Tmobile price increase

nsabournemouth

This is my last email I'm sending before I go for the small claims court. It's for an Orange number but I'm using the same argument as you are for the T-Mobile increase:


Dear EE,

Further to my recent communication with you regarding the above number I am writing to advise that before I take the matter to the small claims court I would like to have this matter resolved before it gets to that stage.

I must stress that I am more than prepared to take further action. Your last email I feel did not take to account the issues I raised. I put it to Orange that under a European Directive I should have been able to walk away from the contract after the price rise back in April 2013 of 99p was placed on my account.

The relevant European legislation is as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
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 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 you can see this clearly says that I should have been able to terminate the contract. EE have responded saying that Ofcom left it up to the networks to decide what was of detriment to me when you increased the charges. That is false as it breaches the UTCCRs.

I paid on August the 19th £395.68 and I am requesting that this amount be paid back to me.

RandomCurve

everton2004 wrote: »

Well I got another reply....and it seems Mr Walker has given me his final word on the matter :eek:



....Still insisting that CISAS has no jurisdiction in this matter. Time for CISAS? :huh:

I would write back thanking them for confirming that the 3.3% relates to January, and asking if they can also let you know where the 3.2% comes from - and just leave it at that for now.


I can see where they are heading with this, but it would be best to wait and let them put it into their defence when you go to CISAS - you can then address the real issue then (I know I have not explained what the issue is, but as you said yourself they probably monitor these forums.


As an aside it is really interesting to see that they are trying to imply that because the 3.3% was published in the press in March that counts as giving notice (which it does not), when if you had the time to read back over the earlier post in April/May EE were insisting that any publication in March in the press was irrelevant and does not count as notice -they change their tune to suit the circumstances!

RandomCurve

ryan92 wrote: »

Thanks for that, sent along that email to the chancers just there.
How long do CISAS normally take with a claim?

EE have 10 working days to respond to your CISAS claim once CISAS have sent it to them, You then have 5 working days to respond to EEs defence (you do not have to respond), CIAS will make their decision within 3 weeks of receiving your comments on EEs Defence.


Have yo sent in a CISAS claim yet?

RandomCurve

nsabournemouth wrote: »

This is my last email I'm sending before I go for the small claims court. It's for an Orange number but I'm using the same argument as you are for the T-Mobile increase:


Dear EE,

Further to my recent communication with you regarding the above number I am writing to advise that before I take the matter to the small claims court I would like to have this matter resolved before it gets to that stage.

I must stress that I am more than prepared to take further action. Your last email I feel did not take to account the issues I raised. I put it to Orange that under a European Directive I should have been able to walk away from the contract after the price rise back in April 2013 of 99p was placed on my account.

The relevant European legislation is as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
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 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 you can see this clearly says that I should have been able to terminate the contract. EE have responded saying that Ofcom left it up to the networks to decide what was of detriment to me when you increased the charges. That is false as it breaches the UTCCRs.

I paid on August the 19th £395.68 and I am requesting that this amount be paid back to me.

To go to the Small Claims Court (I am taking EE to the SCC on another matter!!), it is recommended that you head your letter as "Letter before action" and also in that letter offer to go through the CISAS arbitration service (the SCC will want to know why an arbitration was not used first so it best to show it was because EE would not use it rather than you not being prepared to go that route).


As on the letter itself I think you should also mention that "Without prejudice" the increase was of "Material Detriment" to you hence why you had cancel the contract (even better if you can show you are paying less per month now with same/more inclusive allowances). You could quote that under the UTCCRs Schedule 2, paragraph 1, (m) EE cannot unilaterally decide what is and is not of Material Detriment, and that the definition of Material determent as it applies to GC 9.6 has been clarified by Ofcom as follows:


Ofcom - "we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental), for the purposes of GC9.6, any increase during the fixed term of the contract to the core subscription price charged to consumers and small business customers by Communications Providers (“CPs”) to whom GC9.6 applies"


Ofcom say the above applies to contracts entered into on or after 23rd January 2014, but as Ofcom are not changing the "law" they are only clarifying a definition, and as the USD was always "any modification" and GC 9.6 is the enactment of the USD, then the clarification is just that, a clarification of a definition, and therefore this is the definition that has always applied to GC 9.6.


