Tmobile price increase

ruflonger

Had a chance to re-read the email which has an interesting addition after I stated 'I receive a text today say that payment will be taken on or about 20/5/13 as I have given notice on 10th April to terminate immediately and I have written to say I had withdrawn "T-Mobiles right" to use the Direct Debt until this is resolved'

T-Mobile has responded 'Your comments relating to the payments have been acknowledged, failure to settle any outstanding balances will evoke the Collections process.'

shedder101

psilvester wrote: »

Appears to completely over look the post October clause argument, and quote from Ofcom shows how much use they are to the consumer.

Feels more like an article to placate us as forum users but distance MSE from the campaign.

i agree are they working for EE

Chirs

I too got caught out with this. I took up a 12-month sim only contract with T-mobile for unlimited everything for £16, and I only did this about a month and half ago. With the price hike I'll be paying £17 (after the 6-month £1 discount runs out), so I'll only pay an extra £4 or 5 overall.

It is, however, the principle of this that annoys me, and, personally, I'd like to see a campaign to get the law changed rather than looking for loopholes.

It seems to me that the law should be changed so that you can't do this mid-contract without giving the customer the option to quit the contract without penalty.

This is the second time I've been caught out with a clause like this: Virgin Media upped my bill a couple of months into my BB + TV contract and I had no choice but to accept the price hike because the alternative was paying hundreds of pounds to be released from my contract.

This seems like an issue of fairness to me and as it stands it's plainly wrong and entirely unfair.

d123

Chirs wrote: »

It is, however, the principle of this that annoys me, and, personally, I'd like to see a campaign to get the law changed rather than looking for loopholes.

It seems to me that the law should be changed so that you can't do this mid-contract without giving the customer the option to quit the contract without penalty.

Which is exactly the reason I've got involved and pushed this as hard as I have, truth be told, even if I lose at CISAS it won't really upset me. I doubt I'll get signicantly better value than the plan I'm on, but I hope I've caused T-Mobile enough bother to make them rethink doing this sort of thing again.

It was the arrogant and deceitful attitude of the Orange Exec Office that p*ssed me off enough to push the matter as hard as I have.

RandomCurve

d123 wrote: »

It was the arrogant and deceitful attitude of the Orange Exec Office that p*ssed me off enough to push the matter as hard as I have.

SNAP -which is why we need to push the EE Riskiest decision ever? email!

RandomCurve

I've finally finished the case for PRE OCT 2012 contract holders and will email to those who sent letters shortly (If it does not arrive tonight it mean my email has "fallen over" and I will try again tomorrow evening).

Whilst I can't stop anybody posting it here I would please ask that you do not just yet as there are certain bits marked in GREEN where I need to double check that the correct regulatory references have ben used.

RandomCurve

Emails sent - if you don't receive yours let me know

Dee142

hi guys, i was reading through this thread last night and gave t-mobile a call this morning, i just basically told them exactly that they were charging over 3.2% which meant I could cancel immediately, i spoke to cancellations department and the woman over the phone gave me her managers email address, and put my reasons into writing and got a positive reply, my account has been cancelled without penalty and I will receive my PAC code and letter of confirmation within 7 working days.

this is what the guy replied with

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Hi,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Thankyou for your email.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Whilst the RPI is set at 3.3% I can confirm that I have read your quote from the Office of national statistic and on those grounds I am happy to cancel your line with immediate effect.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]I would like to point out that by cancelling immediately may result in the line being cut off straight away and once this happens this cannot be re-instated[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Please confirm that you for this to be done immediately[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Please advise[/FONT][/FONT]

I am now trying to cancel my sisters contract, which is proving to be difficult and they are not budging, but they have no choice as we have the same contract etc, ill let you guys know how it goes. cheers. good luck

Chimper

Dee142 wrote: »

hi guys, i was reading through this thread last night and gave t-mobile a call this morning, i just basically told them exactly that they were charging over 3.2% which meant I could cancel immediately, i spoke to cancellations department and the woman over the phone gave me her managers email address, and put my reasons into writing and got a positive reply, my account has been cancelled without penalty and I will receive my PAC code and letter of confirmation within 7 working days.

