Tmobile price increase

stoney73

daveuk1 wrote: »

This appears to be a common misunderstanding of the RPI rates and what they relate to. The 3.3% figure release on 16 April 2013 is the 12-month RPI figure reflecting the increase in prices (or rather a particular mechanism for measuring the increase in prices) in the 12 months prior to April 2013. It's not an average, as such.



Based on their nonsense email that you quote, you're quite right, but their email is complete nonsense because a) you don't have to give 30 days notice to cancel under 7.2.3.3 and b) they've expressed themselves ambiguously but they clearly mean to say that you can't cancel without giving them 30 days notice AND paying applicable cancellation charges BECAUSE they don't accept that 7.2.3.3 applies in this instance.

I'm just trying to get them to commit to a fixed set of figures, rather than te vage nonsense they keep spouting.
If we can get them to commit to one set, it will be easier for all of us to see where we stand.

RandomCurve

anna2007 wrote: »

I seem to recall someone saying (may have been another forum) that there was a clause in the terms requiring T-Mobile to write to customers when their price increase was above RPI, informing them of their right to cancel without penalty?

I can't find any reference to it in the T&C's - does anyone know if this is right, and where I can find it in the terms?

I've been doing at little research and have found 2 documents on OFCOM that may help the general cause, the first of which relates to your question:


TheGeneral Conditions of Entitlement
9.3 Where the Communications Provider intends to modify acondition in a contract with a Consumer which is likely to be of materialdetriment to the Consumer, the Communications Provider shall:

(a) provide the Consumer with at least one month’s notice ofits intention detailing the proposed modification; and

(b) inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate thecontract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to theConsumer.
As far as I am aware from the letter I received T-Mobile are in breach of point (b) as it only refers to a right cancel and "to pay any charges that may apply". (May being their argument no doubt that they have complied), but I would have thought they would be required to be more specific.

The next link is also from Ofcom and relates to guidance on the general conditions regarding transparency (The underlining is mine):

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/addcharges/statement/Guidance.pdf

23.3 Transparency: All terms, whether they relate to exemptor non- exempt matters, are required to be expressed in plain, intelligiblelanguage (Regulations 6(2) and 7(1)). Terms must also be set out with due prominence which reflects theirimportance to the parties.9

24. The following parts of the Regulations are of particularrelevance to this Guidance.

We refer to these as requirements of “transparency.” Amongstother things, these transparency requirements mean that the wording of termsmust be comprehensible to consumers, and such that they can understand how theterm affects the rights and obligations both parties have under thecontract. Terms must be sufficientlyclear that consumers can have a proper understanding of them for sensible andpractical purposes. Where a term does not meet the transparency requirements amatter which would otherwise be exempt under Regulation 6(2) will not beexempt, and the fairness test will apply.

25. Regulation 5(1) provides that: “A contractual term whichhas not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contraryto the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in theparties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment ofthe consumer.” 26. Regulation 6(2), which sets out matters exempt from thefairness test in Regulation 5(1), provides that:

9 Some terms may come within the exemption if they are sufficientlyprominent and transparent, which may include drawing them to a consumer’sspecific attention, but not otherwise (See, for example, Mann J’s comments atparagraph 54 of his judgment in Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009]EWHC 1681 (Ch) and Lord Mance’s at paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court’s judgmentin Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and others [2009] 3 W.L.R.1215). Some terms are also more likelyto be fair the more prominent and transparent they are (see paragraphs 79, 91,92 and 104 of the Foxtons judgment), though prominence and transparency aloneare no guarantee of fairness.

The Foxton case is particular interesting!! I think the above and the comments yesterday re Contra proferentem. Must start to build a case.

RandomCurve

Another thing that has been bugging me and I'd welcome some views (supportive or otherwise -My contract was December 2012, so I'm "home free" I think"!!!) is:

T-Mobile sent out a letter on the same dates saying the same thing to customers on 2 different contracts. As T-Mobile KNOW they must give 30 days notice then it is reasonable to assume that the RPI they refer to is the same in both cases (is it??), otherwise they would have delayed the letters - and the price rise - to the Pre October contract customers. As the Post October 2012 contract (I've checked - effective 1st November), is much clearer and less ambiguous in its wording should not a fair interpretation be that the it is the February RPI published in March which is the correct interpretation (AM I clutching at straws -or does this make sense?) Especially if you also overlay:

• the Contra proferentem rule,
• OFT Transparency rules,
• The fact that T-Mobile announced 3.3% on 1st March,
• T-Mobile have put in writing that the RPI relates to January, and
• The letter clearly states CURRENT RPI
  • and Current can not refer to an RPI that has not been published as that is a FUTURE RPI.

