We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tmobile price increase
Options
Comments
-
RandomCurve wrote: »You did better than me - I never got a name - but I am guessing Mandy Lowery, However at the end of the day it is all down to SS (Silent Swantee :wave:).
So I'm going to take some legal advice to see if I can "strip away" the company and pursue him directly in the small claims court - a few quid might not matter to him, but I want to look in him in the eye when he is trying to spin his yarns!
I'll be speaking to Ofcom about this in the morning. Whatever they say I'll be getting another complaint into T-Mobile, this time copying the full board of directors in on it, not just Olaf Swantee :wave:.
I wonder how aware they are of the appalling job he's doing :mad:0 -
I'm going to publish the whole thing here so you can ignore posts #762, #764, sand #766.
Will need 2 posts as too long for one!
PreOctober 2012 contract
Before I start this email I must state up front that I have no legal training, the points below are my honest opinions based on what I have seen of T-Mobiles (TM) actions and what I have researched (with thanks to TR26, Ruflonger and an extra special thanks to Anna2007 who has a been a star, plus all the others who have posted which has assisted me gather my thoughts). It is up to you if you use all or any of the points below and I can take no responsibility for the outcome of your dispute with TM.
The argument is based on the unfair contracts terms act/regulations.
Unfortunately I think you will have to use ALL of the arguments below as it builds the picture that you need (you can probably just copy and paste – or print and attach – to your CISAS application). I suggest you read through the whole email once without trying to understand it, and then re-read it as it will make more sense in understanding the earlier points if you have read the whole thing.
The contract appears to giveTM the right to increase the contract by a rate no higher than the RPI rate for the month immediately before the month TM write to you. TM wrote to you stating 3.3% - and it has transpired that the March rate was indeed 3.3% - so an argument against the rate will I think be a difficult case to argue -how they arrived at that rate - made it up or had a dream or it is Mr Swantees :wave: favourite number does not matter - they can use any method they like! Given this we need to look at the wider factors, and hence your claim should be based on:
1. Is the contract term clear and unambiguous,
2. is the March rate the rate that TM are actually allowed to apply,
3. HaveTM breached the 30 day notice rule,a. and if not what are the consequences of that?
Ideally you should replace the emails below with your own versions but if you do not have your own then you can use the ones below – note we are trying to source a better version of the email in orange addressed to Mr G. If you replace ALL the emails and the transcript conversation then remove the text in green.
Good luck
Dear Sir,
T-Mobile (TM) has the right to make a business decision to increase its prices, and I have no issue with TM exercising their right to make that business decision. My argument is that TM has imposed an increase in excess of the rate they are allowed to use and have then breached the T&Cs by denying my right to cancel the contract without penalty per clause 7.2.3. The basis of my claim is as follows:
Clause 7.2.3.3 is not compliant with the following legislation/regulatory rules- The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,
- OFT Unfair contract terms guidance - Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Published September 2008
- Page 58 of the OFT guidance, relating to price variation clauses, and
- Page 86 of the OFT guidance, relating to plain and intelligible language
- Clause 9.3 (a) of the Schedule to the notification under section 48(1) of the communications Act 2003,
- OFCOM Guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services – Which generally states that OFCOM will refer to OFT guidance on unfair contract terms.
In summary, I intend to prove that TM have used a vague contract term and also mis-applied that term, which has resulted in a price increase higher than the RPI that TM are entitled to impose and as such have triggered my right to terminate the contract without penalty to me. And further that there is then evidence that TMs behaviour has been designed to frustrate my right not only to enforce my right to penalty free cancellation, but also to try and deny me the right to bring this to CISAS by refusing to issue a deadlock letter. It should be noted that because of the wayTM has handled this price rise I need to give you a full as picture of what has been happening and therefore in some instances I have referred to emails and conversations that other customers have made me aware of – the individuals wouldbe willing to be contacted for verification via [EMAIL="eevenrandomcurve@gmail.com"]eevenrandomcurve@gmail.com[/EMAIL] .
