Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

jogplc

Thanks,

I've sent this template today, will post my reply when received

BananaPilot

Just sent RandomCurve's email.

Lets see if I have any luck here!

blondie789

i have also used this template today, via email, and will send by post too just to make sure they definitely act on it!:T

ulaggy

I've signed up today just to say that I've sent those emails just now - I've been with T-Mobile for 4-5 years now, and if it wasn't for the fact I had bad credit and couldn't get a contract elsewhere, I wouldn't have stayed with them when I was last due for renewal (around November 2012). I stayed with them despite the whole dropping the fair usage policy mid-contract which they then backtracked on. But since I renewed, I'm about to have my second price increase. I'd already pushed my contract budget to the limit going from £28ish a month to £36. I did argue with them for a while last price rise resulting in a discount on my account to cover the increase but I'm sick of it.

So yeah, emails sent and I'll be keeping a very close eye on this thread. Thanks for your hard work RandomCurve, I wouldn't have a clue where to start - all I know is I'm disgruntled about T-Mobile and assuming I have no luck with refund / contract termination, I cannot wait till October when I can notify them that I am NOT renewing my contract with them. PAYG is the way forward for me now!

muse213

Have sent an email using the template, I'm seriously annoyed with this company now, I can't afford over £48 when I thought i was agreeing to a £45 fixed contract

RandomCurve

Just so you are all aware EE will fight this!

I am guessing (based on past experience) it will go something like this:

1. You send the initial template email
2. EE respond saying they have complied with legislation & T&Cs and you can't cancel penalty free
3. You will then need to send a second email (I'll draft something once EE start responding) reiterating your position and asking for a CISAS deadlock reference
4. EE will respond refusing to give a deadlock reference, again saying they have acted within the T&Cs
5. You will need to send a third (and probably final email) restating the position and informing them that you will seek compensation from CISAS (£50) for EEs refusal to give you a deadlock reference (I will help draft something)
6. EE will again refuse
7. You can then go to CISAS (it cost you NOTHING) - Again I will help write a case with you (it will be a collection of the emails already sent).
8. EE respond to CISAS (their defence)
9. You then respond to that defence (again I will help)
10. CISAS make a decision

If you win (I say IF because when T-Mobile messed up last year price rise about 40 of us made exactly the same case based on the same facts, but 5% of people lost their cases - the law is an !!!) then you get:

• any payment you have made to EE on your contract since you first requested termination refunded,
• a PAC code, and
• possibly £50 compensation.

Should you lose it has cost you NOTHING! And you can still take it to the Small Claim Court (which is actually a much easier process, but you have to risk £35).

A word of caution - CISAS will not judge the case on if EE have acted within regulations/T&Cs, they will judge the case on how well you PROVE that EE have acted outside of regulations/T&Cs



Good Luck All

RandomCurve

Because EE/Ofcom/CISAS have this whole system stacked AGAINST you I think we only have a 75% chance of winning a CISAS, but a 95% chance in the Small Claims Court.

The two main thrusts are:

1. As EE changed the T&Cs AFTER Ofcom clarified the rules then the new rules should apply to the changed T&Cs regardless of the fact that the contract was originally agreed before the regulation changes. I think (I really don't know) that this is a reasonable argument and a court of law would be minded to agree with you - but CISAS under the watchful eye of Ofcom my disagree so as not to offend Ofcom.
2. CPI is the official measure of UK inflation, therefore any increase OVER CPI is a REAL TERMS increase to you and therefore under GC 9.6 it is likely to be of Material Detriment to you. This is especially true as RPI is not the UK measure inflation (it is not even classified as a National Statistic) -Again CISAS may inclined to disagree as they don't want to bankrupt EE, but I'm very very confident that this argument would win at the SCC.

Anyway enjoy the journey - it will be a bumpy old ride

RandomCurve

Repost - to make it easy to find!
Below is a template email to send to EE (and Orange and T-Mobile) if you would like to try and have your contract cancelled penalty free (you get to keep the phone and receive a PAC so you can port your number to another network).


