Tmobile price increase

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

The following parts of the Regulations are of particularrelevance to this Guidance. [/FONT][/SIZE]

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.

This is really helpful, thanks. I think they are most likely in breach of consumer protection law too, see here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/what-is-unfair#.UXebnxNwbng

I submitted my application to CISAS yesterday afternoon, but can add supporting information for up to 10 days, will put all of this in an email to them, and also contact the OFT.

psilvester

anna2007 wrote: »

This is really helpful, thanks. I think they are most likely in breach of consumer protection law too, see here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/what-is-unfair#.UXebnxNwbng

I submitted my application to CISAS yesterday afternoon, but can add supporting information for up to 10 days, will put all of this in an email to them, and also contact the OFT.

As you have submitted your application to CISAS does that mean that you received a deadlock letter? I have finally received a reply to my original email from 9th April and followed up with your posting a few pages back, requesting to go to deadlock.

anna2007

psilvester wrote: »

As you have submitted your application to CISAS does that mean that you received a deadlock letter? I have finally received a reply to my original email from 9th April and followed up with your posting a few pages back, requesting to go to deadlock.

Not a deadlock letter as such, but an email confirming it was their final position on the matter, which is sufficient for CISAS (I think one of d123's posts further back confirms this). They had the cheek to say my request to refer to CISAS was declined, as the increase was a business decision (I'd made it very clear my complaint was about breach of contract, not the price increase). I'm furious about this, and have mentioned it in my application to CISAS, can't see them looking on this kind of misleading tactic in a favourable way.

I'd suggest emailing them them again (copy to Olaf), give them a time limit for a response to your last email, and tell them if you haven't had a response by this time, you'll take this to mean they no longer dispute your notice to cancel without penalty (worked for me). Probably worth putting 'Urgent - response required by xxx' in the subject field, no doubt they have a backlog in their their inbox at the moment! Make it VERY clear your complaint is about breach of contract, NOT the price increase itself, as they can't stop you going to CISAS on these grounds. Good luck

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

Not a deadlock letter as such, but an email confirming it was their final position on the matter, which is sufficient for CISAS (I think one of d123's posts further back confirms this). They had the cheek to say my request to refer to CISAS was declined, as the increase was a business decision (I'd made it very clear my complaint was about breach of contract, not the price increase).

Yes, it was me, and I had exactly the same attitude from T-Mobile about declining to allow me to go to CISAS.

I submitted Monday (and included the T-Mobile emails where they stated they refused to communicate further) and received my acknowledgement from CISAS for the acceptance of the application today. T-Mobile have until 08/05 to respond.

anna2007

d123 wrote: »

Yes, it was me, and I had exactly the same attitude from T-Mobile about declining to allow me to go to CISAS.

I submitted Monday (and included the T-Mobile emails where they stated they refused to communicate further) and received my acknowledgement from CISAS for the acceptance of the application today. T-Mobile have until 08/05 to respond.

That's good to know CISAS has accepted it. Do you know what happens if CISAS finds in your favour, would they (or OFCOM) then make a ruling that all customers who gave notice to cancel are allowed to do so (or, even better, all affected customers are given the opportunity to cancel)? Seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time if CISAS continued on a case-by-case basis if the outcome was going to be the same for all similar complaints. Yours must be one of the first applications to be accepted - you might be setting a precedent here!

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

That's good to know CISAS has accepted it. Do you know what happens if CISAS finds in your favour, would they (or OFCOM) then make a ruling that all customers who gave notice to cancel are allowed to do so (or, even better, all affected customers are given the opportunity to cancel)? Seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time if CISAS continued on a case-by-case basis if the outcome was going to be the same for all similar complaints. Yours must be one of the first applications to be accepted - you might be setting a precedent here!

I don't think it sets a precedent, but as each arbitration costs T-Mobile money I would presume they will change their attitude as soon as a ruling goes against them (if it does).

I wouldn't think T-Mobile are going to want to carry on paying for CISAS if they think they will lose and waste money.

I think they are hoping to try and baffle CISAS in the same way they tried with us.

RandomCurve

EE must really be getting confused. I have today (24 April) received a letter dated 9th April, which is the standard vague blurb that a lot of you have already received. I've sent them 2 letters and 2 emails since then - and have had the official "legal" response email as well - so why have they sent this? I'm glad they have - that is another47p they have spent!!!

To make it worse whilst they have my correct name and address on the letter address and the correct phone number they have started "Dear Mr Ackerman" - that's not my name - not even got the same initials. I wonder if I should start to question their Data Protection abilities??