Background
Before I start the detail of my case the following timeline will be a useful reference:
· February 12th 2013 – January RPI published (3.3%)
· March 1st 2013 – Media organisations announce EE (Orange and TM) will be increasing prices by 3.3% (presumably based on an EE press release)
· March13th 2013 – Orange customers receive letters informing themof the price rise – stating Current RPI rate 3.3%
· March19th 2013 Feb RPI rate published (3.2%)
· From April 5th 2013 – TM customers receive letters informing them of the pricerise – stating Current RPI rate 3.3%
· April 6th – April 18th – TM customers request termination/seek clarification due to the timing and the wording of the price letter
· April 16th 2013 – March RPI published (3.3%)
Additionally it must be borne in mid throughout the remainder of this letter that:- TM alone drew up the T&Cs –there was no customer negotiation,
- TM decided when to send its price rise letter,
- TM decided the date the price rise is effective from, and
- TM decided to use the phrase “We’ve used the RPI which is CURRENTLY 3.3%...” in its price rise letter.
Arguments That TMs own Actions render clause 7.2.3.3 unfair due to ambiguity
TM announced its price rise in the press on 1st March quoting a rate of 3.3% (which at the time was the latest published RPI which related to January). This appeared to me to be an odd thing to do as TMs past price rise practice has been to use the February RPI, and applying January RPI would have meant applying a 12 Month RPI to an 11 Month period, which intuitively feels incorrect.
TMs contract clause is as follows:
7.2.3.3 The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than 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 and You give Us notice to immediately cancel thisAgreement before the change takes effect.
TM wrote to me in early April (6th April) informing me of a price rise in line with the CURRENT RPI rate of 3.3%. By reference to the T&Cs it is clear that the month before the month I receive the letter is March, but as the March RPI figure is unavailable I assumed the term must have referred to Feb RPI (published March19th which was 3.2%) as there is no way that the term can be interpreted as referring to January RPI.
On applying to cancel my contract as TM had used a rate higher than the contract rate allows TM issued the following from its EXECUTIVE OFFICE, (and additionally calls to customer services confirmed that TM did not have to cancel my contract because they had used Januarys RPI rate).
On the 11th April TM were claiming that they had used Januarys RPI published on February 12th as follows:
CaseReference: 2047277
Account Number: XXXXXX
Please respond to executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com
Dear Mr R,
Thank you for your recent email relating to the recently announced change inpricing structure. I have been asked by Olaf Swantee to respond on hisbehalf.
The frustration you may have felt at our recent announcement regarding a change in our pricing policy is acknowledged. This is a decision we have not taken lightly. We are continually investing in our network and propositions to provide the best service possible for our customers. Our network has recently undergone a major overhaul with a full upgrade of our 2G network masts. This will ensure that there will be less chance of calls dropping out on our network and text messages being delivered more efficiently. The integration of the T-Mobile with the Orange network will also greater UK wide coverage for our customers.
The increase is in line with theRetail Price Index 3.3% rate of inflation released on 12 February 2013. The increase applies to your monthly fee only. Individual call,data and text message charges remain the same.
This increase would not allow you to cancel your agreement at this stage without paying an early disconnection fee. Given the size of the increase we do not consider this change to be of material detriment to our customers. We are happy to discuss individual cases to see if there is a price plan that is more suitable. Your agreement ends on 27 September 2014.
I trust that the above is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Colin Peters
Executive Office, EE
As already stated it is clearly not correct that the T&Cs allow Januarys RPI to be used and therefore I and several others continued to push TM to cancel our contracts.
On 18th April calls to TM Executive Office on this were met with a comment that the TM legal team were investigating the Price rise letter and the T&Cs and that TM would not be responding to questions on this until the investigation was completed
Summarised transcript of telephone conversation with EE Executive office – spoke with Mandy Lowery (Mr G Case ref 2048742). Thursday 18th April 9:20am
I called 01707-315000 and asked to speakto Mr Swantee – I was put through to the Executive office:
ME: “Hello do you have the authority to cancel a contract without penalty to me”
MANDY: “Yes in certain Circumstances”
ME “Good because I’m tired of going round in circles.. ..I then explained the Breach and mentioned that I was not happy that theyhave a cancellation number in their contract, but nobody there has authority to transact the contractual obligations!..., SO given the circumstance will you cancel the contract as requested?”