I am not legally trained, but have had many battles with Mobile phone companies and Ofcom over the past year. It is up to you if you use the template or not.


The email addresses to use are:

[EMAIL="executive.office@ee.co.uk"]executive.office@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL];
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]


Dear Mr Swantee,

Re Phone number 07XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of early April informing me of EEs intention to increase the price of my Fixed term Contract.

Please accept this letter as my notice to terminate my contract PENALTY FREE under Ofcom Regulation GC 9.6 as the increase is likely to be of Material Detriment to me. Please also provide me with a PAC so that I can take my number to another network.

Without Prejudice.
The term “likely to be of Material detriment” in the regulatory context can be determined by understanding why the term was introduced into GC 9.6 by OFTEL and retained by Ofcom, and by reference to the source European documentation for GC 9.6 which is the Universal Service Directive (USD) USD 20/(22) for which GC 9.6 is the UK enactment. It is clear that the intention of USD 20/(22) was to give the CONSUMER the choice to cancel their contract during a fixed period for ANY modification that is made which they do not accept as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
Chapter IV – End User Agreements
Article 20 – Contracts
Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.

Further Ofcom GC 9.6 supports the USD implementation as the term "likely to be of material detriment" was introduced because:

"Our intention was to reflect our general duties and principles of good administration and proportionality in particular. We sought, in light of these, not to rule out contract variations altogether. For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.” (from Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013”

As Ofcom's (and OFTEL before them) reasoning for introducing the term was to protect me - the consumer - from changes which are not to my benefit or at the very least are neutral then a price rise of any kind is clearly neither to by benefit, nor neutral, and are therefore likely to be of Material Detriment.

Without Prejudice
The price rise applied of 2.7% (RPI) is likely to be of material detriment to me as it is a REAL TERMS increase in the cost of my contract. The UK National Statistic for price inflation is the CPI (1.7% for February 2014 – published in March 2014) therefore any increase above this rate under GC 9.6 is likely to be of material detriment to me, as a real terms increase cannot be either to my benefit OR have a neutral impact. By using RPI rather than CPI the increase applied to my account is 58.8% higher than it would otherwise be.

RPI lost its designation as a National statistic in March 2013 as the calculation methodology does not meet with international calculation standards and has been replaced with CPI which is the statistical measure of inflation now used by Government.


Without Prejudice
In the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013. Ofcom defined “Likely to be of Material Detriment as follows:

Paragraph 6.22
“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

The above definition is to apply to contracts agreed to on or AFTER 23rd January 2014. However as EE updated its’ price variation clause effective 26th March 2014 (2 months after the date to which the definition applied) then this clause of the contract was effectively agreed to and signed up to post 23rd January and therefore as per the Ofcom guidance in regards to GC 9.6 the increase in core subscriptions price is likely to be of material detriment to me.

Without Prejudice
In the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013. Ofcom defined “Likely to be of Material Detriment as follows:

Paragraph 6.22
“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

And whilst Ofcom have announced that this will only apply to contracts entered into on or after 23rd January all Ofcom have actually done is clarify a definition. They have not changed the words of GC 9.6. As they have only clarified a definition then the definition must apply to all contracts as it cannot be a legally correct position that two contracts subject to the same regulation with exactly the same wording (GC 9.6) can have two different meanings.

I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) with immediate effect. Should EE not consider this to be an appropriate action then please clearly articulate why this is not the case with reference to each of the points above. Any response which fails to address the specific points above would not be acceptable to me and will be used as evidence of EE’s lack of duty of care and poor customer service in any subsequent CISAS claim.

Regards

Smudge2291

Thanks RandomCurve, I have just sent the email as suggested. Fingers crossed now

glasgowm148

Hi RandomCurve. Would this work on a contract taken out Dec 2013?