EE changed my tariff without permission!

wiogs

grumbler wrote: »

It was an individual error that has to be corrected, not a general change that the T&C mean when saying this.

It matters not.

Still a material detriment to the OP.

grumbler

If you read the T&C thoroughly instead of stubbornly quoting 'material detriment' out of context, you will see that this term is used only in connection with:

• changes to the general T&C (2.11.3),
• changes within the same price plan (7.1.4).

Neither is the case for the OP. The latter doesn't apply because the OP was erroneously (or even intentionally) switched to a different plan.

That said, yes, shouting loudly 'material detriment' and other nonsense can help sometimes, especially if you get to some new incompetent member of the CS. Not in this case that is currently being dealt with by some experienced and competent manager who was spot on as per the post #16.

Herongull

For more information on these sorts of issues:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/i-may-have-been-misled-by-my-mobile-phone-provider/

Why not accept the offer to reinstate the original tariff Under Protest and Reserving All Your Rights and making it clear that because of all the hassle and time they've put you through and your total lack of confidence in them (due to the numerous incorrect statements) and the fact they've been acting unlawfully for several months etc etc, you considered that you are still entitled to have the contract terminated?

Now that they've finally caved in, I'm not sure of the legal situation. Certainly before this happened, by law you were entitled to end the contract and you attempted to assert your legal rights to do do. If they had immediately admitted their mistake and sorted things out this would have been different, but for months you were entitled to end the contract and possibly even claim damages, so I'm not sure that changing the tariff back at a late stages removes these rights.

Follow the formal complaints procedure (using recorded delivery for letters) making it clear why you are insisting on the contract being cancelled, and take it to the ombudsman if necessary. Keep paying in the meantime

wiogs

I would use 7.2.3.2 myself instead of quoting things that don't apply.

grumbler

Herongull wrote: »

...Why not accept the offer to reinstate the original tariff Under Protest

Is it possible to accept under protest? So far I've heard only of paying under protest.

wiogs wrote: »

I would use 7.2.3.2 myself instead of quoting things that don't apply.

Interestingly, 7.2.3.2 clearly refers to 2.11.3 or 7.1.4 only. That's where I quoted them from.

Herongull

I know what you mean, but what I meant is that the OP agrees to now pay the correct tariff, without giving up his rights to using the complaints procedure to try to get the contract cancelled.

If they have accepted that they can't charge a different tariff to what was agreed, then I don't see why this should be conditional on the OP not using the complaints procedure? In some cases where things are not clearcut, one party may make an offer with strings attached, and the other party can take a view on whether or not to accept (if it is grey area).

If this case is as clear cut as it appears, then the OP doesn't have to accept a conditional offer. It seems reasonable to expect the mobile company to put him back on the right tariff without insisting he give up his right to complain about all that had gone before.

jayboi2005

There are so many good and valid points you all raise here, I'm reading this

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

5. (1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.



I believe section (G) will apply to be

(g)the price or the manner in which the price is calculated;



I can safely say should I have known that the price would have been. More I never would have agreed to any form of change of new contract in any way.

Surely that law alone protects me?

Regards
James
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/5/made

NFH

jayboi2005 wrote: »

Surely that law alone protects me?

It certainly protects you, but the question is whether or not it allows you to cancel the contract.