Feel free to shoot the above down -but as I said in an earlier post it may be a matter of finding lots of little chinks that bring this to a head.

RandomCurve

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The missus is having an exchange of emails as Orange changed their terms and conditions without notifying customers and also because of the price increase. Appears the Executives Office at Everything Everywhere is under so much pressure they are sending out generic t-mobile emails out to Orange customers.!!

This is the latest email th missus received, had to chuckle as Orange do-sent have a clause 7.2.3.3!!

Lucky me I also have an Orange contract and have the same issue. Take a look at the link below it shows that Orange have already agreed they are in breach and customers can cancel.

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/orange/

RandomCurve

shedder101 wrote: »

send the letter but remember you have to use the pac code before 30 days else your still with t mobile and libel to the charges.

i called them for my pac code and used it with a new supplier that then generated the letter they sent me demanding payment, i followed up my call with a recorded delivery letter to confirm why i cancelled and why, cant trust telephone calls.

DON'T use a PAC code until this mess is sorted - if you do they will say you cancelled before the dispute was settled -and you will have to pay the cancellation charge. They can send a new PAC code when (if) they are proved wrong.

oopsadaisydoddle

RandomCurve wrote: »

Lucky me I also have an Orange contract and have the same issue. Take a look at the link below it shows that Orange have already agreed they are in breach and customers can cancel.

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/orange/

I can't see where anyone was successful on this site. I still have Orange contracts too but as far as I can read, this doesn't show proof that anyone has actually got out of their contracts?

RandomCurve

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I can't see where anyone was successful on this site. I still have Orange contracts too but as far as I can read, this doesn't show proof that anyone has actually got out of their contracts?

So as not to mix up the T-Mobile issue with the Orange Issue (don't want to become EE now do I!!) I'll PM you - If I can work out how to do it.

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

So as not to mix up the T-Mobile issue with the Orange Issue (don't want to become EE now do I!!) I'll PM you - If I can work out how to do it.

There is a thread about the Orange issue

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4517039

RandomCurve

Another few titbits of interesting information:

In the letter I received from T-Mobile the price rise was due to "...because of inflation" However if you look at the "EE Results for the Year Ended 31st December 2012" Published 19/2/13 https://explore.ee.co.uk/our-company/financials (I highlighted in red and added the blue text).

You will find the following statement:


Our Company: Progressed lowering cost base

During the year we made substantialprogress simplifying and streamlining the business to reduce costs. OurNetwork Optimisation programme completed the year on track. 2,659 sites weredecommissioned, 39% of which occurred in Q4. We completed supply chain andretail IT systems integration. We also refurbished our entire retail estategiving all customers access to sales and service in all our stores, andannounced plans to close 78 redundant stores in 2013.

We reduced indirect costs by 3.1% yoy (year on Year). Weachieved an annual run rate of £369m in gross opex savings or 83% of the £445mannual run rate goal and are on track for £3.5bn+ NPV in synergy savings by2014.

So INDIRECT cost have reduced by 3.1% and Operating cost have reduced by £369m (run rate). Feel like you are being taken for a fool ? Now of course their costs would have increased due to inflation in some areas - but clearly T-Mobile costs have overall REDUCED.

If that has not got you angry enough if you open the report EE Results for First Quarter to 31st March (on the same link) published 23/4/13 you'll find the following:

Initiatives
–Introduced postpaid RPI price adjustments
- Launched competitive prepaid offers in April that more effectively monetisedata (T-Mobile Smart Packs and enhanced Orange Dolphin)
–Further extended 4Gsmartphone range

That first initiative US!!! So not only are cost down so no need to impose an RPI increase, we are now a cash generating "initiative" for EE .
Feels good eh???

Anyway the serious points behind the above is:
Does OFCOM allow RPI increases because operator costs rise, or so operators can just add to their profits?

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

Does OFCOM allow RPI increases because operator costs rise, or so operators can just add to their profits?

Unfortunately that is just a "business decision", you won't get anything from either OFCOM or CISAS when it comes to price increases (no matter how immoral).