RandomCurve

The below may be useful - ONS have to investigate any case where stats have been used pre publication (see red highlights) If T-Mobile have really used March RPI as they announced on 1st March and wrote to us 5-8 April (March RPI published 16 April)then perhaps an investigation is required.

Presentationand Publication of Official Statistics - UK Statistics


Pre-release access
Protocol 2, Practice 7: Subject to compliance with the rules and principles on pre-release access set out in legislation, limit access before public release to those people essential for production and publication, and for quality assurance and operational purposes. Publish records of those who have access prior to release. Protocol 2, Practice 8: Ensure that no indication of the substance of a statistical report is made public, or given to the media or any other party not recorded as eligible for access before publication. Report to the National Statistician immediately any accidental or wrongful release, and investigate the circumstances.
3 For further guidance on this please refer to the National Statistician’s Guidance: Confidentiality of Official Statistics.
National Statistician’s Guidance | 13
21. Statistical producers must restrict access to first releases of official statistics prior to their publication to those persons essential to their production, analysis, and publication or for quality assurance purposes, except in those circumstances governed by the statutory rules on pre-release access. 22. official statistics in their final form must only be made available in accordance with the rules and principles on pre- release access set out in the relevant Pre-release Access Order and in line with accompanying guidance on implementation. Published lists of those individuals who have been granted access to official statistics, prior to their release, for briefing purposes should be made available in the form set out in the relevant guidance. Devolved administrations should refer to their own guidance on pre-release access as appropriate. 23. Statistics producers should ensure that no indication of the content in any new release is made public before release, nor given to the media or any other party not recorded as eligible for pre-release access. Any accidental or wrongful release must be reported to the National Statistician or the chief statistician in a devolved administration4 and an investigation of the circumstances initiated as soon as it becomes known that a wrongful release has occurred.
4 In most cases, it will also be necessary to report the incident to the permanent secretary

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

The below may be useful - ONS have to investigate any case where stats have been used pre publication (see red highlights) If T-Mobile have really used March RPI as they announced on 1st March and wrote to us 5-8 April (March RPI published 16 April)then perhaps an investigation is required.

Presentationand Publication of Official Statistics - UK Statistics


Pre-release access
Protocol 2, Practice 7: Subject to compliance with the rules and principles on pre-release access set out in legislation, limit access before public release to those people essential for production and publication, and for quality assurance and operational purposes. Publish records of those who have access prior to release. Protocol 2, Practice 8: Ensure that no indication of the substance of a statistical report is made public, or given to the media or any other party not recorded as eligible for access before publication. Report to the National Statistician immediately any accidental or wrongful release, and investigate the circumstances.
3 For further guidance on this please refer to the National Statistician’s Guidance: Confidentiality of Official Statistics.
National Statistician’s Guidance | 13
21. Statistical producers must restrict access to first releases of official statistics prior to their publication to those persons essential to their production, analysis, and publication or for quality assurance purposes, except in those circumstances governed by the statutory rules on pre-release access. 22. official statistics in their final form must only be made available in accordance with the rules and principles on pre- release access set out in the relevant Pre-release Access Order and in line with accompanying guidance on implementation. Published lists of those individuals who have been granted access to official statistics, prior to their release, for briefing purposes should be made available in the form set out in the relevant guidance. Devolved administrations should refer to their own guidance on pre-release access as appropriate. 23. Statistics producers should ensure that no indication of the content in any new release is made public before release, nor given to the media or any other party not recorded as eligible for pre-release access. Any accidental or wrongful release must be reported to the National Statistician or the chief statistician in a devolved administration4 and an investigation of the circumstances initiated as soon as it becomes known that a wrongful release has occurred.
4 In most cases, it will also be necessary to report the incident to the permanent secretary

As T-Mobile have claimed to have known them well in advance, have you reported them?

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

The below may be useful - ONS have to investigate any case where stats have been used pre publication (see red highlights) If T-Mobile have really used March RPI as they announced on 1st March and wrote to us 5-8 April (March RPI published 16 April)then perhaps an investigation is required.

I'm happy to contact the ONS about this (should I copy to the EE Executive Office?), as I'd already emailed them on 18 April (and spoke to them the following day). My query was about the various interpretations of what the relevant RPI rate might be and although I'd asked about the future RPI rate, this interpretation was dismissed pretty quickly, as she confirmed that even the ONS staff don't know the rate until a few days before publication.

Great work again, RandomCurve, you should do this for a living!