Tmobile price increase

ryan92

I really hope they get in touch with me soon ; cant wait to be finished with them forever!

nsabournemouth

RandomCurve wrote: »

Directive 2002/22/EC
Of the European Parliament and of the Council
7thMarch 2002

Chapter IV – End User Agreements

Article 20 – Contracts

Paragraph 4


4. 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 modificationsand 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.

It took a while to find this! As you can see it is modifications - not increases/decreases detriment or anything else. T-Mobile have modified the contractual conditions - and you don't accept them!

Thank you OFCOM for being CORUPT!!!:)
Thank you T-Mobile for being so GREEDY - if you had just cancelled the price rise we would have not looked into this

Does this rule apply to any network and any price increase since this became part of EU law?

Silk

nsabournemouth wrote: »

Does this rule apply to any network and any price increase since this became part of EU law?

It's not law, it's a directive not regulation or law and as such carries no weight other than a recommendation to member states of the EU

RandomCurve

nsabournemouth wrote: »

Does this rule apply to any network and any price increase since this became part of EU law?

Yes it does, but you won't be able to use it for past price rises because you only have 30 days to cancel the contract. HOWEVER
I think you can still get any previous price refunded (even if your contract has ended) - see the forum:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63813901&postcount=29

RandomCurve

Silk wrote: »

It's not law, it's a directive not regulation or law and as such carries no weight other than a recommendation to member states of the EU

In the UK it is adopted under GC 9.6 which says the same thing EXCEPT it includes the words "Material Detriment" rather than "any "modification. Ofcom have now finally given a definition of Material Detriment - which is any modification that the consumer does not like! So effectively it is now law.

As Ofcom have not changed legislation - just clarified the definition, then any future price increases (in even in those taken out before 23rd Jan 2014 when the new "rules" apply, would probably fall foul of the rule - it will be interesting to see if any companies are brave enough to try and impose another price increase before 23rd Jan!

Silk

RandomCurve wrote: »

In the UK it is adopted under GC 9.6 which says the same thing EXCEPT it includes the words "Material Detriment" rather than "any "modification. Ofcom have now finally given a definition of Material Detriment - which is any modification that the consumer does not like! So effectively it is now law.

Whilst it may well be adopted by Ofcom in their General Conditions it does not detract from the fact that EU Directives are just that and it is pointless quoting them.
Hence the confusion caused to nsabournemouth who thought it was EU Law, which it isn't it's just a Directive

RandomCurve

Silk wrote: »

Whilst it may well be adopted by Ofcom in their General Conditions it does not detract from the fact that EU Directives are just that and it is pointless quoting them.
Hence the confusion caused to nsabournemouth who thought it was EU Law, which it isn't it's just a Directive

Whilst I agree it is a directive, I disagree that there is no point in quoting them. If you review Ofcom's statement on Mid Term Price rises they make many cross references to this very directive.

Mobile phone operators would be more aware than us consumers that GC 9.6 is supposed to be the enactment of the USD into the UK so the principle of good faith and open and honest dealings with consumers should have prevented them (in my opinion) increasing prices mid term, or at the very least accepting any claim to terminate penalty free on the basis of Material Detriment. I'm not saying this would win an argument of itself, but it is an indication that they have not acted in Good Faith.

One of many Ofcom references: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/price-rises-fixed-contracts/statement
Background


1.8 Amongst other things, Article 20(2) of the USD sets out, in relation to the provision of telecommunications services, that subscribers (including consumers and small business customers) to such services have a right to withdraw from their contract without penalty where providers modify the contractual conditions. In the UK, this is reflected in GC 9.6.

1.9 In acknowledgment of the general legal principle of proportionality, and the need for regulators to act proportionately, Ofcom has included in GC9.6 a proviso that the rights for which the condition provides apply in respect of modifications of contractual conditions that are likely to cause "material detriment" to the subscriber. Ofcom has, however, re-considered the position following price rises by most major mobile CPs over the last 18 months or so. This statement sets out the judgments we have made and the action we have decided to take.

ryan92

Still no response from my original email sent to them on 21/11/2013 and still no response or acknowledgement from 03/12/2013!

RandomCurve

ryan92 wrote: »

Still no response from my original email sent to them on 21/11/2013 and still no response or acknowledgement from 03/12/2013!

You know what I would do

On the plus side after 8 weeks from your initial contact you can take this to CISAS. The fact that EE have not responded to you within a reasonable time frame will be your reason to say that they have breached the duty of care they owe you in administering the contract for which you are claiming £50 compensation. In the original cases EE always tried to wriggle out of this by saying that they had replied in good time (completely omitting that what they replied with was a load of nonsense!).

You could email stating that if they don't respond within X days you will consider it a breach of their duty of care (it was already in the original email regarding the content of the response, just not the timing).

RandomCurve

I'm not letting them get away with that "brush off"

Dear Mr Richards,

I can only assume that youwere not given the opportunity to read Mr Howells letter to me before it wassent, as whilst we have some progress in that he has finally acknowledged my“concerns about possible existence of corruption within Ofcom”, in relation to Ofcomagreeing to allow EE to simply “recalculate” its mis- applied price rise of May2013 he has not clearly stated under which section of the Communications Act 2003Ofcom has the legal authority to:

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

2. Override the obligations imposed on a provider and the protectionprovided to the consumer (30 days’ notice and right to termination) under both

1. Ofcom’s General Condition9.6 (GC 9.6)? 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)?



I have put my comments to MrHowells’ response in blue below and trust that you will be able to offer a morestraight forward answer to the straight forward question posed above which issimply asking to know where Ofcomderives the authority to override the consumer safeguards outlined above. Imust admit I am totally at a loss as to why Ofcom is finding it so difficult toanswer such a clear and straight forward question.



