Tmobile price increase

d123

nivag1961 wrote: »

The common sense approach..? Well in court they use statue, common Law etc...

>>>>>

You really think coz nothing has been done yet that it is OK... Until about 15 years ago it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife in the UK coz she was assumed to have given consent at marriage...


Now you have the affrontory to challenge me on this matter.... in your common sense approach...??

>>>>>

I have not said that the ability to rise prices is wrong... OK? I have said that to have a clause in the terms allowing them to rise the prices whilst no recipricol arrangement exists is unfair...

>>>

Do you know they were planning to do it in Ireland but were stopped coz the law there prevents it by overriding such things in statue (kind a like unfair terms act I was trying to aquatint you with !)

Didn't they teach spelling at your university? Or the difference between a statue and a statute? Or even throwing capitals into the middle of sentences? (It would the the common law, no need for capitals).

What practising solicitor continually uses text speak like "coz"? Can you get an LLB at age 16 these days?

Could I suggest you find a spell checker and another thread to troll, I don't think anyone else cares for your ignorance, bad spelling, poor grammar or bad attitude here.

anna2007

arturbdg wrote: »

Well in that case I would suggest opening a new thread as you are wasting everyone's time writing about something irrelevant to the topic.

I understand what you are saying and with that you can challenge the T-Mobile or any other provider at any time as their terms are unfair - this has nothing to do with what people are talking about here.

Here we are talking about the fact that T-Mobile has a clause in contract (which everyone should read before signing up) that allow you to leave without paying a cancellation charge if the price rise is above RPI which it is. Especially for post October 2012 customers as if you would take a closer look at Orange and T-Mobile which is pretty much the same entity have the same type of contracts and upon closer inspection you will notice that something does not add up.

I fully understand your point but it is irrelevant to this thread and by posting on this thread you:
1) waste people's time as they read your post which takes time just to notice it is irrelevant
2) mixing two separate matters.

Every post October T-Mobile customer is withing its contractual right (whether contract is fair or not is besides the point) to leave without incurring a cancellation charge. It is pretty much the same for pre October customers but requires different approach.

And (finally) as you have said Ofcom is looking into the matter now and most likely it will change in the near future.

Deja vu here - the thread went down this route last week, got a bit nasty and added nothing to the discussion. Can I suggest, if you disagree with a particular forum member's viewpoint, or feel it adds nothing to the thread, click on their username and there's an option to add to your ignore list - it's working a treat for me (except he then gets quoted and I can't help but read!)

daveuk1

nivag1961 wrote: »

I happened to be dealing with a similar fellow recently.

[FONT=&quot]Dear Redacted[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email of 17 April 2013.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I can confirm that it is a criminal offence for someone to call themselves a solicitor or act as a solicitor if they are not on the roll of solicitors. We call these people "bogus solicitors" and we may prosecute them (see our policy on criminal prosecution).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Redacted… Para[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further queries that you would like to discuss, please contact us by telephone on 0870 606 2555. If you are calling from overseas please use +44 (0) 121 329 6800. Our lines are open Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday: 8.00am to 6pm, Tuesday: 9.30am to 6pm. Please note calls may be monitored/ recorded for training purposes. Alternatively you can e-mail us at contactcentre@sra.org.uk. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for contacting the Solicitors Regulation Authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Redacted[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Contact Centre Officer[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Phone: 0870 606 2555[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Int: +44(0) 121 6800[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fax: +44(0) 121 1999[/FONT]

I'm surprised, being the legal guru that you are, that you had to ask the SRA such a question. I think people can draw their own conclusions as to who here is playing at being a lawyer. From your post above, I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with the law on defamation.

daveuk1

anna2007 wrote: »

Deja vu here - the thread went down this route last week, got a bit nasty and added nothing to the discussion. Can I suggest, if you disagree with a particular forum member's viewpoint, or feel it adds nothing to the thread, click on their username and there's an option to add to your ignore list - it's working a treat for me (except he then gets quoted and I can't help but read!)

Fair point but seems to me there's a perfectly civilised discussion going on and one troll causing trouble. Ordinarily, you might expect to see this dealt with by forum administrators?

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

Fair point but seems to me there's a perfectly civilised discussion going on and one troll causing trouble. Ordinarily, you might expect to see this dealt with by forum administrators?

I think the forum administrators maybe did step in last week, but only once it had turned particularly nasty, and I believe it has to be reported to them...

daveuk1 - You commented further back in the thread that you believe the CISAS ruling will be unfavourable to consumers - are you only referring to the older contracts? What's your opinion on the latest contracts, where the clause now specifically refers to the RPI rate published before written notice is sent?

　
Regarding the older contracts, the clause is obviously ambiguous as each party has a different interpretation of the relevant RPI rate, and the interpretation is crucial in determining whether the customer has a right to cancel without penalty. I'm aware that a contract term can be deemed unfair if it is ambiguous, and that there are consumer protection laws (also an Ofcom General Condition - 9?) which provide for the term to be interpreted in favour of the consumer in such cases. I haven't read up too much yet on either the laws, or the Ofcom regulations, but I have briefly mentioned them in my CISAS application. I'd appreciate your views on whether you think reference to these during the CISAS process helps the consumer's case?

anna2007

cbrookes wrote: »

Thank you, got auto reply from Stephanie but all the others failed!

That's strange - when I read your post, I thought they might have (conveniently) turned off the auto-acknowledgement, so I sent a test email to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL] and I received an auto response? I also remember, way back on the thread, someone thought the Stephanie email might be a dummy account? So best not to rely on that auto reply alone.