this is what the guy replied with

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Hi,[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Thankyou for your email.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Whilst the RPI is set at 3.3% I can confirm that I have read your quote from the Office of national statistic and on those grounds I am happy to cancel your line with immediate effect.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]I would like to point out that by cancelling immediately may result in the line being cut off straight away and once this happens this cannot be re-instated[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Please confirm that you for this to be done immediately[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Please advise[/FONT][/FONT]

I am now trying to cancel my sisters contract, which is proving to be difficult and they are not budging, but they have no choice as we have the same contract etc, ill let you guys know how it goes. cheers. good luck

So easy

As you have the email address of this ever so helpful manager I suppose you're willing to share it with the rest of us?

RandomCurve

Distribution List:
[EMAIL="news@moneysavingexpert.com"]news@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]

Title: Retraction email

Dear Helen Knapman,

Thank you for referencing the T-Mobile forum today (7th) unfortunately you were so selective with your quotes that you have missed a valuable point. Those customers who are on contracts that started on or after 1st November 2012 have a different price T&C which will almost certainly enable them to walk away from their contracts should they choose to do so as, indeed you came close to hitting the nail on the head when you mentioned that Orange and TM announced the same price rise on the same day but Orange customers have not complained. The T&Cs and the relevant arguments are below - as a reporter on a consumer championing website could you investigate if based on the below you believe that OFCOM have the correct interpretation for the Post Oct 2012 contract holders?


Theargument that TM are only allowed to impose a price rise less than or equivalentto the February RPI rate published on 19th March of 3.2%

To prove this point is alsonecessary to review the status of the price rise letter on the POST Oct 2012Contracts.

The POST OCT 2012 clause isas follows:

7.2.3.3. The change thatWe gave You Written Notice of in
point 7.1.4 is:
(i) an increase in YourPrice Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retailprice index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measureof inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures ofinflation from time to time, and publishedon a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send YouWritten Notice; and
(ii) You give Us notice toimmediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.

TM is currently contending (thisis a THIRD attempt to explain the rate used) that the price rise letter of 6thApril refers to the January RPI rate published on Feb 12th (3.3%),and that it would be unreasonable for them to have used the RPI as published onMarch 19th due to the short time frame between 19th March and the letters sent in early April.

Arguments that render TMsassertion as being incorrect are as follows:

Orange and TM are both ownedby EE and the price rise was announced at the same time. Orange sent customersprice rise letters by 13th March, whereas TM did not send lettersuntil 6th April, this to me suggests that rather than there notbeing sufficient time, TM actually intended to refer to the February RPI (seelater), The term REASONABLE has to beapplied to both the January and Feb RPI publication dates TO DETREMINE WHAT IS THEMOST REASONABLE. First consider reasonable in relation to a January RPI:

If TM are genuinely intendingto refer to January RPI is it reasonable that it took TM 36 working days(excluding weekends and Bank Holidays) to inform its customers of such a rise?To answer that we need to look at TMs “stable mate” Orange. Orange informed itscustomers of the price rise based on January RPI by 13th March, whereasTM waited until 6th April (23 days later), as the Orange and TMletters are IDENTICAL – accept for the paper heading - how could it bereasonable for TM to take so long to inform customers of the rise – especially as TM would have been aware thatany letter sent after the February RPI was published risked triggeringcustomers penalty free termination rights.

So it appears that if Orangecan inform its customers of a January inflation rate within 16 days and beforethe February rate is published, whilst TM needed MORE THAN DOUBLE the time tosend the Price rise letter it cannot be considered reasonable to have used the JanuaryRPI UNLESS customers were informed in a timeframe similar to Orange, but in anycase before the February rate was published on March 19th.

Now to consider TMs assertionthat it was not “reasonable” to use the February RPI rate due to the EasterBank Holiday. For this we need to compare what TM was able to achieve inrelation to its 2012 price rise with what it could have achieved in relation tothe 2013 price rise.

