Tmobile price increase

RandomCurve

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

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...

It is true the letter did not refer to that - but where in the T&Cs does it say it has to refer to the fact that it is using an unpublished rate - NOWHERE! so the T&Cs are not breached.

The way to argue it - again linking to unfair T&Cs- is that TM announced price rise on 1st March and wrote to you on say 6th April - therefore they had about 47 days to compose a letter that clearly explained the rate being applied. The fact that they did not means that the letter when read in conjunction with the T&Cs renders the clause "unintelligible" and further proof the T&Cs are "ambiguous" and therefore unfair under OFT guidelines

Barnicle_Fiend

RandomCurve wrote: »

It is true the letter did not refer to that - but where in the T&Cs does it say it has to refer to the fact that it is using an unpublished rate - NOWHERE! so the T&Cs are not breached.

I'm referring to clause 7.2.3.3.

T-mobile are allowed to interpret the clause however they wish, as is the customer. The point I'm making is that if t-mobile choose to interpret the clause in a very unusual way (future RPI etc.) and they don't tell their customer this when they trigger the immediate termination clause. Then they should expect customers to interpret the clause in a more intelligible way and cancel their contracts.

This is not unreasonable and their argument for not technically breaching t&c's is significantly weakened.

i.e. if there is a more logical / sensible / obvious way of interpreting 7.2.3.3 then whether there is technically a breach of the t&c's or not is irrelevant.

Barnicle_Fiend

RandomCurve wrote: »

The way to argue it - again linking to unfair T&Cs- is that TM announced price rise on 1st March and wrote to you on say 6th April - therefore they had about 47 days to compose a letter that clearly explained the rate being applied. The fact that they did not means that the letter when read in conjunction with the T&Cs renders the clause "unintelligible" and further proof the T&Cs are "ambiguous" and therefore unfair under OFT guidelines

To be honest I don't think the t&c's are particularly unintelligible or ambiguous. I think the outrage on this forum is in part because people do understand them and baulk at t-mobiles strange and counter intuitive interpretation.

I think it weakens our argument by saying they are unintelligible. I understand exactly what they mean and it's got nothing to do with predicting future RPI.

d123

RandomCurve wrote: »

[*]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.)

I would disagree with you on this one, I did not lodge an intention to cancel, the T&Cs don't allow me to give an intention to cancel.

The term is clear, upon receiving the written notice I must immeditely cancel the contract. There is nothing about lodging intentions or any other timescale, it says I must immediately cancel the contract if I don't accept the increase, if they don't hear me from me before the increase takes effect I'm deemed to have accepted it.

I think you are over thinking 7.2.3.3, it is clear in its meaning if you take it clause by clause.

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 this Agreement before the change takes effect.

If it was to become a "pick it apart word for word" issue, I would actually argue that

higher than any increase in the RPI for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice

Would actually mean ANY increase, and there were 12 increases in the preceding 12 months, some of which were well below 3.3%. If it was supposed to only mean the month before the month of the notice, the word "any" is superfluous and changes the meaning.

Barnicle_Fiend

RandomCurve wrote: »

[*]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.

Does anyone have any details of how t-mobile interpreted this clause in the past? (I assume this is not the first price increase t-mobile have ever made?).

I wonder what the other networks equivalent clauses look like? Perhaps it is possible to prove that there is a more intuitive way of interpreting this clause by referring to precedent...

d123

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

Does anyone have any details of how t-mobile interpreted this clause in the past? (I assume this is not the first price increase t-mobile have ever made?).

I wonder what the other networks equivalent clauses look like? Perhaps it is possible to prove that there is a more intuitive way of interpreting this clause by referring to precedent...

T-Mobile have done so in the past, and always used the preceding months figure (the one published when the notice was sent).

This fairy tale of guessing the future RPI has never been tried by a network before.

Barnicle_Fiend

d123 wrote: »

T-Mobile have done so in the past, and always used the preceding months figure (the one published when the notice was sent).

This fairy tale of guessing the future RPI has never been tried by a network before.

Then they have surely shafted themselves with their own precedent. Can you dig out any specifics?

Anyone that is sending their case to CISAS should argue that t-mobile themselves set a precedent for interpreting 7.2.3.3. Whether crazy interpretations involving future RPI predictions technically breach the t&c's or not is irrelevant.

I've just got home to an early termination fee letter. T-mobile must have made a mistake! *cough*

RandomCurve

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

Then they have surely shafted themselves with their own precedent. Can you dig out any specifics?

Was buried in post #721


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

1. In 2012 T-Mobile increased its prices, the relevant dates are as follows:
   1. Feb RPI published March 20th 2012
   2. T-Mobile sends letters between 28th March and 3rd April (7-11Working days after publication (excluded weekends))
   3. Price rise effective 9th May
2. In 2013 T-Mobile increase prices,
   1. As T-Mobile terms state an ANNUAL increase in inflation it is reasonable to assume that February is the intended RPI rate
   2. Feb RPI published 20 March
   3. 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.

RandomCurve

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

I've just got home to an early termination fee letter. T-mobile must have made a mistake! *cough*

Welcome to the club!

See posts #834 and #835 for links to the law, and post #874 for a note of caution.

Somebody else posted that on a second call to TM they did agree not to charge the cancellation charge if the PAC was not used.

Barnicle_Fiend

RandomCurve wrote: »

Was buried in post #721

1. In 2012 T-Mobile increased its prices, the relevant dates are as follows:
   1. Feb RPI published March 20th 2012
   2. T-Mobile sends letters between 28th March and 3rd April (7-11Working days after publication (excluded weekends))
   3. Price rise effective 9th May
2. In 2013 T-Mobile increase prices,
   1. As T-Mobile terms state an ANNUAL increase in inflation it is reasonable to assume that February is the intended RPI rate
   2. Feb RPI published 20 March
   3. 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.

2012
So letters were received from t-mobile after the release of Februarys RPI figure and before the release of the March Figure i.e. letters in early April.

The February figure was then used.

2013
Letters were received from t-mobile after the release of Februarys RPI figure and before the release of the March Figure i.e. letters in early April.

T-mobile are now claiming that the march figure should be used.

Have I got that right? I can't see them getting anywhere with that argument...