Tmobile price increase

RandomCurve

I am more convinced then ever that the penalty free cancellation can be achieved!

I asked Ofcom a very simple question in relation to this "adjustment" that EE and Ofcom have agreed (see below) - and they have refused to clarify (referring me to an earlier email they had sent me which simply says that EE will be making an adjustment). This strongly suggest to me Ofcom have no such authority and that we are right that the "adjustment" is a cancellation and the imposition of a new price rise - which triggers your right to a penalty free cancellation!


Under what authority(Communications Act 2003, section?) does Ofcom have the power to:

1. Override the contractual arrangements between a provider and the consumer(except where a T&C is unfair on the CONSUMER).

2. Hasthe power to override the obligations imposed on a provider and the protectionprovided to the consumer under both
a. GC 9.6 and
b. The USD.

seankel1985

Hey everyone,

Firstly i would like to thank Anna for her help with my reponse to CISAS.

Unfortunately a unsuccessful claim from me :mad: Below are the findings why:-

Adjudicator’s findings and reasons

39. I find that:

(a) Firstly, I do not accept the company’s submissions that this complaint is not
covered by the Scheme. I find that this matter is in effect a billing complaint
and those are covered by the Scheme. Secondly, I do not find that this matter
involves a complicated issue of law and as a consequence I find that it is
suitable for determination under the Scheme.

(b) Having held that this complaint is suitable for determination under the
Scheme I have to state from the outset that having considered all the papers
that are before me that I prefer the evidence that has been submitted by the
company.

(c) In my view and I so hold a proper interpretation of clause 7.2.3.3 results in a
finding that the applicable RPI figure is that for March 2013. Clause 7.2.3.3,
as the parties are very well aware, states the following;

"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"

(d) The key phrase in the above clause is "for the 12 months before the month in
which We send You Written Notice”. It is common ground that the written
notice was received by the customer in early April 2013.

(e) I find that on any interpretation of the above clause that the RPI figure which
is to be considered as to be the month before April 2013 and that is March
during which the RPI figure was 3.3% which is not higher than the increase.

(f) I note the customer’s submission that the current RPI was February 2013
because the March figure had not been published when he received notice. I
do not find any force in this argument because the letters have to be read in
conjunction with the Clause 7.2.3.3 which plainly identifies which monthly
figure will be used.

(g) It follows that the customer is unable to terminate his Agreements without
incurring cancellation charges.

(h) I also find that the company have complied with their obligations pursuant to
clause 7.1.4 in that they gave notice of the price increase between the 2nd
and 8th April 2013 and the price increase was to take effect on 9th May 2013.

(i) Further, I do not find the fact that the March 2013 RPI figure was not
published until 16th April as being a factor which undermines the company’s use of that figure because the customer, if it was necessary which it was not, had from 16th April to 9th May 2013 to give notice if their price increase was greater than inflation.

(j) It follows from the above that the customer’s claim is unsuccessful. Given my
decision it is a matter for the customer as to how he now proceeds with his
dealings with the company.

Is there any point in fighting this decision or should i accept it?

Thanks

Sean

RandomCurve

I have no idea where the adjudicator came up with that! Look at the below from the OFT re the requirement for Good Faith. Relying on a rate yet to be published when the letter sent clearly sated "current RPI" is NOT acting in good faith. The fact that by coincidence the rate published fitted the letter is irrelevant - and there is the point that 30 days notice - not "adequate notice" must be given.

The price variation clause clearly needs the word "published" included within it to make it fair - which is what V59 added!

Me - I would take it to the Small Claims Court.



Test of fairness
A term is unfair if:

• Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
• 'Good faith' means that you must deal fairly and openly with consumers. Standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs but must also take account of the interests and rights of consumers by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

Back to top

The plain language requirement

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

anna2007

seankel1985 wrote: »

Unfortunately a unsuccessful claim from me :mad

Really sorry to hear that Sean

I don't remember that adjudicator being mentioned on here before - I think you may well have just been unlucky on who was deciding your case? Looking at your guy's profile on the CISAS website, it seems to be the barristers who find against the customer!!

If you want to take things further (and I agree with Random Curve that you should), you should tell CISAS that you reject the adjudicator's decision and will be taking your case to the SCC. Unfortunately, there's no appeal process at CISAS if you disagree with their decision.

ryan92

RandomCurve wrote: »

When we were going through this back in May it took about 3 to 14 days to get a responses.

I'm guessing that TMs initial response will be either "We have complied with GC 9.6, but we note your concern". OR
"We have not increased your price plan, but have recalculated it in your favour"

It really does not matter what they respond with - TM have broken the rules and you should be able to get a penalty free cancellation.

Let us now what TM respond with once you get it and I will draft a response for you.

10 days have now passed without any correspondance.
I continue to wait and see their response!!