[*]In 2012 T-Mobile increased its prices, the relevant dates are as follows:

[*]Feb RPI published March 20th 2012
[*]T-Mobile sends letters between 28th March and 3rd April (7-11Working days after publication (excluded weekends))
[*]Price rise effective 9th May

[*]In 2013 T-Mobile increase prices,

[*]As T-Mobile terms state an ANNUAL increase in inflation it is reasonable to assume that February is the intended RPI rate
[*]Feb RPI published 20 March
[*]The number of working days for TM to write to customers to apply the Feb 2013 RPI of 3.2% published on 19th March, TM would need to inform customers by 8th April this is 13 working days excluding Bank Holidays and weekends i.e. they had between 2 and 6 additional days over and above the time frame TM needed to send out price rise letters in 2012.


The above timing CLEARLY demonstratethat it would be UNRESAONABLE for the customer to wait 36 working days to beinformed of a price rise, but it would be REASONABLE to expect TM to be able toinform customers of a price rise within 13 working days as they managed this in7-11 work days in 2012.

Furtherevidence that suggests TM could only have meant to apply the February RPI rateis that the letter dated April clearly sates the CURRENT RPI rate has been used(not the January rate) and at that time the current rate was 3.2%, additionallythe letter makes no mention that the January RPI had been used due to it beingunreasonable to apply the February current rate). Given TM took 36 working daysto send the letters (if it was using Januarys RPI) it would be reasonable toassume that TM would have had to enough time to draft the price rise letter ina less ambiguous manner which fully explained why January was being used ratherthan February). Further it has already been demonstrated that there wasreasonable time for TM to inform its customers of the February rate.

TMmay care to argue that they have changed their work practices and reduce theirworkforce since 2012, however the definition of ‘reasonable’ cannot beredefined based on TM work practices, those are a business decision and as suchTM alone can decide the risk it is prepared to take with the business, but thosedecisions can not in any way be allowed to alter what is reasonable.

HistoricallyTM have applied the Feb RPI rate to its price rises for implementation on 9 May(for information Orange have traditionally used January RPI and price risestake effect 10 April) . If TM is applying an ANNUAL rate to the prices itfollows that the Feb rate should be used. Use of the January rate would beapplying a 12 month RPI to an 11 month period, and for this to be valid theJanuary RPI rate should have to be adjusted to reflect an 11 month period and notused as published.

As stated earlier TM haveactually offered 3 different explanations of the rate used, but if they wereconfident that they had used the January rate why have TM acted in thefollowing way when asked to clarify the rate used and how it applies to theContract term?:

[*]If they had used Januarys RPI when challenged why did they send a letter - cleared by the legal department - saying that the T&Cs allow them to use a figure published as close as possible to the date of the letter and using the March RPI rate - rather than just saying it was January (email 22 April) ?
[*]When they were told that16th April is AFTER and NOT BEFORE 6th April (when letters received) why did they write -again cleared by the legal department - to say they took a business risk on March RPI - when the relevant RPI was already published (be it January or February) Email dated 29 April.
[*]Why have they now sent a letter - YET AGAIN cleared by the legal department- saying they used January but needed 36 working days to inform you when last year it took them a maximum of 11 working days over 3 x longer (Email dated 2nd May)?

(Emailsto support the above are at the end of this email.)

The above3 points clearly demonstrate how TM have constantly changed both which monthsRPI they are referring to and their rationale for using it, none of which standup to scrutiny against:

1. TheT&Cs or

2. Theevents of 2012 or

3. Ofwhat would be reasonable.

The mere factthat each of the THREE DIFFERENT reasons was cleared by the legal departmentdemonstrates I believe the actions of a company trying to avoid its legalobligations under its own T&Cs. If this was not the case they would havesaid immediately that they had used Januarys figure, and put that it the price rise letter (after all they had 36 days to prepare it), which in their opinion(although I think proved wrong by the above) complies with the T&Cs.