Should, on reflection, Ofcomdecide that there is no statute that gives it the authority to act as it has,then all Ofcom has to do is simply correct its error by enforcing theregulations to ensure that EE complies with its own T&Cs, GC 9.6, and theUSD. i.e that EE writes to customers informing them that the May 2013 pricerise has been cancelled and that a new price rise is being imposed followingthe rules laid down in its own T&Cs and GC 9.6



Regards



RC



Dear RC,

ALLEGATION OF CORRUPTION AT OFCOM

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

I have reviewed this matterand the manner in which Ofcom investigated your original complaint and I do notconsider that you have any valid grounds for alleging corruption in thismatter. No evidenceprovided- just an assertion that there is no corruption. This seems to be anendemic default position within Ofcom, as one of my complaints against Ofcomwhich I am taking to the Parliamentary Ombudsman is that Ofcom merely acceptswhat it is told by EE without seeking corroborative evidence of the statementsmade – my standards of evidence are apparently higher than Ofcom’s, and thereforeI request the evidence to support this assertion (i.e the statute that givesOfcom the power to act as it has). For clarity I have never made an allegation ofcorruption about Ofcom in relation to the way the Ofcom investigated my originalclaim (I have my doubts, but have never expressed these). My allegation isentirely in relation to the remedy for T-Mobile customers as a whole.

Ofcom has a duty to considercomplaints under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs), aduty which we complied with in the case of your original complaint regardingyour contract with T Mobile.Ofcom only complied after SEVERALrequest for Ofcom to look into this – and Ofcom have not looked into mycompliant that V58 is also unfair as it omits the word “published” andtherefore allows EE to rely on an unpublished rate (which is exactly what EEhave done) which clearly goes against the principles of Transparency, Open andHonest dealings and Good Faith – all part of the UTCCRs over which Ofcom haveenforcement powers. So now that you admit that Ofcom does indeed have a DUTY toconsider complaints under the UTCCRS perhaps you can fulfil that duty byproperly reviewing V58, If it helps I can send you the compliant again. We also havepowers to take enforcement action under the General Conditions, consumercontract law and the UTCCRs, and accordingly we exercise discretion aboutwhether and when we do so, taking into account all the information available tous. Yes, these are all thingsthat Ofcom can do – but any actions (as far as I am aware) that Ofcom takesmust be LEGAL and within Ofcom’s powers – none of the acts/regulations youmentioned gives Ofcom the authority to override T&Cs (except for thebenefit of the consumer), nor override the protection offered to consumersunder GC 9.6 and the USD) Following our investigation (You told me before it was not an investigation – what was itan investigation or not? The processes and public reporting are very specificfor an investigation) of T Mobile’s pricerises to customers on contract versions 58 and 59 we secured an outcome whichwe considered dealt with this matter appropriately and which, as a result, wedecided on grounds of administrative priority not to take any further. We are entitled to do that as a matter of ourjudgment. Ofcom’s judgement on dealing with a matter “appropriately”must be compliant with the law and Ofcom’s powers – and not just convenient forEE. There is no provision in EE’s T&Cs to “re-calculate” illegally imposed priceincreases. All they can do is cancel the wrong increase and impose a newincrease – and as you know to impose a new increase they have to comply with theirown T&Cs, GC 9.6, and the USD. For Ofcom to have acted “appropriately” inthis matter it must have the authority to agree the “secured outcome” –and thatis why I am asking you which section of The Communications Act enable Ofcom todirect EE to override the consumer protection rules? As EE is by far thelargest CP in the UK if a blatant mis application of the price rise (pricebeing considered one of the most important terms in the UTCCRS) is made itfollows that it affects the maximum amount of consumers that can be affected byone CPs actions. If Ofcom does not take that as an “administrative priority”(maximum amount of customers disadvantaged by the most important contractclause) then just how badly can a CP act, and how many consumers need to beharmed before something becomes an “administrative priority” for Ofcom?

Ofcom considers that thismatter is closed I’ve lost count of how many times you have told me this. Whilstyou might not like the claims I make, none have been frivolous and I havealways provided you with the facts/evidence which I honestly believe support myclaims. I have not been rude in any of my correspondence, yet you arrogantlytry to dismiss my concerns by assuming you can unilaterally consider the matterclosed! This is both insulting to me on a personal level (as you know I have novested interest in this, having won cases at CISAS on both of my contracts),and disappointing on a broader level to see that the regulator who has astatutory duty to protect the UK citizen in such matters simply tries to brushaside any citizen who dares to questions its operations. I request that yourefrain from adopting this arrogant position in future correspondence, and thatwe continue to communicate until Ofcom provide the answer to the questionposed. You are of course free to pursue it with theOmbudsman or any other avenue you consider appropriate. As you are aware I am in the process ofdoing this. Unfortunately my appointment with my MP scheduled for 29thNovember had to be rescheduled to 13th December, so I will becompleting the required paperwork then.



Yours sincerely,



Graham Howell

Corporation Secretary