MANDY: “I’m not sure I’ll have to check I know there is an investiga…..Er, can I call you back?”
ME: “Would that be today”
MANDY: “Yes or tomorrow at the latest”
ME “Okay goodbye”
Mandy called me back within 5 minutes.
MANDY “Unfortunately we are unable to take questionson on this at the moment as our legal team is looking into the price rise letter and the T&Cs”
ME “ According to the T&C’s you are supposed to cancel immediately – I expect the cancellation will be backdated to when I first contacted you, and I will need a PAC code and an unlock code – can you confirm that this will happen?”
MANDY: “I can note it on the account”
ME “When will T-Mobile have finished its review”
MANDY: “I don’t know”
ME “Okay I’ll call you back next week if I have notheard anything”
T
M maintained the position that they were referring to Januarys RPI until 16th April when the March RPI was published which coincidentally happened to be the same as Januarys RPI rate of 3.3%. At that point TMs rationale for applying 3.3% RPI to my contract changes and now apparently their assumption that clause 7.2.3.3 allows them to use the March RPI figure published on 16th April as follows:0 -
I wonder how aware they are of the appalling job he's doing :mad:
Unfortunately he is ex-Orange, and somehow the Orange hierarchy seem to have had a quiet coup and taken over the board and senior management of EE.
Unfortunately we are seeing the arrogance and obstinance of France Telecom Orange and not the old customer focused T-Mobile.
As someone who worked for one2one and T-Mobile prior to the merger I barely recognise the ethos of the new company.
Orange probably think Mr Swinetee is doing a wonderful job.====0 -
RandomCurve wrote: »You did better than me - I never got a name - but I am guessing Mandy Lowery, However at the end of the day it is all down to SS (Silent Swantee :wave:).
So I'm going to take some legal advice to see if I can "strip away" the company and pursue him directly in the small claims court - a few quid might not matter to him, but I want to look in him in the eye when he is trying to spin his yarns!
Presume you're joking but just in case you're not - no, you can't. Please don't waste your money getting legal advice on that!0 -
Sorry - going to need 3 posts!!!
29th April– we were told TM had anticipated the rate and it is the March rate they are using.
Case Reference: 205****
Account Number: 5210****
Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]
Dear Mr *****,
Thank you for your email. The written notice that was issued in early April 2013 was sent without knowledge 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 give the customer a right to cancel. This was a risk that we took as a business as to what figure would be published on 16 April 2013 but that was our risk to take as a business and does not give the customer the right to cancel. As a business we anticipated the RPI figure for March, if it had been lower than expected customers would have been entitled to cancel their contracts but as this is not the case, cancellation of your contract without penalty is declined. As you have reached the end of our escalation process, if you wish to take this matter further you will need to seek external advice.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Baillie
Executive Office,
This clear change of direction that occurred AFTER the publication date of the March RPI is a clear indication that TM is trying to use the ambiguity of T&C 7.2.3.3 to avoid its legal obligation under clause 7.1.4 to terminate my contract without penalty. As:- TM alone drew up the T&Cs –there was no customer negotiation,
- TM decided when to send its price rise letter,
- TM decided the date the price rise is effective from, and
- TM decided to use the phrase “We’ve used the RPI which is CURRENTLY 3.3%...” in its price rise letter.
In addition to the rate not being higher than the relevant RPI TM are required to give me 30 Days’ notice,and as I have a right to terminate immediately on receipt of the letter if the letter refers to a rate that has not been published it follows that either:- I have not been given 30 days’ notice as I am effectively prevented from terminating the contract until 16th April – i.e. approximately 10 days later and therefore TM are in breach of the notice period clause 7.1.3 as they have effectively only given me 20 days to respond - 30 days’ notice is an OFCOM requirement as per clause 9.3 (a) of the Schedule to the notification under section 48(1) of the communications Act 2003, and therefore this triggers my right to terminate the contract immediately without penalty to me; OR
- It is deemed that 30 days’ notice has been given (most TM correspondence refers to the fact they have given 30 days’ notice) so if I work on that basis then it follows that I must be allowed to cancel in those first 10 days. In the absence of a March rate it can only be reasonable to expect that the rate to apply would be the CURRENT PUBLISHED rate (As the TM price rise letter clearly states they are using the CURRENT RATE). The current published rate at the time of the letter was 3.2%, which means the 3.3% rise is HIGHER than clause 7.2.3.3 allows thereby triggering my right to terminate the contract immediately without penalty to me.
