Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Mikmonken

We're making some changes to the terms and conditions for your 4GEE plan to give you more clarity on the notification of price changes. For more details and to download a copy please see http://www.ee.co.uk/termsrefreshv1 The new terms will take effect from 26 March 2014.

Links to -->

We’re making some changes to the terms and conditions for your 4GEE plan regarding the notification of price changes. The new terms will take effect from 26 March 2014.

Please see below the updated clause which details one of the instances in which you have the right to cancel your plan without charge, as a result of a price change.

7.2.3.3. We have given You Written Notice of an increase in a Price Plan Charge under point 7.1.4 and (i) the increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) is higher than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 7.1.4);

You can view your new terms and conditions in full here.

We also recommend that you download and save a copy of the new terms and conditions for your reference.

FAQs

What is the change?

The new terms mean that if we increase your price plan charge above the latest rate of inflation (measured by the latest published RPI figure at the time of notification) you can cancel your plan without charge. From now on, if you receive a notification from us about a price change like this, you can be sure that we are using the most recent RPI figure.

Why have you changed the terms?

We’ve clarified our terms to offer customers more certainty and transparency in the event of us making any changes to your price plan charge.

Who is affected by the new terms?

The new terms and conditions affect all customers who joined or upgraded to a 4GEE plan before 23 January 2014.

When will the new terms take effect?

The new terms will take effect from 26 March 2014.

What is RPI?

RPI or the Retail Price Index is a measure of inflation published by the Office of National Statistics. You can find out more information about RPI at https://www.statistics.gov.uk/

pau1200

RandomCurve wrote: »

The contract does purport to give them the right to use text - but if that is legal or not I do not know.
Do you (or anybody else) have the exact wording of the text - and can publish it here?

Im looking for the text message content and came across this


An EE spokesperson said: 'We are making changes to our T&Cs regarding how we notify customers of future price rises. The new term will take effect from 26 March and provides greater transparency in the event of a price increase. This supports recent guidance provided by Ofcom.’

So the new ofcom guidance says any increase is material detriment so EE should let everyone out!!!!

Mikmonken

I had a skim read earlier and I can't see where it denies how they can contact you to update T&Cs I have seen it in other non ee contrast though.

strike that found it ‘Written Notice’ sending You either: (1) an electronic message to Your SIM Card which may contain a cross reference to Our website for further information; or (2) a letter to Your postal address; or (3) an email to the email address that You have registered with Us. Each will tell You that a change is going to happen and what that change is. Our website, letter or email will contain an explanation of why the change is happening and provide You with any relevant before and after information. For changes to Additional Services and Additional Commitment Services that are Content accessed through the Portal, unless We send You anything, by stating clearly on the Portal what change will be made to Content available there;

RandomCurve

duk3nuk3m wrote: »

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.

The above judgement really annoys me, as the adjudicator has completly missed the point as follows:


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.
No mention that the guidance ALSO clarified the definition of Material Detriment that existed for the Original contracts - "MD = changes that are not of benefit or neutral to the consumer"
Had she considered that and then concluded that RPI was neutral, then fair enough, but she never even noticed the point!!!

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.
Failure to act on one breach does not mean that you can not take action if a separate breach occurs -this should not even be a consideration (if some steals your Blu-Ray player and you do not notice it is missing until they come back and steal the TV do the police ignore the Blu-Ray theft????)

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.
This clearly shows that the adjudicator ONLY considered the case in terms of contract law - and in contract law EE have not breached the contract. What she has not considered is how Ofcom regulation GC 9.6 overrules Contract Law and therefore how Material Detriment needs to be considered in the regulatory context and not the contractual context - the case was never contract based, only regulation based!

Totally pathetic!

falconlady

skuk21 wrote: »

So has been 11 days since I accepted and there was no sign of any correspondence from CISAS, I rang them this morning and the lady said they had a massive backlog. I then received the below email within 5 mins of hanging up Happy Days

We acknowledge receipt of notification from the customer that they accept the Adjudicator’s Decision. Where written confirmation was provided a copy of the correspondence is enclosed with the company’s copy of this letter.

The parties must now act in accordance with the adjudicator’s decision within a maximum of four weeks of the date of receipt of this letter, which is on or before 21/07/2014.

THE COMPANY MUST NOTIFY US THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION.

We would like to hear from you if the Company has not complied with the Decision by the date above. As the adjudicator’s decision has been accepted, it is binding on the company. However, please note that CISAS does not have an enforcement or regulatory function. The independent regulator for the UK communication industry is Ofcom.

Yours sincerely

Could you tell them what number you called them on? I rang 020 750 3827 but no matter what options I choose I either get looped back around, or they tell me to leave my name and address. Grrrrr.....

RandomCurve

pau1200 wrote: »

Im looking for the text message content and came across this


An EE spokesperson said: 'We are making changes to our T&Cs regarding how we notify customers of future price rises. The new term will take effect from 26 March and provides greater transparency in the event of a price increase. This supports recent guidance provided by Ofcom.’

So the new ofcom guidance says any increase is material detriment so EE should let everyone out!!!!

I think this is another classic EE deception.
Most people were aware that Ofcom published guidance on mid term price rises, and so would assume that this is EE being all nice a complicit. What most would not know (I only discovered when researching the change in T&C case) is that Ofcom (who are suppose to protect the consumer) also issued guidance to the industry telling them to amend their T&Cs so that they can enforce them (and I'm guessing this is the guidance EE are referring to)!


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/addcharges/statement/Guidance.pdf


Paragraph 4 is the interesting one, because it demonstrates that Ofcom were fully aware that price variation clauses were unenforceable, but rather than enforcing the law and preventing the CPs from raising prices (as they should have done as designated enforcers of the UTCCRs), they "quietly" asked CPs to change the way they rip us off to make it legal!
Ofcom - Consumer protection at its very best!!!

Mikmonken

I kindly rejected adjudicators decision earlier!

RandomCurve

factor29 wrote: »

Ok response received -

Good afternoon

Thank you for contacting Vodafone.

As previously advised by Lorraine in our Directors office Vodafone are regulated by Ofcom.

Also Lorraine referred to the terms and conditions of your contract with Vodafone which highlights why you can not cancel without been charged the early termination fee.

You ask in your email dated 16th June 2014 "if Vodafone is still of the opinion that I am not entitled to a penalty free cancellation"

We have looked at your usage over the last 3 months and can see that your bills would not have increased by more than 10% as a result of the price increase. Therefore you are not eligible to cancel under the 10% clause.

If you would like to discuss this further please call our office on 03333044763 between 8am-8pm 7 days a week.

Below is a response to send - They really are running scared of GC 9.6!!!


Send to:
[EMAIL="jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com"]jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com[/EMAIL]
CC, [EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
info@fightmobileincreases.com


Dear X,
Phone number 07XXXX

Thank you for your email dated X, however you have still failed to adequately explain (or explain at all!) how the price rise complies with GC 9.6. For the sake of ABSOLUTELY CLARITY my request for a penalty free cancellation is NOT IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACTUAL CONTEXT of what Vodafone has deemed to be of Material Detriment, my request is UNDER OFCOM REGULATION GC 9.6.


For the FOURTH time of asking can Vodafone please fully articulate why Vodafone believes that the increase in out of bundle charges is not of Material Determent to me (Under the GC 9.6 definition of Material Detriment – NOT under the contractual definition)? As per my original email (reproduced below), in the regulatory context Material Detriment (for Pre January 23rd contracts) is any change that is not “…beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.”




Vodafone’s attempts to avoid my direct question on this price increase in the regulatory context is now causing me extreme frustration and stress, I should not be required to ask for a response to a question FOUR times and I consider the customer service received on this matter to fall short of Vodafone applying a duty of care in discharging it duties.



Regards

A supporter of “Fight Mobile Increases” – a pressure group dedicated to assisting consumers use the protection of the UTCCRs and GC 9.6, and to monitor and highlight Ofcoms actions (inaction) in relation to the Mobile Phone Market.

aye

Got my decision today - Good news, the claim succeeded in part. Contract can be cancelled free of charge, £25 compensation, PAC code and any charges backdated from May 7th.

My adjudicator was Claire Andrews.

Thanks to RC and everyone else who has posted in this thread for the help.

So what happens next? Are people holding out accepting until the 6 weeks are almost up? What happens once you accept? I assume you need to phone EE to cancel and get your PAC code?

skuk21

falconlady wrote: »

Could you tell them what number you called them on? I rang 020 750 3827 but no matter what options I choose I either get looped back around, or they tell me to leave my name and address. Grrrrr.....

Just press 0 mate when in the nightmare option menu and it takes you through to some admin dept and ask to speak to someone regarding a CISAS claim you put in