Tmobile price increase

Barnicle_Fiend

daveuk1 wrote: »

Sure, but the point is that, albeit by pure dumb luck, they haven't breached their Ts & Cs (at least not those that apply to pre-Oct contracts).

Perhaps not. But they have chosen to interpret a clause in a very unusual way and contrary to the precedent that they themselves set in 2012. They didn't share this strange decision with anyone.

They then wrote to customers triggering the immediate termination clause forcing customers to make the decision whether to leave.

After that they revealed their very unusual interpretation and denied the validity of the more intelligible interpretation that they themselves used in 2012.

The process is unfair, it is not transparent and it verges on being cruel (it must have been obvious to them that they were putting customers in a very difficult position and yet they did it anyway).

Being open and honest with customers about the mistake may lead to compromise and some understanding from affected customers. As it is, they still act like they write the rules and deny all and any wrongdoing. This attitude will serve them no favours if they eventually try to play the 'honest mistake' card.

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

Totally agree - the best way is to argue how your interpretation is reasonable and TMs is not using the above and the relevant OFT's guidance on the provisions of the UTCCR's for unfair contract terms.
Only route I would not go down is the bit I've "greyed out" in the quote above as it is TMs business decision - and they really could have picked a rate in what ever fairy tale manner they wanted. Although I agree it is bonkers.

On the CISAS process (I am not there yet) can you introduce the above arguments once you have submitted your claim? I.e if you put in a claim that they have used the wrong rate, or you cancelled before the March Rate was published, but did not add all the arguments about reasonable interpretations - how do you get that to be considered by CISAS?

I see your point about the business decision - I wasn't trying to call this into question, but show that interpreting RPI as being the (future) March rate is unreasonable, in light of that business decision - if that makes sense!

Re CISAS, you get the opportunity to comment on TM's response to your complaint, but can't introduce any new evidence by this stage. If, for example, you hadn't mentioned last year's increase, or the consumer protection laws, when submitting your supporting evidence, you can't refer to this at a later stage. However, the reference to current RPI in the written notice you can comment on, as you will have (hopefully!) submitted a copy of this as supporting evidence.

So the best time to submit these arguments, and refer to the legislation, is when you provide your supporting documentation once your application's in to CISAS. If you wanted to add it after your application's been accepted, you can still do this, but it will probably mean that TM are given another 2 weeks to respond, so they have time to consider the new evidence.

anna2007

daveuk1 wrote: »

Worth pointing out here that (especially if you are pre-Oct) you are almost completely reliant on discretionary interpretation of contract and consumer protection legislation by either CISAS or the courts.

FWIW, I don't find much of what has been written previously persuasive that there has been a breach of the (pre-Oct) Ts & Cs. But, in any event, since you are so heavily reliant on the sympathy of CISAS and/or the courts, you should bear in mind how this whole thing looks objectively, irrespective of how disgruntled you may be.

I think we would all agree that this is clearly not a case of T-Mobile setting out to manipulate its Ts & Cs for its own gain and to the detriment of its customers. Rather, they have made a monumentally stupid error and are now trying to avoid allowing their customers to benefit (quite disproportionately) from that error. They may be the big, nasty profit machine against we the innocent customers but that shouldn't overshadow the facts. This is relevant because I would think it is likely to influence how a court may construe the facts.

Maybe worth bearing in mind in terms of managing your own expectations...

I think we all agree that TM made a monumentally stupid error and that they didn't set out to manipulate the t&c's; however I think most would agree that they did subsequently manipulate the t&c's, in an attempt to cover their mistake, and their actions have been to the detriment of its customers. Whether the customer benefits disproportionately from that error is irrelevant, as the term allows for cancellation if the increase is above RPI - how much above RPI isn't quantified in any way.

If it really does come down to the sympathy of CISAS and the courts, then I would have thought this should work in the customer's favour, given TM's actions and obvious manipulation of the facts.

In terms of managing my expectations, I don't expect to win at CISAS, but at least I've kicked up a fair amount of fuss over the way that TM has treated its customers. Also, it now looks like my CISAS complaint will be seen through to the end, which means it has cost TM more than the cancellation charge on my contracts. If that's the only outcome, then that's good enough for me - anything over and above that is a bonus.

EDIT:
I have just read this back and realised it sounds really negative, and don't want to discourage others, as I still believe we have a good case.