Evidence relating to NON Compliance with Statute and Regulatory guidelines
As stated earlier the clausein the T&Cs that TM has relied upon is as follows:
The change that We gaveYou Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge(as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (alsocalculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We sendYou Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreementbefore the change takes effect.
Whilst the term itself may not at first appear to be ambiguous or vague we need to interpret how clear or otherwise the term is by reference to its application and the relevant statute and regulations regarding unfair contract terms.
TM wrote to me in early April (6th April) informing me of a price rise in line with the CURRENT RPI rate of 3.3%. By reference to the T&Cs it is clear that the month before the month I receive the letter is March, but as the March RPI figure is unavailable it follows that that clause 7.2.3.3 can only have meaning if the word PUBLISHED (as per OFT guidance clause 12.4 on page 58) is inserted as follows:
The change that We gaveYou Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge(as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months PUBLISHED before the month in which We send You Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
The timing of TMs letter renders the clause both unintelligible and ambiguous without the word “Published” inserted. I believe TM are themselves aware of the ambiguity as if you reference TMs updated T&C clause 7.2.3.3 has indeed been updated to include the word published so as not to be deemed an unfair term compared to the OFT guidance clause 12.4 - it therefore follows that without the word “published” clause 7.2.3.3 in the Pre Oct 2012 contract – together with the fact that TM have used an UNPUBLISHED rate – must be deemed UNFAIR. TMs post October 2012 T&Cs now state:
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 published on 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.
Note that the addition of the word “published” should mean that the new clause is now fair (however in addition to the word “published” TM has also taken the opportunity to include the word “reasonable”, which may in turn render the new clause unfair also).0 -
Unfortunately he is ex-Orange, and somehow the Orange hierarchy seem to have had a quiet coup and taken over the board and senior management of EE.
Unfortunately we are seeing the arrogance and obstinance of France Telecom Orange and not the old customer focused T-Mobile.
As someone who worked for one2one and T-Mobile prior to the merger I barely recognise the ethos of the new company.
Orange probably think Mr Swinetee is doing a wonderful job.
Thanks for correcting my misspelling of his name
There are still some Deutsche Telekom directors at the very top. If they don't know how he's been running the company then they soon will.0 -
3rd and Final!
Further evidence of the ambiguous nature of the clause has been provided by the actions of TM itself following the issue of the price rise letter and the following should be read with the knowledge that:
1. TM alone drew up the T&Cs –there was no customer negotiation,
2. TM decided when to send its price rise letter,
3. TM decided the date the price rise is effective from, and
4. TM decided to use the phrase “We’ve used the RPI which is CURRENTLY 3.3%...” in its price rise letter.
As TM had full control of the above four factors then if the clause was not ambiguous any query from any customer would have received the SAME consistent response from TM and that response would have stayed constant over time, however the following occurred:
On the 11thApril TM were claiming that they had used Januarys RPI published on February 12thas follows:
CaseReference: XXXXXX
Account Number: XXXXXX
Please respond to executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com
Dear Mr R,
Thank you for your recent email relating to the recently announced change inpricing structure. I have been asked by Olaf Swantee to respond on hisbehalf.
The frustration you may have felt at our recent announcement regarding a changein our pricing policy is acknowledged. This is a decision we have nottaken lightly. We are continually investing in our network andpropositions to provide the best service possible for our customers. Ournetwork has recently undergone a major overhaul with a full upgrade of our 2Gnetwork masts. This will ensure that there will be less chance of calls dropping out on our network and text messages being delivered more efficiently. The integration of the T-Mobile with the Orange network will also greaterUK wide coverage for our customers.
