ofcom should also make press releases to advertise the fact that these templates exist.
I look forward to your response detailing your next steps in this matter.

Regards

Distribution list:

TO:

Lynn Parker <Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk>; "graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk" <graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk>; "VAIZEY, Ed" <ed.vaizey.mp@parliament.uk>; [EMAIL="Claudio.pollack&#64;ofcom.org.uk"]Claudio.pollack@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]; "Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk" [EMAIL="Ed.Richards&#64;ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]


CC
"watchdog@bbc.co.uk" <watchdog@bbc.co.uk>; "which@which.co.uk" <which@which.co.uk>; "joel.taylor@ukmetro.co.uk" <joel.taylor@ukmetro.co.uk>; "Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk" [EMAIL="Edwin.lane&#64;bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]

RandomCurve

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?

They may try that, but arguments would be that they can only apply an annual rate of inflation, and as they last increased prices based on the March 2013 RPI then any annual rate applied before March 2014 is double counting the inflation rate in the overlapping months - and therefore is not legal as it can not possibly be a true representation of the cost increases TM have incurred since March 2013.

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

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?!

I agree. It appears that Ofcom has defined "material detriment" so there can be no argument. All previous increases will have caused material detriment and you should be free to leave. A definition of a term can't just apply to the future use of that term.

RandomCurve

Chimper wrote: »

I agree. It appears that Ofcom has defined "material detriment" so there can be no argument. All previous increases will have caused material detriment and you should be free to leave. A definition of a term can't just apply to the future use of that term.

But the contract says you only have 30 days from when they tell you to request termination - and that is long gone.

TM might be on a bit more shaky ground with "deferred price rises". You could construct an argument that the Jan/Feb or March RPI is irrelevant to your contract as it had not been enforce for 12 months and therefore TM should have already taken account of that inflation in the initial price. Under the UTCCRs they can only apply an increase that reflects their increase in costs - and the Jan/Feb/Mar rate clearly does not for a November contract. The only annual rate they should apply is the annual rate applicable the month before your contract started (current published (relates to Sept) is 3.2%). If the Nov rate is lower than the 3.3% applied I think you might have a case.

RandomCurve

Strangely no response from Ofcom on my last letter. You would have thought that a Regulator with a Consumer Protection remit that delayed publication of its findings for 4 months would be able to respond immediately as to why they have not sought to apply this retrospectively. But then again you would have expected TM to tell customers from the start that it had applied the March RPI rate :rotfl:

Lets see how long it takes them!!!