What I meant was that I don't expect to win, because that way I won't be disappointed if I lose, but will be pleasantly surprised if I win. No more or less than that

daveuk1

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

Perhaps not. But they have chosen to interpret a clause in a very unusual way and contrary to the precedent that they themselves set in 2012. They didn't share this strange decision with anyone.

They then wrote to customers triggering the immediate termination clause forcing customers to make the decision whether to leave.

After that they revealed their very unusual interpretation and denied the validity of the more intelligible interpretation that they themselves used in 2012.

The process is unfair, it is not transparent and it verges on being cruel (it must have been obvious to them that they were putting customers in a very difficult position and yet they did it anyway).

Being open and honest with customers about the mistake may lead to compromise and some understanding from affected customers. As it is, they still act like they write the rules and deny all and any wrongdoing. This attitude will serve them no favours if they eventually try to play the 'honest mistake' card.

Disagree that it's an unusual interpretation. The problem people are finding here is that the natural language interpretation of the clause is that the relevant RPI is March's. The ambiguity was caused solely by their stupid move in sending out the notice before the relevant RPI had been announced.

I very much doubt that it was obvious to them what position they were putting customers in - the whole point is that they didn't realise the effect of what they were doing when they did it. They just got lucky when March's RPI happened to be 3.3%.

No doubt, the "decent" thing to do would have been to be open and honest - but of course they haven't been due to the risk of giving customers an "out". They have simply been in damage limitation mode which has overridden any desire to be fair to customers - not that they have ever been renowned for their service anyway!

Barnicle_Fiend

daveuk1 wrote: »

Disagree that it's an unusual interpretation. The problem people are finding here is that the natural language interpretation of the clause is that the relevant RPI is March's. The ambiguity was caused solely by their stupid move in sending out the notice before the relevant RPI had been announced.

Well even if you disagree that the interpretation is unusual (& in my opinion it very much is), a very sensible approach would be to refer to the interpretation of the clause made by t-mobile in previous years.... but nope, that doesn't work either.

Their decision to predict RPI is simply nonsensical. Whichever way it is post rationalised.

RandomCurve

I have just finished talking with Ofcom. Did I get to speak with Graham? Well no I did not. However I can report back the following -lots if it you already know:

1. Ofcom will NOT get involved in individual cases
2. Ofcom WILL get involved IF there seems to be a strong feeling (partially measured by the number of complaints they receive on a particular issue, but not entirely)
3. Ofcom do not mind that TM have asked CISAS to stop taking on cases whilst they discuss issues (I did point out does that makes me question CISAS independence.)
4. Ofcom don't see anything wrong in TM refusing to allow this to go to CISAS without making us wait for 8 weeks

Anyway if you want o get Ofcom to have a look into what TM are doing you have to call (020-7981-3040, option 1) or email [EMAIL="contact@ofcom.org.uk"]contact@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

The reference number to quote is 1234851904 as this is the item we want to Ofcom to review.

So please mail or call Ofcom quoting as write say as follows:

"in regards to Ofcom reference 1234851904 I want to complain about the manner in which TM has applied its T&Cs in its 2013 price rise."

That is it - job done. Can we get 30,000 plus people to do that? we ended up with 16 Ofcom emails being sent last time, so with that score they won't take a look - so over to everyone - it is up to YOU.

boatman

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

Well even if you disagree that the interpretation is unusual (& in my opinion it very much is), a very sensible approach would be to refer to the interpretation of the clause made by t-mobile in previous years.... but nope, that doesn't work either.

Their decision to predict RPI is simply nonsensical. Whichever way it is post rationalised.

In the price increase letter they sent out it did say 'current' RPI which was 3.2%, can't really see how they can dispute that.

daveuk1

boatman wrote: »

In the price increase letter they sent out it did say 'current' RPI which was 3.2%, can't really see how they can dispute that.

Indeed, probably not, but in amongst all the myriad arguments being presented here, the fundamental point is in danger of being lost. People are claiming that T-Mobile are in breach of contract. There is a lot of "padding" around the edges of this relating to the various ridiculous stories that T-Mobile have conjured up to excuse their moronic behaviour, the disinformation they have given out, the shifty way they have treated customers etc etc. But the bottom line is that either they have breached their contract terms or they have not. If they haven't, then these claims against them are likely to fail.

As regards the pre-Oct terms, there has been much questionable behaviour but not, IMHO, a breach of contract. On the contrary, if you are on post-Oct terms, I would think that their argument that it was not practical to use the latest published RPI prior to giving notice is unlikely to hold water (for the many good reasons outlined). This is where their previous conduct and how they approached the price rise last year is relevant.