The increase is in line with theRetail Price Index 3.3% rate of inflation released on 12 February 2013. The increase applies to your monthly fee only. Individual call,data and text message charges remain the same.
This increase would not allow you to cancel your agreement at this stage without paying an early disconnection fee. Given the size of the increase we do not consider this change to be of material detriment to our customers. We are happy to discuss individual cases to see if there is a price planthat is more suitable. Your agreement ends on 27 September 2014.
I trust that the above is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Colin Peters
Executive Office, EE
29th April– we were told TM had anticipated the rate and it is the March rate they are using.
Case Reference: 205****
Account Number: 5210****
Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]
Dear Mr *****,
Thank you for your email. The written notice that was issued in early April 2013 was sent without knowledge 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 give the customer a right to cancel. This was a risk that we took as a business as to what figure would be published on 16 April 2013 but that was our risk to take as a business and does not give the customer the right to cancel. As a business we anticipated the RPI figure for March, if it had been lower than expected customers would have been entitled to cancel their contracts but as this is not the case, cancellation of your contract without penalty is declined. As you have reached the end of our escalation process, if you wish to take this matter further you will need to seek external advice.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Baillie
Executive Office,
And on 2nd May TM admit that they have caused confusion.
CaseReference: 2047277
Account Number: XXXXXXX
Please respond to [EMAIL="executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com"]executive.office@everythingeverywhere.com[/EMAIL]
Dear Mr L,
Thank you for your further email.
As per my previous email, I reiterate that the business decision was taken
to anticipate the RPI figure for March 2013 that was due to be published on
16 April 2013. I confirm that if when the RPI had been published it was
found to be lower than the price increase of 3.3% then we would have been in
breach of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and disconnection
without penalty would have been authorised.
With regard to the incorrectinformation that you may have received
previously from other areas of the business, I apologise sincerely for anyinconvenience that this may have caused you and confirm that your comments
will be highlighted to the relevant departments making them fully aware
making of the impact of this incident, with the aim of continually improving
our customer experience.
Please be advised that a deadlock letter will not be issued in regard to
this matter as we believe this matter falls outside the scope of the
Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (CISAS). I dispute
that we are in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement.
I confirm that clause 7.2.3.3 of the Terms and Conditions clearly states
that the relevant rate of RPI will reflect the 12 month period before the
month in which we send customers written notice. Written notice was issued
to our customers in April 2013, with the month prior being March 2013.
The RPI for March 2013 was published as 3.3% by the Office of National
Statistics on 16 April 2013. This is in line with the 3.3% price increase
that will take effect from 9 May 2013 and as such does not breach the Terms
and Conditions of the agreement.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Robson
Executive Office, EE
The fact that TM themselves find this ambiguous (in fact they had NO IDEA they were referring to the March RPI until after the 16th April when it was published – prior to that TM thought it was using the January rate – for proof of this ask TM to provide a copy of the letters SENT PRIOR TO 16th April that informed customers it was using the unpublished March rate) as evidenced above then I believe the relevant legal and regulatory frame work must come into play
The requirements under the:
· The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and
· OFT guidance, and agreed by OFCOM
relating to ambiguous contract terms where one party (in this case TM) has the power to write the T&Cs in a non-negotiated manner, which clearly stipulate how such a term should be interpreted.
Regulation7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states that:
(1) A seller orsupplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed inplain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubtabout the meaning of a written term, theinterpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevailbut this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under Regulation 12.
Page 86 ofthe OFT guidance, relating to plain and intelligible language, further states:
19.3 It follows that what is requiredis that terms areintelligible to ordinary members of the public, not just lawyers.They need to have a proper understanding of them for sensible and practical purposes. It is not sufficient for terms to be clear and precise for legal purposes, except in contractsnormally entered only on legal advice.
19.6 Ambiguity. Where a term is ambiguous, acourt may be able to find at least one fair meaning in it, and enforce it onthat basis, rather than declaring it unfair and void by reason of lack ofclarity. However, theDirective makes clear that the 'most favourable interpretation' rule isintended to benefit consumers in private disputes, not to give suppliers adefence against regulatory action – see Regulation 7(2). If a term's ambiguitycould cause detriment to consumers it may be challenged as unfair even if oneof its possible meanings is fair.