For those putting in their written notice to cancel, it might be worth sending a copy of your email by first class recorded delivery, so you can show that they've received your notice? The address stated in the T&C's for giving notice is:

T-Mobile,
Hatfield Business Park,
Hatfield,
Hertfordshire,
AL10 9BW

daveuk1

anna2007 wrote: »

I think the forum administrators maybe did step in last week, but only once it had turned particularly nasty, and I believe it has to be reported to them...

daveuk1 - You commented further back in the thread that you believe the CISAS ruling will be unfavourable to consumers - are you only referring to the older contracts? What's your opinion on the latest contracts, where the clause now specifically refers to the RPI rate published before written notice is sent?

Post-October is different. The terms are obviously much clearer as to the relevant month's RPI. On the basis that TM have sent the same letters applying the same price increases to post-Oct customers, they appear to be bang to rights. I don't know whether this is what they are doing though, as I don't fall into that category.

anna2007 wrote: »

Regarding the older contracts, the clause is obviously ambiguous as each party has a different interpretation of the relevant RPI rate, and the interpretation is crucial in determining whether the customer has a right to cancel without penalty. I'm aware that a contract term can be deemed unfair if it is ambiguous, and that there are consumer protection laws (also an Ofcom General Condition - 9?) which provide for the term to be interpreted in favour of the consumer in such cases. I haven't read up too much yet on either the laws, or the Ofcom regulations, but I have briefly mentioned them in my CISAS application. I'd appreciate your views on whether you think reference to these during the CISAS process helps the consumer's case?

I don't know that much about the workings of CISAS but speaking generally, I don't really believe that the ambiguity in this case either lies in the contract terms or is really materially detrimental to the consumer and so I'd be surprised if CISAS considered it significant (although of course they might). I say that because the ambiguity has been caused by a particular and bizarre set of circumstances whereby T-Mobile have made a serious mistake and probably been rescued by pure luck. It doesn't necessarily follow that the contract terms are ambiguous. For example, I'm quite clear that the relevant rate, according to the (pre-Oct terms), is that released on 16 Apr - the issue, which I'm not convinced is relevant to the right to cancel, is that T-Mobile clearly couldn't know in advance what it would be and the idea that this was a business risk is quite ludicrous.

NB: Due to the idiocy of a previous poster, I feel compelled to point out again that nothing I post on this forum, on this thread or elsewhere, constitutes legal advice and nobody should rely on anything so posted.

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

I don't know that much about the workings of CISAS but speaking generally, I don't really believe that the ambiguity in this case either lies in the contract terms or is really materially detrimental to the consumer and so I'd be surprised if CISAS considered it significant (although of course they might). I say that because the ambiguity has been caused by a particular and bizarre set of circumstances whereby T-Mobile have made a serious mistake and probably been rescued by pure luck. It doesn't necessarily follow that the contract terms are ambiguous. For example, I'm quite clear that the relevant rate, according to the (pre-Oct terms), is that released on 16 Apr - the issue, which I'm not convinced is relevant to the right to cancel, is that T-Mobile clearly couldn't know in advance what it would be and the idea that this was a business risk is quite ludicrous.

The clause is ambiguous though (it's clearly open to at least two meanings - in fact many more on this thread!); the fact that you believe that the rate of 16 Apr is the relevant one, and I believe the 19 Mar rate applies, proves the ambiguity

One thing is clear - the wording of the clause doesn't meet the plain language requirement of the UTCCRs or Ofcom regulations.

The rate of 16 Apr is irrelevant as far as I am concerned - how can I possibly exercise my right to cancel, under clause 7.2.3.3, when I receive notice on 6 April (I also first gave notice to cancel on 6 April) and the RPI's based on a rate not due to be published for another 10 days? Their claim to be referring to a future RPI rate seems as ludicrous to me as their claim to have taken a business risk on guessing this rate!

daveuk1 wrote: »

NB: Due to the idiocy of a previous poster, I feel compelled to point out again that nothing I post on this forum, on this thread or elsewhere, constitutes legal advice and nobody should rely on anything so posted.

ruflonger

Your comments are noted with regards to your request to obtain a Port Authority Code (PAC) and an Unlocking code. Please note that if a PAC Code was provided you would automatically be charged for the remaining Service Plan charges up until the ****** 2014.

The written notice that was issued in early April 2013 was an estimation of what the actual March RPI figure would be until published on 16 April 2013, however, this increase in charges is not an increase above the published month March RPI figure of 3.3% and does not allow you a right to cancel you agreement without penalty. Your request to refer this to CISAS is declined as this matter falls outside the scope of the scheme.

I trust I have confirmed my final postion on this matter

Latest response is again T-Mobile are using the estimation excuse, and decline my to refer it to CISAS

:mad:

RandomCurve

ruflonger wrote: »

Your comments are noted with regards to your request to obtain a Port Authority Code (PAC) and an Unlocking code. Please note that if a PAC Code was provided you would automatically be charged for the remaining Service Plan charges up until the ****** 2014.

The written notice that was issued in early April 2013 was an estimation of what the actual March RPI figure would be until published on 16 April 2013, however, this increase in charges is not an increase above the published month March RPI figure of 3.3% and does not allow you a right to cancel you agreement without penalty. Your request to refer this to CISAS is declined as this matter falls outside the scope of the scheme.

I trust I have confirmed my final postion on this matter

Latest response is again T-Mobile are using the estimation excuse, and decline my to refer it to CISAS

:mad:

I think the fact hey have said "..my final postion on this matter" -even if spelt incorrectly, is evidence that you can now go o CISAS without a deadlock letter.

As for the PAC code part, requesting a PAC code does not close the contract, only if USE it - unless they are changing that rules on that too!!! And of course you won't use it until they clarify that it is penalty free!!