Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

mattyprice4004

I had a long drawn out battle with EE regarding this when it all first started - however they just stopped replying and I didn't follow it up.

The problem is, I didn't follow proper procedure (which I should really have done) - as I stopped payment once the dispute started, and now owe them around £150.

RandomCurve

ShowMeTheMoola wrote: »

Hi Guys

I would really appreciate some guidance on how to respond to EE's defence...
I also submitted my claim as a post Oct 2012 customer thinking I should go by the start date of my current contract (April 2013) not when I joined EE (May 2012). Did I botch my claim up??

Claim not botched.


You need to add the first paragraph below as an "opener" to the standard Defence response, and then add the paragraphs in to the defence response
I think EE have made this easier to win as the adjudicator can now only rule in their favour of EE if they show that EE can hold you to new T&Cs without also holding EE to new Ofcom regulation !!!




Throughout EEs defence they are arguing two inconsistent points:

• That my (original) T&Cs (CVN59) pre date 23rd January 2014 and therefore the new Ofcom definition of Material Detriment does not apply, and
• That my T&Cs are subject to CVN59A which came into effect 26th March 2014 (i.e after the new Ofcom definition)
  
  

If I were subject to the pre January 23rd T&Cs (CVN59) then any increase higher than CPI (1.7%) would trigger my right under the contract to a penalty free cancellation, but obviously I cannot make a claim on this basis as my contractual terms are now CVN59A, which came into effect 26th March 2014 (i.e. after the Ofcom revised definition).
If I am legal bound to T&Cs that came into effect on 26th March 2014 then those T&Cs must be subject to the Ofcom regulations enforce at the time that those T&Cs were implemented.


Paragraph 30
In a business to consumer contact the burden of proof rests with EE and not me to prove that an RPI increase is not of Material Detriment and I put EE to strict evidence thereof. In any case it is not for EE to decide if RPI is of Material Detriment under GC 9.6 as Material detriment is CLEARLY defined by Ofcom in its clarification that for contracts prior to January 23rd Material detriment means changes that are not beneficial to, or neutral on the consumer (please refer to my CISAS case for the evidence provided) and for contracts that are agreed after 23rd January – Any change is of Material detriment and as EE clearly state in their defence document at paragraph 15 my T&Cs are effective after 23rd January (and therefore must be subject to the revised definition): “…prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties was subject to the terms and conditions CV59” and so would have been subject to the old Ofcom definition ,but EE go on to state “….new terms effective as of the 26 March 2014. Therefore, the Respondent submits that as from the 26 March 2014 the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement between the parties and so governing the Claimant, is CVN59A.” So clearly the T&Cs that are applicable to my contract came into force after 23rd January 2014



Paragraph 31
Please refer to my CISAS claim either my contract is subject to the old GC 9.6 definition which is “changes that are not beneficial to, or neutral on the consumer” (i.e Material detriment = detriment), or – as I believe to be the case, my contract is subject to the new definition “any change is of material detriment” as my claim is under my contract CVN59A which came into force on 26th March 2014 (see EE defence paragraph 15).


Paragraph 32.
The guidance that Material Detriment is anything that is not to my benefit or neutral was applicable prior to 23rd Januaty – an RPI increase is neither to my benefit nor neutral. Aslo EE contradict themselves my original T&Cs (CVN59) were prior to 23rd January, however EE admit (Paragraph 15 of their defence document) that I am subject to CVN59A – which came into effect 23th March 2014. And therefore the new definition must be applicable.


Paragraph 33.
Please refer to my CISAS claim my contract WAS subject to the old GC 9.6 definition which is “changes that are not beneficial to, or neutral on the consumer” (i.e Material detriment = detriment), however my contract is now CVN59A which is effective from 26th March 2014 and is subject to the new definition.

.

Paragraph 34
My contract is CVN59A which is effective 26th March 2014 (see EE defence paragraph 15 for confirmation), and therefore does not pre date the guidance which is effective from 23rd January 2014. In any case even if I was on CVN59 I would be subject to the original Ofcom definition of G.C. 9.6 which is “changes that are not beneficial to, or neutral on the consumer” (i.e Material detriment = detriment). It is completely wrong and misleading of EE to suggest that only the terms of the contract should be considered and that somehow EE contracts (regardless of date) are not subject to Ofcom regulation, and is furher proof of how EE try and manipulate my position which is that my claim is under GC 9.6 and not the contract.




Paragraph 35
Material Detriment is clarified by Ofcom for pre 23rd January contracts (mine is CVN59A – post 23rd January) as being “changes that are not beneficial to, or neutral on the consumer”, therefore the OED definition is irrelevant. In any event even with the OED definition offered the subjective word “Material” is defined by two further subjective words “Significant” and “important” (what is significant or important to one person will be different to another person) – so no further clarity is gained.
Detriment however is not subjective “harmed or damaged” and any increase in my costs causes harm to me.


