Tmobile price increase

adamoneill88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1WKVMIXmXU

RandomCurve

All - only have time for one post today, but I've got 3 good ones lined up for tomorrow including how we might be able to beat Material Detriment!!

Any way reason for this quick post is two fold

1. To thank Anna and to urge you all to call the BBC as she has outlined - strike while the iron is hot!!
2. As you know I don't trust TM one little bit and as they have been having private conversations with CISAS and now CISAS are accepting claims I fear their thought process may be as follows:
   1. Accept any claim that has argued 3.3% can't be right because it was an anticipated rate,
   2. Then the customer loses because 3.3% IS the Rate applicable to March and IS the rate per the T&Cs and there is no stipulation that they can't invent a rate however they want.
   3. Then everyone else is scared off.
   4. TM - home free!

Hopefully I'm just being paranoid, but of those who have had CISAS claims accepted did you argue:

1. "wrong rate"/Anticipated rate, or
2. "Unfair contract term"?

If most are in category 1 - I think it is a trick and you need to submit further evidence re unfair contract term - even if it delays you by a couple of weeks.

Hopefully you'll all tell me I am wrong and you all argued case 2 - in which case I am just paranoid!!!

stoney73

RandomCurve wrote: »

All - only have time for one post today, but I've got 3 good ones lined up for tomorrow including how we might be able to beat Material Detriment!!

Any way reason for this quick post is two fold

1. To thank Anna and to urge you all to call the BBC as she has outlined - strike while the iron is hot!!
2. As you know I don't trust TM one little bit and as they have been having private conversations with CISAS and now CISAS are accepting claims I fear their thought process may be as follows:
   1. Accept any claim that has argued 3.3% can't be right because it was an anticipated rate,
   2. Then the customer loses because 3.3% IS the Rate applicable to March and IS the rate per the T&Cs and there is no stipulation that they can't invent a rate however they want.
   3. Then everyone else is scared off.
   4. TM - home free!

Hopefully I'm just being paranoid, but of those who have had CISAS claims accepted did you argue:

1. "wrong rate"/Anticipated rate, or
2. "Unfair contract term"?

If most are in category 1 - I think it is a trick and you need to submit further evidence re unfair contract term - even if it delays you by a couple of weeks.

Hopefully you'll all tell me I am wrong and you all argued case 2 - in which case I am just paranoid!!!

I argued 'Contract terms' and this excerpt from one of your previous posts in this thread:
"Please note: My T&Cs allow T-Mobile to increase their line rental on fixed term contracts, however the rate that they have applied is not in accordance with the T&Cs. I have contacted T-Mobile to exercise my right to cancel without penalty to me, but T-Mobile have refused that right thereby breaching T-Mobiles T&Cs."

shedder101

just had a response from CISAS

CISAS says no to my claim, due to not receiving a deadlock letter please try again in 8 weeks.

havent received a deadlock letter, i had one letter from them before i went to CISAS they wern't talking

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

All - only have time for one post today, but I've got 3 good ones lined up for tomorrow including how we might be able to beat Material Detriment!!

Any way reason for this quick post is two fold

1. To thank Anna and to urge you all to call the BBC as she has outlined - strike while the iron is hot!!
2. As you know I don't trust TM one little bit and as they have been having private conversations with CISAS and now CISAS are accepting claims I fear their thought process may be as follows:
   1. Accept any claim that has argued 3.3% can't be right because it was an anticipated rate,
   2. Then the customer loses because 3.3% IS the Rate applicable to March and IS the rate per the T&Cs and there is no stipulation that they can't invent a rate however they want.
   3. Then everyone else is scared off.
   4. TM - home free!

Hopefully I'm just being paranoid, but of those who have had CISAS claims accepted did you argue:

1. "wrong rate"/Anticipated rate, or
2. "Unfair contract term"?

If most are in category 1 - I think it is a trick and you need to submit further evidence re unfair contract term - even if it delays you by a couple of weeks.

Hopefully you'll all tell me I am wrong and you all argued case 2 - in which case I am just paranoid!!!

I would argue that an "anticipated rate" is not actually possible in terms of section 7.2.3.3. There is no way it can be possible as the termination of contract is immediate.

T-Mobile post out increase letters before the 9th of April stating the increase of 3.3% will be implemented in 30 days (as per the T&Cs). At the time of the written notice the actual RPI is 3.2% so as per the contract the notice to be given is immediate and the contract is cancelled at that time. In my case, that notice of immediate termination was given on the 7th of April, there can be no further debate between T-Mobile and the customer, they no longer have a contract.

What happened 9 days later on the 16th cannot have a bearing on that cancelled contract.

Barnicle_Fiend

d123 wrote: »

I would argue that an "anticipated rate" is not actually possible in terms of section 7.2.3.3. There is no way it can be possible as the termination of contract is immediate.

T-Mobile post out increase letters before the 9th of April stating the increase of 3.3% will be implemented in 30 days (as per the T&Cs). At the time of the written notice the actual RPI is 3.2% so as per the contract the notice to be given is immediate and the contract is cancelled at that time. In my case, that notice of immediate termination was given on the 7th of April, there can be no further debate between T-Mobile and the customer, they no longer have a contract.

What happened 9 days later on the 16th cannot have a bearing on that cancelled contract.

Agree. .

RandomCurve

d123 wrote: »

I would argue that an "anticipated rate" is not actually possible in terms of section 7.2.3.3. There is no way it can be possible as the termination of contract is immediate.

