Tmobile price increase

RandomCurve

Just out of interest I asked T-Mobile to send me a copy of my T&Cs (my contract was taken out Mid December 2012) and they have sent me the PRE OCT 2012 T&C's, so I guess they either made a genuine mistake (I doubt it though) or they think the pre Oct 2012 T&C's are easier for them to defend.

Still waiting for then to send me a letter/email explaining why they are not in breach.

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

Pre Oct 2012 contract holders
Boatman is 100% spot on (post #232) the use of the word "ANY" rather than "THE" does mean you have to look at each of the 12 months RPI preceding notice and they can not go higher than the lowest one!!!

Everyone Elsewhere
Don't get mad get EEven

Agreed, Boatman's interpretation makes real sense, and as s/he pointed out in previous post (#185?), this is probably the reason the clause was amended in the latest terms.

However, I think their use of the word "ANY" could still be read to mean any increase in the previous month's RPI (covering the 12 month period), but there may not be an increase if RPI is zero or negative (unlikely, I know, but has happened in recent years). This interpretation obviously favours T-Mobile (as there most likely will be an increase and they can raise prices up to this amount), whereas the other interpretation favours the consumer (as it limits the increase to the lowest rate in the previous 12 months). Not sure if that makes any sense at all - I know in my head what I'm trying to say!

The only sure thing about the wording is that it is ambiguous, and that EE's interpretation is pants :rotfl:

tylerdurdenk

RandomCurve wrote: »

You need to write in - I put some templates up on the forum a few days back - choose the pre or post October 2012 letter as appropriate (note you may need to change the clauses I have used to fit with your contract). use the Hatfield address.

Everyone Elsewhere

I will be sure to do this ASAP. As far as your templates go, are you able to link to them here?

RandomCurve

anna2007 wrote: »

Agreed, Boatman's interpretation makes real sense, and as s/he pointed out in previous post (#185?), this is probably the reason the clause was amended in the latest terms.

However, I think their use of the word "ANY" could still be read to mean any increase in the previous month's RPI (covering the 12 month period), but there may not be an increase if RPI is zero or negative (unlikely, I know, but has happened in recent years). This interpretation obviously favours T-Mobile (as there most likely will be an increase and they can raise prices up to this amount), whereas the other interpretation favours the consumer (as it limits the increase to the lowest rate in the previous 12 months). Not sure if that makes any sense at all - I know in my head what I'm trying to say!

The only sure thing about the wording is that it is ambiguous, and that EE's interpretation is pants :rotfl:

Yep I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense - but with such ambiguity in these no wonder it sometimes seem to hard to express it.

Just spoke to EE again to chase up when they are going to respond to my cancellation request - they said an email is in the system and will be with me today. They also said the results of their internal legal investigation into the T&Cs and price letter concluded it was legal, at which point I "bit my tongue" and simply replied, that I obviously disagree with that conclusion, but I will wait to see the rationale before deciding on what to do next.

RandomCurve

tylerdurdenk wrote: »

I will be sure to do this ASAP. As far as your templates go, are you able to link to them here?

They are posts #197 and #198 on page 10 of this thread.

I sent my letter by registered post which cost 1.70p, and you can then check when the letter has been signed for.

daveuk1

RandomCurve wrote: »

Thanks daveuk1 I was not aware of that rule (below from Wikipidea). I think that just adds strength to the argument against our friends at T-mobile.

Contra proferentem ([link removed as as new user]: "against [the] offeror"),[link removed as as new user] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a [link removed as as new user] of [link removed as new user] interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or [link removed as as new user] is [link removed as as new user], the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[link removed as as new user] The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal [link removed as new user]bargaining power,We can agree it is a monumental

anna2007 wrote: »

Agreed, Boatman's interpretation makes real sense, and as s/he pointed out in previous post (#185?), this is probably the reason the clause was amended in the latest terms.

However, I think their use of the word "ANY" could still be read to mean any increase in the previous month's RPI (covering the 12 month period), but there may not be an increase if RPI is zero or negative (unlikely, I know, but has happened in recent years). This interpretation obviously favours T-Mobile (as there most likely will be an increase and they can raise prices up to this amount), whereas the other interpretation favours the consumer (as it limits the increase to the lowest rate in the previous 12 months). Not sure if that makes any sense at all - I know in my head what I'm trying to say!

The only sure thing about the wording is that it is ambiguous, and that EE's interpretation is pants :rotfl:

It's crap drafting. The other complication is that the RPI rate used (by T-Mobile and most people) is the 12-month rate, not the 1-month rate (which has been as low as -0.2% in the past 12-months, effectively denying T-Mobile the right to increase prices at all according to the alternative interpretation). In my view, this lends weight to T-Mobile's interpretation of 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. In fact, you could argue that the use of the word "for" rather than "in" further strengthens their position.