Good luck.

everton2004

RandomCurve wrote: »

I would write back thanking them for confirming that the 3.3% relates to January, and asking if they can also let you know where the 3.2% comes from - and just leave it at that for now.

Thanks, have done precisely that. They really are a bunch of numptys, giving differing answers (both to different people and different emails) on the same subject. They ****ed up and they know it. Squeaky bum time for Mr Swantee

ryan92

My sister received the follwoing response today ;

Further to your email dated 8 January 2014, regarding the above account.

As advised in my email dated 3 January 2014, our position in the matter remains unchanged. For this reason I am unable issue a Port Authorisation Code (PAC), without penalty.

The Price Increase is not covered under CISAS and I am unable to issue a deadlock reference number in relation to the above.

I trust this clarifies our final position in this
matter.
Yours sincerely

RandomCurve

ryan92 wrote: »

My sister received the follwoing response today ;

In the original cases back in May EE also refused to issue deadlock references. When I contacted Ofcom about that Ofcom accepted the response they received from EE that went along the lines of in a small number of cases our customer services advisors failed to correctly identify that this matter could be dealt with by CISAS. You can't blame EE for chancing their arm, but you can blame Ofcom for being so inept that they just accepted that position and took no action against EE!


Try the below - you can take this to CISAS after 8 weeks anyway, when did your sister first contact EE?


Have you submitted your CISAS application yet?




Thank you for your email of (10th Jan???).


Due to our previous correspondence EE are fully aware that our dispute is NOT about EEs decision to increase prices, it concerns if EE has complied with its own T&Cs (7.1.4, and 7.2.3.3), GC 9.6, and USD 20/22. Due to this the dispute is about my Bill, and since contacting you it is now also about the quality of customer services (you constantly refuse to acknowledge that the dispute is not about EEs business decision, and mis quote dates etc) and these are the very matters that CISAS was set up to deal with as you can see below which was taken direct from the CISAS website


2 Scope of the scheme


a) The Scheme can be used to settle disputes between a customer and one or more of the subscribing companies about


Bills;
The quality of customer service received;
Communication services provided to customers.


Therefore once again I request that EE provide a CISAS deadlock reference.

ryan92

RandomCurve wrote: »

In the original cases back in May EE also refused to issue deadlock references. When I contacted Ofcom about that Ofcom accepted the response they received from EE that went along the lines of in a small number of cases our customer services advisors failed to correctly identify that this matter could be dealt with by CISAS. You can't blame EE for chancing their arm, but you can blame Ofcom for being so inept that they just accepted that position and took no action against EE!


Try the below - you can take this to CISAS after 8 weeks anyway, when did your sister first contact EE?


Have you submitted your CISAS application yet?




Thank you for your email of (10th Jan???).


Due to our previous correspondence EE are fully aware that our dispute is NOT about EEs decision to increase prices, it concerns if EE has complied with its own T&Cs (7.1.4, and 7.2.3.3), GC 9.6, and USD 20/22. Due to this the dispute is about my Bill, and since contacting you it is now also about the quality of customer services (you constantly refuse to acknowledge that the dispute is not about EEs business decision, and mis quote dates etc) and these are the very matters that CISAS was set up to deal with as you can see below which was taken direct from the CISAS website


2 Scope of the scheme


a) The Scheme can be used to settle disputes between a customer and one or more of the subscribing companies about


Bills;
The quality of customer service received;
Communication services provided to customers.


Therefore once again I request that EE provide a CISAS deadlock reference.

Just sent that email off. I have indeed sent off my claim. I also made sure to include I wanted compensated backdated until my initial complaint as well as £100 for not complying with their t&c's etc.... copied it off another post on here. I hope I've done things correctly?

RandomCurve

ryan92 wrote: »

Just sent that email off. I have indeed sent off my claim. I also made sure to include I wanted compensated backdated until my initial complaint as well as £100 for not complying with their t&c's etc.... copied it off another post on here. I hope I've done things correctly?

To obtain compensation you need to have been specific as to the reasons why you feel it is appropriate - did you follow my post at #2259, or something similar?

everton2004

everton2004 wrote: »

Thanks, have done precisely that. They really are a bunch of numptys, giving differing answers (both to different people and different emails) on the same subject. They ****ed up and they know it. Squeaky bum time for Mr Swantee

Hmm....no reply as yet. Either they're ignoring me or I've spooked them! :rotfl: