Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Citroen

Hello,

I have just sent you my decision, where can we go from here?

Do we go ahead with the Small Claims Court, or do we try and fight the T&Cs change and ask for a cancellation from that?

Thanks.

PS Glad you're felling better!

duk3nuk3m

Just received my adjudicator's decision; another fail. Quite surprised as Miss V.O. was my adjudicator.

8. I find that:

a. The issue in question concerns billing and the terms of a contract for communication services and is not, therefore, outside the scope of the CISAS scheme. Further, this does not constitute complicated issues of law beyond the competence of a CISAS adjudicator.

b. It is not disputed that the customer attempted to cancel his contract without charge on 16th April 2014. This was in response to the notification by the company of a 2.7% increase in the price plan charges.

c. In January and February 2014 the company notified its customers of an amendment to its terms and conditions which would be effective from 26th March 2014. The amendment permitted the company to increase its prices by an amount up to the level of the retail prices index (RPI).

d. Under the revised terms and conditions the applicable RPI in April 2014 figure was 2.7%.

e. I find that the amended term in version CVNO1B of the terms and conditions is clear and unambiguous.

f. The customer argues that he has a right to terminate the contract without charge in accordance with General Condition 9.6 (GC 9.6) on the basis that the price increase is not in line with a true measure of inflation but is a real terms increase which is to his material detriment.

g. In making this argument the customer has relied upon the guidance issued by OFCOM regarding GC 9.6 which was published on 23rd October 2013. The guidance states that where there is an increase to the core subscription price, a price rise is likely to be regarded as materially detrimental. Since OFCOM’s guidance applies from 23rd January 2014, and the amended terms and conditions came into effect on 26th March 2014, the customer claims that the guidance is relevant in this case.

h. Paragraph 1.28 of the OFCOM guidance states that the new guidance will come into effect 3 months after publication. It specifically states, however, that the guidance only applies to new contracts entered into on or after that date. Paragraph 1.30 states that for existing contracts GC 9.6 will continue to apply without the new guidance. I find, therefore, that the guidance provided by OFCOM does not apply to the amended term in this case.

i. The customer has argued that the intention of the Universal Directive 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. A Directive is not, however, directly applicable as law in a member state; it only serves as a guide to interpretation. In view of my finding in paragraph e. above, that there is no ambiguity in the amended term, then there is no requirement to use the directive as an interpretative tool.

j. The customer has not argued that he did not receive notice in January of February 2014 that the terms and conditions were to be amended. The customer did not exercise his right to terminate the agreement when he received notification of the amended term. The customer’s claim to terminate his contract has been triggered by the notification of the price rise.

k. I find, therefore, that in failing to give notice when he received notification of the amended term, the customer is deemed to have accepted the change in his terms and conditions. This is the determining factor in this case. I do not accept the customer’s argument that a price increase, which is in accordance with the terms and conditions to which he has agreed to be bound, is to his material detriment. While the price rise may be to the customer’s detriment, it is not a material detriment.

l. I find, therefore, that the customer has failed to prove that he is entitled to cancel the contract without charge.

m. I am not persuaded that the customer has suffered poor customer service; the company provided an appropriate response to his correspondence. I find that he has not justified his claims to compensation.

9. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The customer has failed to prove that the company has breached the contract or failed in its duty of care.

b. The customer has not justified the remedies sought.

10. Therefore, the claim fails.

Troy_Tempest

Decision came through today,

Briefly; Cancellation of contract back dated to 14 April 2014, PAC code and compensation.

No unlock code (but my handset is unlocked anyway), so all in all very pleased. Adjudicator was Dean R Taylor

Well done RandomCurve :T

I'll send you the complete decision to contact@fightmobileincreases.com

factor29

RandomCurve wrote: »

I typed a response but lost it due to lack of signal - I will redo when I can.

Thanks, hoping for some Vodafone successes soon :beer:

ulaggy

Citroen wrote: »

Hello,

I have just sent you my decision, where can we go from here?

Do we go ahead with the Small Claims Court, or do we try and fight the T&Cs change and ask for a cancellation from that?

Thanks.

PS Glad you're felling better!

Wondering the same, as it seems us losers are torn between trying CISAS again (using a T&C argument) or going straight to SCC.

Also, I read that recently the fees for SCC had increased quite significantly - I'm aware that we get it back if we win, but I suppose I'm worried that if we've had to pay out a significant amount and then lose, it's going to be really bad!

Mikmonken

ulaggy wrote: »

Wondering the same, as it seems us losers are torn between trying CISAS again (using a T&C argument) or going straight to SCC.

Also, I read that recently the fees for SCC had increased quite significantly - I'm aware that we get it back if we win, but I suppose I'm worried that if we've had to pay out a significant amount and then lose, it's going to be really bad!

It's not that much through scc £25 to start and then depending on how far it goes it'd be a maximum of £80 so worth it when you win and save a shedload assuming you're not looking to claim £1000s in compensation

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court#cost

ulaggy

Mikmonken wrote: »

It's not that much through scc £25 to start and then depending on how far it goes it'd be a maximum of £80 so worth it when you win and save a shedload

Ahh I'm not sure what I read yesterday then. It was suggesting a couple of hundred quid at some point. Really confused me when I was expecting a lot cheaper!

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/when-should-i-use-the-small-claims-court-

Ah, found it. It was the article on Which? which says upto a few hundred quid. Wasn't very clear to me!

RedHeadPeter

Troy_Tempest wrote: »

Decision came through today,

Briefly; Cancellation of contract back dated to 14 April 2014, PAC code and compensation.

No unlock code (but my handset is unlocked anyway), so all in all very pleased. Adjudicator was Dean R Taylor

Well done RandomCurve :T

I'll send you the complete decision to contact@fightmobileincreases.com

What happened to claim on your daughter's phone?

Troy_Tempest

RedHeadPeter wrote: »

What happened to claim on your daughter's phone?

Still going through, there was a delay on CISAS's part where emails were crossed.

pau1200

Im sorry to hear about all the losses and the question about SCC is one i was pondering over, and still might have to if I cant get the refunds owing when my contract is cancelled.

Any way im sure RC will put us all right but they way i see it is that you can use your failed decisions maybe as proof that the change to terms and conditions were of material detriment. Because of this detriment ofcom gc 9.3 states that they should notify the customer of there right to cancel because of this change. This surely is the basis to lodge another complaint.