Hopefully, the immense crapness of the drafting and the rules of interpretation will work against T-Mobile. I just wouldn't put any money on it.

RandomCurve

RandomCurve wrote: »

I've just re read your letter from T-Mobile and your post above, and I read the paragraph as meaning - you CAN cancel without a termination charge as long as you give 30 days notice. Obviously not what they meant to mean, but by using "OR" you have the choice to give 30 days notice and leave without a charge or leave immediately and incur a termination charge. I think they meant to use AND, but they have not.

For others who don't mind waiting 30 days it may be worth writing back along the lines of "whilst the T&Cs do not require me to give you 30 days notice, as you have now informed me that T-mobiles intention behind clause 7.2.3.3 is to allow me the choice to either leave immediately and incur a termination charge OR to give 30 days notice of cancelation and leave without a termination charge please treat this letter as notice of my intention to leave T-Mobile in 30 days from the date of this letter without a termination charge as offered to me by T-Mobile in the penultimate paragraph of your letter dated XX"

OR - "introducing the second of two alternatives" definition from the Concise English Dictionary (Ninth Edition)

Is this just me misinterpreting or is it yet ANOTHER example of their legal experts not possessing a dictionary?

daveuk1 - any insights as to the use of the word OR in the above?

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

It's crap drafting. The other complication is that the RPI rate used (by T-Mobile and most people) is the 12-month rate, not the 1-month rate (which has been as low as -0.2% in the past 12-months, effectively denying T-Mobile the right to increase prices at all according to the alternative interpretation). In my view, this lends weight to T-Mobile's interpretation of 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. In fact, you could argue that the use of the word "for" rather than "in" further strengthens their position.

Hopefully, the immense crapness of the drafting and the rules of interpretation will work against T-Mobile. I just wouldn't put any money on it.

Agree about the crappy drafting, but I don't think either side is disputing that it is the 12-month rate that applies to the clause (Boatman's earlier post also quotes the 12-month rates when s/he was giving his/her interpretation). The dispute is over which of those 12-month rates is the right one, and EE are claiming it is the one from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013, published April 2013. If you take a literal view of the clause then yes, this could fit, but taken in context (looking at what they did last year, what the updated terms now state and the nonsense of being able to accurately predict the future), surely a court would reject a literal interpretation?

daveuk1

RandomCurve wrote: »

daveuk1 - any insights as to the use of the word OR in the above?

Only that you're dealing with someone who clearly doesn't appreciate the implications of the nuances of language! They obviously meant "and" not "or" but I can't see that one rep's lack of linguistic sophistication would be binding on T-Mobile in any event, I'm afraid.

anna2007 wrote: »

Agree about the crappy drafting, but I don't think either side is disputing that it is the 12-month rate that applies to the clause (Boatman's earlier post also quotes the 12-month rates when s/he was giving his/her interpretation). The dispute is over which of those 12-month rates is the right one, and EE are claiming it is the one from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013, published April 2013. If you take a literal view of the clause then yes, this could fit, but taken in context (looking at what they did last year, what the updated terms now state and the nonsense of being able to accurately predict the future), surely a court would reject a literal interpretation?

Personally, I don't think what they did last year is relevant. The problem we have is that, by sheer dumb luck, T-Mobile will not now (literally) be in breach of their pre-October '12 Ts & Cs by refusing to allow cancellation as per 7.2.3.3. My fear is that the fact that they have got there by luck may not matter. Of course they didn't know when they sent out the letters and of course they made a mistake and were referrring to February's RPI figure but I'm not convinced any of that actually matters or is legally relevant to the question of whether they have triggered cancellation rights under 7.2.3.3.

stoney73

daveuk1 wrote: »

Only that you're dealing with someone who clearly doesn't appreciate the implications of the nuances of language! They obviously meant "and" not "or" but I can't see that one rep's lack of linguistic sophistication would be binding on T-Mobile in any event, I'm afraid.



Personally, I don't think what they did last year is relevant. The problem we have is that, by sheer dumb luck, T-Mobile will not now (literally) be in breach of their post-October '12 Ts & Cs by refusing to allow cancellation as per 7.2.3.3. My fear is that the fact that they have got there by luck may not matter. Of course they didn't know when they sent out the letters and of course they made a mistake and were referrring to February's RPI figure but I'm not convinced any of that actually matters or is legally relevant to the question of whether they have triggered cancellation rights under 7.2.3.3.

Would they still be in breach of the Pre-October '12 Ts & Cs?