T-Mobile post out increase letters before the 9th of April stating the increase of 3.3% will be implemented in 30 days (as per the T&Cs). At the time of the written notice the actual RPI is 3.2% so as per the contract the notice to be given is immediate and the contract is cancelled at that time. In my case, that notice of immediate termination was given on the 7th of April, there can be no further debate between T-Mobile and the customer, they no longer have a contract.

What happened 9 days later on the 16th cannot have a bearing on that cancelled contract.

I think if you cancelled in the first 10 days then that is a good argument, however I still believe that you might also have to couch it in terms that it is an unfair clause because it does not refer to a requirement to use a PUBLISHED rate is suggested as best practice by OFT (and as witnessed by TM changing later T&Cs to include the word "published"), and therefore if an unpublished rate is used it renders the clause "unintelligible" which again makes it an unfair contract term.

We are arguing the same point, but I fear if you don't go down the unfair contract term route in addition to your current argument TM will simply us the following "perverted" logic and WIN the case:

• The T&C does not require them to use a published rate (that is TRUE)
• They gave you 30 days notice (That is TRUE if you just look at a calendar from the date they wrote to the date the price rise was implemented) also they will say:
  • You can lodge an intention to cancel in the first 10 days (which you did) and TM would have backdated the cancelation had the rate been incorrect i.e. in effect it would have not only have been Immediate - it would have been to your benefit as you would have had 10 days FREE service from them (How can you argue against a statement of what they would have done if the rate was different? You can't.)
• The rate they applied was 3.3% which is no higher than the March rate as advised (TRUE)
• Their T&Cs allow them to use the March rate (TRUE)
• How they decided to arrive at 3.3% is a business decision, and as long as the number they come up with - however they come up with it - is 3.3% or less they have not triggered your right to penalty free cancelation (TRUE)

So your case is blown out of the water.

I REALLY HOPE I AM WRONG ON THE ABOVE!

Looking at how they have behaved (on this and on the Orange "scandal") and especially in light of the secret pow-wow with CISAS I'm sure this is all a trap.

EVERYONE - Please challenge with counter arguments everything I have put down as TMs likely defence in blue using facts only (not logic, fairness, or emotion). Because if you can't defeat the arguments above in blue purely on FACTS the case (in my opinion) won't succeed.

RandomCurve

A possible defence against Material Detriment??


General Conditions 9.6 The Communications Provider shall:

(a) give its Subscribers adequate notice not shorter than one month of any modifications likely to be of material detriment to that Subscriber;

(b) allow its Subscribers to withdraw from their contract without penalty upon such notice; and

(c) at the same time as giving the notice in condition 9.6 (a) above, shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber.

Definition of Likely:
“Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable”

Definition of Probable:
1. likely to occur or prove true.
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.


The rules state that the mobile phone company needs to write to you if the change is LIKELY to cause material detriment. The use of the word likely rather than “may” or “might” suggests that the there is an EXPECTATION that the change will be of material detriment, and if that is the case the Mobile phone company needs to prove that it has not caused Material Detriment rather than you proving that it has!

If the Mobile phone company say the proof is that they have used RPI you can claim that the wage inflation index is only 1.1%, but they are increasing costs b y3.3% therefore you have suffered a real terms detriment which is material to you! The courts CAN NOT expect you to prove that your salary has only changed by 1.1% (or less than 3.3%) because if they could then by the same logic the phone company would also have to prove that their cost have increased by 3.3% -and they won’t want to go there!.

Could be worth try for anybody NOT on a T-Mobile contract – we have much stronger reasons why the 3.3% triggers the cancellation clause.

Barnicle_Fiend

d123 wrote: »

I would argue that an "anticipated rate" is not actually possible in terms of section 7.2.3.3. There is no way it can be possible as the termination of contract is immediate.

T-Mobile post out increase letters before the 9th of April stating the increase of 3.3% will be implemented in 30 days (as per the T&Cs). At the time of the written notice the actual RPI is 3.2% so as per the contract the notice to be given is immediate and the contract is cancelled at that time. In my case, that notice of immediate termination was given on the 7th of April, there can be no further debate between T-Mobile and the customer, they no longer have a contract.

What happened 9 days later on the 16th cannot have a bearing on that cancelled contract.

Moreover, nothing in the letter explained that t-mobile were taking a gamble on future RPI figures. How on earth were customers meant to guess this from the letter. When twinned with clause 7.2.3.3 it was clearly misleading.

However, as everyone with common sense knows, t-mobile made a mistake and are desperately trying to wriggle out of the consequences.

I would be intrigued to see the internal correspondence in which some t-mobile employee suggests taking a gamble on the future RPI figures. I imagine all the senior staff showered praise on such a clearly benificial business minded suggestion...

To be honest, I'm sick of this sh*t, t-mobile can suck my balls.

RandomCurve

stoney73 wrote: »

I argued 'Contract terms' and this excerpt from one of your previous posts in this thread:
"Please note: My T&Cs allow T-Mobile to increase their line rental on fixed term contracts, however the rate that they have applied is not in accordance with the T&Cs. I have contacted T-Mobile to exercise my right to cancel without penalty to me, but T-Mobile have refused that right thereby breaching T-Mobiles T&Cs."

That should get the ball rolling in the right direction. When it gets to CISAS you'll have to back it up with why FEBRUARY RPI is the only rate that can possibly be applied to your contract.