watchdog

mynameisdave

edit: nevermind

Earthworm

I am guessing T-Mobile thought the easier option would be to credit them back the charges and move on...

The programme didn't really specify much about the actual usage or what was actually said on the sales call... Just what the lawyer claimed was said.

The only part that puzzled me was that the lawyer upgraded their contract... I would have thought roaming charges would have stayed the same as the previous agreement so I cant seem to understand why this would need to be mentioned again at the point of upgrade.

I would have thought as long as T-Mobile refer you to a place which shows the terms and prices for any excess usage this in the eyes of the law would have been enough to cover their back.

Of course I am not a lawyer and cannot say for definate.

MillicentBystander

I'm amazed T-Mobile let it go to court - don't the networks usually massively reduce the bill as a 'one off' offer (because they don't normally wish to go to court and reveal what the data has actually cost them)?

Cycrow

Seems odd that they would need to go through all the t&c over the phone, surely they can just refer them to a copy they can read. Afterall, you get a 7 day cooling off period to read them and then reject them if you dont agree.

im glad they dont currently do that, Barclaycard do this already and its really annoying, stuck on the phone for ages as they read through all the t&c just so i can upgrade/change my card.

if more people start using this to avoid paying/get out of contracts, its just going to get worse for everyone else

Silk

Cycrow wrote: »

Seems odd that they would need to go through all the t&c over the phone, surely they can just refer them to a copy they can read. Afterall, you get a 7 day cooling off period to read them and then reject them if you dont agree.

She claimed in court she was never sent the T&C's nor had they been made available to her other than the ones discussed on the phone.

The interesting part was the Judge deciding it was a new contract even though it was an upgrade ???

Why Watchdog broadcast the article which was ruled on almost 6 months ago and refers to an upgrade going back to 2010 is beyond me.

The action was in the small claims court and she was represented by a barrister up against a legal rep from t-mobile

It begs the question why does a lawyer need to instruct a barrister for a small claims case ...even more so when contract law is supposed to be your specialist subject :rotfl:

albionrovers

Silk wrote: »

She claimed in court she was never sent the T&C's nor had they been made available to her other than the ones discussed on the phone.

The interesting part was the Judge deciding it was a new contract even though it was an upgrade ???

Why Watchdog broadcast the article which was ruled on almost 6 months ago and refers to an upgrade going back to 2010 is beyond me.

The action was in the small claims court and she was represented by a barrister up against a legal rep from t-mobile

It begs the question why does a lawyer need to instruct a barrister for a small claims case ...even more so when contract law is supposed to be your specialist subject :rotfl:

Because she was so confident of victory that she wanted her pal to get paid?

MillicentBystander

Silk wrote: »

She claimed in court she was never sent the T&C's nor had they been made available to her other than the ones discussed on the phone.

1. The interesting part was the Judge deciding it was a new contract even though it was an upgrade ???

Why Watchdog broadcast the article which was ruled on almost 6 months ago and refers to an upgrade going back to 2010 is beyond me.

2. The action was in the small claims court and she was represented by a barrister up against a legal rep from t-mobile

It begs the question why does a lawyer need to instruct a barrister for a small claims case ...even more so when contract law is supposed to be your specialist subject :rotfl:

1. If the punter getting the upgrade is then committed for another length of time (usually 24 months) then imo the court are quite right in seeing it as a new contract. Why wouldn't they? It's effectively the same as going to another network and starting over again, isn't it?

2. An individual (albeit a lawyer) against a multi billion £ organisation. Please don't tell me you are looking for T-Mobile to get sympathy here :rotfl:. They have the resources to get the best/most expensive barrister in the land if they wished to. They didn't. They lost.

im-lost

I'm guessing t-mobile just rolled over to have its belly rubbed to avoid having to let out a bunch of commercially sesensitive data in a case over less than a grand, after all, in the small claims court, it sets no precedent for others to follow, so why bother trying to defend yourself against some jumped up little !!!! who wants to stick it to the man.

MillicentBystander

I'm beginning to see where diamonds was coming from in that earlier post. Crikey.

Silk

MillicentBystander wrote: »

2. An individual (albeit a lawyer) against a multi billion £ organisation. Please don't tell me you are looking for T-Mobile to get sympathy here :rotfl:. They have the resources to get the best/most expensive barrister in the land if they wished to. They didn't. They lost.

No I don't ask for sympathy far from it :rotfl:

When I read about the case a few months back I thought the result was amusing..........

To expect a contract litigator not to have read the T&C's of a contract she herself was entering into stretches the imagination a bit
As does the situation of a young well paid lawyer with years of mobile usage never coming across data roaming charges before