RandomCurve

ryan92 wrote: »

10 days have now passed without any correspondance.
I continue to wait and see their response!!

I would send them a reminder.

ryan92

RandomCurve wrote: »

I would send them a reminder.

Beat you to it!

RandomCurve

I think EE are taking their time because they never thought that anybody would try and cancel their contract on notification of a downward price adjustment!

I also think they are a little worried as this is obviously in breach of their own T&Cs, GC 9.6 and the USD! I am going to upload a little of the correspondence I have had with Ofcom on this - and as you will see they still CAN NOT give a clear answer as to where Ofcom had the authority to agree this with EE.

RandomCurve

Mr Richards is the Chief Executive of Ofcom - as high it goes!



Dear Mr Richards,

You may be aware that I have made an allegation of corruption against Ofcom in connection with Ofcom’s agreement with EE to simply “re-calculate” its mis-applied price rise of May 2013.

This is a serious allegation which I am hoping is unfounded, however despite several attempts to receive a straight forward answer from Mr Graham Howell, to some questions which, depending on the answers, may allow me to drop the allegation, Mr Howell has failed to even acknowledge that these particular question has been asked and instead insists on reply with answers to previous matters.

In order to put this matter to rest and to free up resources at Ofcom to pursue your statutory duty to protect UK Citizens in relation to the communications market can Ofcom provide a clear and unequivocal answer to the questions below?

Please can you let me know?
In relation to Ofcom agreeing to allow EE to simply “recalculate” its mis- applied price rise of May 2013, in direct contravention of GC 9.6 and USD 2002/22/EC, Under what authority (Communications Act 2003, section?) was Ofcom operating which gives Ofcom the power to:

1. Override the contractual arrangements between a provider and the consumer (except where a T&C is unfair on the CONSUMER)?
2. Override the obligations imposed on a provider and the protection provided to the consumer (30 days’ notice and right to termination) under both
   1. Ofcom’s General Condition 9.6 (GC 9.6)? http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ga-scheme/general-conditions/general-conditions-guidelines/background/#gc9
      1. “subscribers to be able to withdraw from contracts penalty-free following a notice of contract modifications”; And;
   2. European legislation (The Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC Chapter IV, Article 20, Paragraph 4 of 7th March 2002 –page 14 and 15)?http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/ind_info/eu_directives/
3. 1. 1. “Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.”

As stated in earlier correspondence if you can quote me the relevant legislation that gives Ofcom such authority I can drop my claim of corruption, and the media will not have a story.

Regards

RC

Now you would think that in response to such a serious allegation (this was email number 5 basically asking for the same information) Ofcom would respond:

1. Quoting the relevant authority,
2. Defending their honour, and
3. Telling me to go away.

Well as you will see from the response they only managed 2 of the 3 (yes 2 and 3 only)

RandomCurve

Graham Howell Secretary to the Corporation Direct line: 020 7981 3601 Direct Fax: 020 7783 4033 graham.howell @ofcom.org.uk

Dear RC,


ALLEGATION OF CORRUPTION AT OFCOM

I write with reference to your e mail of 29 November 2013, addressed to Ed Richards, regarding your concerns about the possible existence of corruption within Ofcom.

I have reviewed this matter and the manner in which Ofcom investigated your original complaint and I do not consider that you have any valid grounds for alleging corruption in this matter.

Ofcom has a duty to consider complaints under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs), a duty which we complied with in the case of your original complaint regarding your contract with T Mobile. We also have powers to take enforcement action under the General Conditions, consumer contract law and the UTCCRs, and accordingly we exercise discretion about whether and when we do so, taking into account all the information available to us. Following our investigation of T Mobile’s price rises to customers on contract versions 58 and 59 we secured an outcome which we considered dealt with this matter appropriately and which, as a result, we decided on grounds of administrative priority not to take any further. We are entitled to do that as a matter of our judgment.

Ofcom considers that this matter is closed. You are of course free to pursue it with the Ombudsman or any other avenue you consider appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

　

Graham Howell

Corporation Secretary

GREEN Text : Ofcom defends its honour (not with facts you notice just with an assertion that it has not been corrupt!

BLUE text: Telling me to go away - This must be the fourth time at least that Ofcom have informed me that the matter is closed! Of course they want to consider it closed because they do not want anybody to notice what they have been up to!
AND I am taking them to the Parliamentary Ombudsman!

RED text: This is the bit where they are supposed to inform me under what section of the Communications Act 2003 Ofcom has the authority to override your contract with EE and remove your rights to protection under both GC 9.6 and the USD! As you can see there is no indication of where Ofcom has the power to do this . Indeed it reads to me that they had a cosy little chat with EE and the 0.1% reduction was the best they were going to get out of EE without a fight - and Ofcom has no backbone for a fight!!

Given the evasiveness of the answer (at the fifth time of asking) I am convinced that Ofcom have over stepped the mark and have acted illegally!