Barnicle_Fiend

daveuk1 wrote: »

Indeed, probably not, but in amongst all the myriad arguments being presented here, the fundamental point is in danger of being lost. People are claiming that T-Mobile are in breach of contract.

I'm not. I'm claiming that t-mobile putting the price up allows me to terminate my contract without penalty.

See my letter to them on post #817.

NittyGritty

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

Hey Guys,

I have not read all of the 41+ pages but I was interested to read that other people are baulking at T-Mobiles price increases. This has never happened to me when in contract before & I think its a disgrace!

For those that are interested, here is the letter I sent them cancelling my contract (sent to customer administration in Duxford):

---

Dear Sirs,


I hereby terminate my pay monthly mobile telephone contract with T-Mobile. I have also given notice by telephone –in accordance with #7.2.2 of your November 2010 pay monthly telephone terms version 58A.

The reason for this termination is your notification (a letter received 6th April 2013) of an increase in the contract price from £36.00 to £37.18 per month. This increase is excessive and it is clearly to my Material Detriment. Any attempt to impose this price change on me without allowing a penalty–free right to cancel, is unfair and unenforceable as a matter of law.

Clause 9.6 of the General Conditions of OFCOM states:

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.

Further to the above, your price increase of 3.3% is higher than the Retail Price Index percentage dated 19th March 2013 covering the month of February as documented on the Office for National Statistics website as 3.2%. As such you have increased my monthly price plan by a rate higher than the published RPI increase for the 12 months before the month in which you sent your written notice (April).

This price increase then must be accompanied by a right to penalty free termination to avoid being deemed unfair in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), Schedule 2 (1) (l) …allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;..”

The Office of Fair Trading has published guidance on the UTCCRs. On the issue of price variation clauses, OFT’s guidance states that:
“12.1 ...A clause allowing the supplier to increase the price – varying the most important of all of the consumer’s contractual obligations – has clear potential for unfairness.
12.2 Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has become bound to pay is obviously objectionable........It also applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where consumers are “captive” – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel.
12.3 A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because it is not discretionary.......Suppliers are much better able to anticipate and control charges in their own costs than consumers can possibly be. In any case, such a clause is particularly open to abuse, because consumers can have no reasonable certainty that the increases imposed on them actually match net cost increases.” This guidance clearly calls into question the fairness of the contract under the UTCCRs.

You will be aware of Ofcom’s Guidance; "Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are free to escape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free to cancel, they must not be left worse off for having entered the contract, whether by experiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture of a prepayment) or serious inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences.”

You will also be aware of the recent consultation by Ofcom entitled "Price rises in fixed term contracts" published 3rd January 2013 which makes it clear that Ofcom consider it necessary to act in relation to the controversial and legally questionable practice by phone operators of imposing mid-term price increases. The outcome of this review is expected in June 2013.

I now exercise my legal right to cancel the contract due to your price increase, which is not acceptable to me and of Material Detriment.

I reject as unfair your attempt to artificially limit the right to cancel to some scenarios and not others in clause 7.2.3.3 in the face of the clear legislation and regulatory guidance and General Condition 9. At any rate, you increased the price by a higher percentage than permitted under this clause. Any attempt to claim a penalty and in particular a cancellation charge will be resisted. Your terms are also unfair and therefore non-binding and unenforceable. Any claim for them will be disputed and you will need a Court Order to obtain payment of them. I will defend any legal proceedings for such sums under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

I will cancel my direct debit immediately. Please let me know the exact outstanding balance for the last 30 days and I will send a cheque in full and final satisfaction of the remaining charges owed to you under the contract. I spoke to your account staff but they were unable to calculate this for me.

In my view this will then end our contract in line with the law. If you dispute the above interpretation of our contract and / or consumer law please contact me and hopefully we can reach an agreement amicably avoiding the need to proceed through the courts.

Please note: No summary enforcement is allowed where there is a genuine dispute meaning you cannot collect disputed sums as debts.

Please also note: You sold me a discounted phone on the basis that I entered into this contract with you, I have now terminated the contract in accordance with its terms and the law. Blocking the IMEI number of the phone you sold me will clearly be illegal and malicious. I will take you to court to have any block removed and seek recompense and damages for any time the phone is unusable.



Yours Sincerely,

XXX

what responce did you get back from tmobile from your letter above?

did they agree to cancel or did they just paste the usual, sorry u cant cancel without paying termination fees etc?