Paragraph 36
My claim is the regulatory context of GC 9.6 which takes precedence over the contract. Therefore EEs point is irrelevant however for the sake of clarity there is no EXPRESS term in the contract that I have to establish it is both significant and capable of causing harm or damage, and if it were it would more than likely be ruled unenforceable under the UTCCRs as the burden of proof must sit with EE.




Paragraph 37
This is not true – the general cost of living and inflation rate is 1.7% - please refer to my CISAS case, and therefore RPI is not cost neutral. RPI is a flawed statistic which over estimates the percentage, and is no longer designated as a National Statistic. If EEs case is that if the increase was above inflation then it would be of Material Detriment – then they have just proved my case..

Paragraph 38
I do not need to provide any such evidence as Under GC 9.6 either I am still subject to contract version CVN59 (pre January 23rd T&Cs) in which case any change which is not to my benefit or neutral is of Martial Detriment, and 99p is neither to my benefit nor neutral to me; or I am on contract CVN59A (as EE state in paragraph 15 of their defence) in which case I am subject to the revised definition which is ANY increase is of Material Detriment – and 99p by virtue of not being zero is an increase.

RandomCurve

pau1200 wrote: »

Ive removed personal details and have sent it.
I have also accepted the decision and added the comment as you suggested so it will be interested to see what happens

I added a caveat to my CISAS decision last year - at first CISAS said that I had to accept or reject, but I just said (in my case) the adjudicator specifically refused to make a judgement on the point raised and so I was entitled to pursue - and they processed the claim on that basis.


Your one will be even better because you can say that the adjudicator can not give a ruling that allows EE to contriving GC 11.1, so if EF do breach GC 11.1 you have every right to pursue a case - and ask them to clarify!!!! I think thy may even revise judgment.

Mikmonken

What is the difference between the CVN01a and CVN01b – my text in feb changed me to CVN01b from March 26th

Did:
Orange change from CVN01 to CVN01a on 26th March
EE change from CVN01 to CVN01b on 26th March?

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

What is the difference between the CVN01a and CVN01b – my text in feb changed me to CVN01b from March 26th

Did:
Orange change from CVN01 to CVN01a on 26th March
EE change from CVN01 to CVN01b on 26th March?

I think yes - it was when they changed all T&Cs to say they can use RPI for the price rise. Prior to that there were various scenarios for price rise T&Cs most of which were
You could cancel if the rise was "higher than RPI or ANY OTHER rate of inflation"
So you see they really screwed people over on the change in T&Cs - but Ofcom said there was no change!!!!

muse213

Waiting for CISAS to reply about me accepting the decision, which i sent on monday and then got an auto reply, is everything a bit delayed because of the backlog?

narika

Another defeat here. Will post the details shebang I get back home.

Doug85

Just got this back from ofcom.

I write with reference to your complaint to Ofcom regarding EE’s change to its terms and conditions and questions as to whether those changes constitute material detriment to you in light of the provisions of General Condition 9.6. I can confirm that your complaint has been formally logged.

I apologise for the delay in providing a substantive response on this matter. There are a number of issues which Ofcom is considering.
We intend to provide you with our formal response by no later than close of business on Tuesday 24th June.

Yours sincerely

Jessica Eyles
Consumer Contact Team

pau1200

RandomCurve wrote: »

I added a caveat to my CISAS decision last year - at first CISAS said that I had to accept or reject, but I just said (in my case) the adjudicator specifically refused to make a judgement on the point raised and so I was entitled to pursue - and they processed the claim on that basis.


Your one will be even better because you can say that the adjudicator can not give a ruling that allows EE to contriving GC 11.1, so if EF do breach GC 11.1 you have every right to pursue a case - and ask them to clarify!!!! I think thy may even revise judgment.

Thanks for your help RC with your help so far. I was suprised with my decision seeing who my adjudicator was but the reasoning from them was spot on apart from the refund bit. Will look forward to getting my back dated money.

Maccadinho25

Doug85 wrote: »

Just got this back from ofcom.

I write with reference to your complaint to Ofcom regarding EE’s change to its terms and conditions and questions as to whether those changes constitute material detriment to you in light of the provisions of General Condition 9.6. I can confirm that your complaint has been formally logged.

I apologise for the delay in providing a substantive response on this matter. There are a number of issues which Ofcom is considering.
We intend to provide you with our formal response by no later than close of business on Tuesday 24th June.

Yours sincerely

Jessica Eyles
Consumer Contact Team

Sounds like it could be promising?

RC glad to see you back and hope youre feeling better! Ive emailed my decision (didnt succeed) to contact@fightmobileincreases.com in case theres anything there for you. My adjudicator doesnt appear to think its a complex case of law, that i didnt submit enough evidence of "financial loss" and that i just disliked the decision to raise prices (im guessing he isnt on Orange :rotfl:). They also argue the point that as it was pre January 2014 when Ofcom introduced the new rules that it isnt eligible, completely missing the point!

Ive also complained to CISAS using their complaints form, more of an overall dissatisfaction email as i know i cant appeal etc etc