Page 58 ofthe OFT guidance, relating to price variation clauses, states:
12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricingmay be achieved fairly in the following ways.
• Where the level and timing of any priceincreases are specified (within narrow limits if not precisely) theyeffectively form part of the agreed price. As such they are acceptable,provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer'sattention.
• Terms which permit increases linkedto a relevant publishedprice index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable, as paragraph 2 ofSchedule 2 to the Regulations indicates, subject to the same proviso.
• Anykind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are free toescape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free tocancel, they must not be left worse off for having entered the contract,whether by experiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture of aprepayment) or serious inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences.
Given the ambiguity in the pre Oct 2012 contract clause as evidenced by TMs actions both in the timing of the letter and the subsequent conflicting messages from TM, and the above rationale as to why both current law (since 1999) and regulations (since September 2008) would view the term unfair the term needs to interpreted in a way most favourable to the consumer (Reg 7(2) of the UTCCR act 1999, and OFT guidance Page 86 Clause 19.6). This can most readily be achieved by inserting the word "published" into the T&Cs as required by the OFT Guidance Page 58 s12.4, relating to price variation clauses, thereby making it clear that the only rate that can be applicable to this contract without triggering my right to penalty free cancellation is the February RPI of3.2%.
CLAIMFOR DAMAGES
T-Mobile has a duty under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 to apply reasonable care and skill in the discharge of its contract and given the above ambiguity of the price rise letter, its timing, the T&C clause ambiguity and TM wholly inadequate response to clearly articulate which rate and/or month the RPI they are using shows a distinct lack of care and skill in relation to this price rise. Therefore in addition to terminating my contractwithout penalty back dated to X when I first requested to exercise my right totermination I would like to claim for damages for the frustration and inconvenience caused to me of £X .0 -
-
RandomCurve wrote: »3rd and Final!
Given the ambiguity in the pre Oct 2012 contract clause as evidenced by TMs actions both in the timing of the letter and the subsequent conflicting messages from TM, and the above rationale as to why both current law (since 1999) and regulations (since September 2008) would view the term unfair the term needs to interpreted in a way most favourable to the consumer (Reg 7(2) of the UTCCR act 1999, and OFT guidance Page 86 Clause 19.6). This can most readily be achieved by inserting the word "published" into the T&Cs as required by the OFT Guidance Page 58 s12.4, relating to price variation clauses, thereby making it clear that the only rate that can be applicable to this contract without triggering my right to penalty free cancellation is the February RPI of3.2%.
.
Just in case TM try to defend this with - it was not reasonable to use Feb - 2 things,- The clause does not include reasonable- and
- When I post the Post Oct arguments you'll see that the word reasonable in this context is also an unfair contract term!
0 -
Thanks for correcting my misspelling of his name
There are still some Deutsche Telekom directors at the very top. If they don't know how he's been running the company then they soon will.
I don't think there are, first thing out friend Olaf did when he took over was push all the T-Mobile directors out.The new boss of Everything Everywhere, Britain's largest mobile-phone company, began his first day in the job on Thursday by removing or demoting more than half of his senior management team.
Olaf Swantee, chief executive of the company created by the merger of Orange and T-Mobile last year, announced a swath of senior level departures as he announced a new streamlined "leadership team".
Swantee, a high-flying executive at Orange's parent company France T!l!com, hacked back Everything Everywhere's top team from 26 to 10. One casualty was Richard Moat, the company's deputy chief executive and finance director, who was passed over for the top job this summer. Moat was seen as the natural successor to Tom Alexander, who quit as chief executive in July. He is one of six executives leaving the company; a further 10 vice-presidents were in effect demoted.
The new leadership team includes no executives from T-Mobile, leading analysts to question whether the merger of Britain's third- and fourth-biggest mobile operators was really the "merger of equals" it was billed as at the time.
From here
This was on his FIRST DAY in charge, just shows his attitude and manner.====0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards