Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RandomCurve

Okay I think I have decided on the best way to approach this for those who have lost at CISAS.


First the bad news:
For those on Pre 30th October 2012 T-Mobile contracts (V58) I think the fight is over. Your T&Cs have not changed sufficiently to warrant a Penalty Free cancellation (I was surprised that some did actually win the T&C argument on this contract, but 90% of the losses were folk on this contract). You could take a claim to SCC, regarding an RPI increase being Material Detriment under both the Old and New GC 9.6 definitions, but I think it is an uphill battle, sorry. If you want to go for it please do - all the arguments are on this forum you just need to complete the SCC form and attach all of the email correspondence. Before completing a form email EE with a an email titled "Letter Before Action", and explain that following mediation you intend to pursue this through the County Court via the Small Claims Track, unless "on reflection" they will grant you a penalty free cancellation - state that you will start proceedings if you not heard from them within 14 days.


For everyone else we should put in a claim regarding the change in T&Cs. The benefit of going tis route (apart from it costing EE more) is that ANYBODY who has yet to submit a claim to EE can join in and submit a claim - I.e. we have another opportunity to try and encourage as many as possible to submit claims.
Most of the required templates are already written (will require a little tweaking) so I will work on those and try and post something within the week - I need to put a little more effort into the Vodafone price rise first.


As always a little help required from you all - I will explain shortly.

RandomCurve

31-9 (28 with compensation)

RandomCurve

My request for help is two fold.


First - Ofcom.
The responses that some of you are getting back from Ofcom are positive. It is similar to last year when they first denied T-Mobile had botched things up and then eventually came back with a response similar to what has been received. It then took another FOUR months for Ofcom to do something which from a legal UTCCRS perspective should have been to force EE to cancel the price increase, but as Ofcom's "administrative Priorities" (resources) don't seem to stretch to protecting the consumer from EE they "negotiated" with EE to credit back 0.1% of the price rise (from 3.3% to 3.2%, 3.2% being what EE should have applied).
It will be interesting to see what jolly wheeze Ofcom and EE can cook up which make it look like Ofcom are doing something without requiring EE to do what the regulations dictate and write to everyone fully complying with GC 9.6 and giving everyone a chance to cancel their contracts!
So the help I need here is as follows:
For anybody who has not already contacted Ofcom PLEASE send the following email - the more that send it the harder it will before Ofcom to wriggle out of doing anything - so if you won or lost send the below:

[EMAIL="Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
Graham.Howell[EMAIL="Graham.Howell@Ofcom.org.uk"]@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk"]OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

And CC.
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com"]jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk"]Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="news@the-sun.co.uk"]news@the-sun.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]


Dear Mr Richards,

It appears to me that EE have breached GC 9.6 when notifying customers of a change to their T&Cs which was effective from 26th March 2014. From copies of correspondence that I have seen (available from the FightMobileIncrease.com website) it appears that Ofcom (the regulator with a statutory duty to protect the consumer) has taken a view of the situation which appears to be inconsistent with the facts.

Like many other concerned consumers I would like you to record a formal compliant both against EE and Ofcom in regards to this matter and I would appreciate a response to the 13 questions below which stem from Ofcom’s initial stance. For clarity and ease of response there are 13 questions below (marked Q 1 to Q 13).

Please confirm that you have recorded this letter as an official complaint both against EE and Ofcom (Q 1)

Concentrating on EEs change in T&Cs you have said:

“.. Ofcom has taken the view, based on the information we have, that the change does not appear to us to be one likely to give rise to the right to cancel the contract under GC9.6. ….

Can you clarify what information you have? (Q 2) It does not appear that you have reviewed both an OLD and NEW version of the contracts can you confirm that you have reviewed them (copied below for your reference)? (Q 3)


The reasons are as follows:
1. “The revised terms are likely to put consumers in a better, or at least no worse, position than the previous terms. They do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case,”
This seems to be plainly incorrect – the old clause allowed an increase no higher than RPI OR ANY OTHER measure of inflation (e.g. lower rates such as CPI/RPI(J)), the new clause allows an increase up to RPI – can you explain how Ofcom reached the conclusion that the change does not “… purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case”? (Q 4) (For your reference the February 2014 rates were: RPI 2.7%; CPI 1.7% (RPI 58.8% HIGHER); over the last 24 months RPI has been 18.8% higher).

“… and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used in such increases.”

By giving more clarity it reduces the scope for challenge, whilst this is good for EE it is not good for the consumer as there is less scope to exercise cancellation rights, Can Ofcom explain –with its consumer protection remit – why it considers giving consumers less scope to leave their contracts is beneficial? (Q 5)

“…We note in this context that EE and its brands always previously used RPI rather than CPI.”

Effectively you are saying that in all past increases EE have put in place an increase that triggers a consumer’s right to a penalty free cancellation, and Ofcom has done nothing to compel EE to write to consumers FULLY EXPLAINING their right to a penalty free cancellation. Can you explain why Ofcom considers this to be acceptable? (Q 6)

2. The new term sets out a position that, if or when applied, is unlikely in our view to cause material detriment to relevant consumers. Consumers to whom the new term applies (who will be consumers who entered into their contracts before 23 January 2014, and in respect of whom, therefore, our recent guidance does not apply) will be able to exit the contract without penalty for price increases that exceed the relevant published RPI figure.

Can you explain why RPI is not considered to be of Material Detriment to consumers? (Q 7). Your previous definition of Material Detriment taken from the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in November 2013 Ofcom explains the rationale for including the term at paragraph 3.6 as follows:

“…..Ofcom and, before us, OFTEL has included a material detriment requirement in the relevant part of GC9. 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.”

Please explain how a REAL TERMS increase (CPI and RPI(J) being the OFFICIAL UK measures of inflation – RPI is not even a designated as a National Statistic), is to the consumers benefit or neutral to the consumer? (Q 8)


3. Accordingly, the new term is unlikely to be a change that itself is likely to cause material detriment. On that basis, it would not require providers to notify and provide subscribers with the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty under GC9.6.

On reflection of the above points is this still Ofcoms view? (Q 9)

Why in 93% are the legal experts at CISAS finding that this change IS of Material Detriment? What does it take for Ofcom to acknowledge that it got this wrong and to take respective action? (Q 10)

Ofcom appear to be mixing two separate points for their reason for inactivity:

• Ofcom does not consider the change to be of Material Detriment; and
• That Ofcom will not take action due to its administrative priorities and/or only on behalf of consumers as a whole

I have addressed point 1 above and look forward to receiving the explanations requested above,

As regards point 2 – EE are by far the largest CP in the UK and the change has affected every customer who joined EE before 23rd January 2014 – how can Ofcom possibly consider that this does not affect a “body of consumers as a whole”? (Q 11)
As regards to your administrative priorities are you saying that as Ofcom does not have the resource to take on EE then EE are effectively “above the law”? (Q 12)


Finally in connection with the EE price rise under the new T&C effective from 26th March 2014 Ofcom does not consider that EE are bound to the Ofcom rule on GC 9.6 dated 23rd January 2014. Can you explain how this can be possible, as my original contract no longer exists so I am unable to contest a price increase above CPI, therefore I am bound by a new set of T&Cs that were implemented AFTER 23rd January? (Q 13)

It was disappointing that Ofcom sided with the industry and has allowed CPs to continue to apply price rises during the fixed period of the contract (especially as if CPs change T&Cs mid contract consumers are bound by the new term), but to go further and to say that changes to T&Cs that occur AFTER the new rules are implemented are also not subject to the new rules seems to defy all rules of natural justice and UK law.



Regards

A supporter of “FightMobileIncreases” – 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.

Old Clause (Orange EE and T-Mobile (Post 30 October 2012) – Clause number may vary
7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is: (i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retail price index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice;


Whereas the new clause is as follows:
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);

RandomCurve

And my second request:


I want to try and get some support/publicity for this fight before we start. can you all PM MSE and ask them to publish a news item on what we are doing so that way we can get the maximum amount of people involved .


Thanks

Mikmonken

RandomCurve wrote: »

And my second request:


I want to try and get some support/publicity for this fight before we start. can you all PM MSE and ask them to publish a news item on what we are doing so that way we can get the maximum amount of people involved .


Thanks

Dumb question but who do we PM?

WraithGR

Another win (was on EE 4g contract from Dec 2012) so the record is now 32-9 (RC seems to have been almost spot on regarding his win/loss ratio prediction of 75%)

In short, I get a penalty-free back-dated cancellation to Apr 14, a PAC and £50.00 in compensation because EE didn't respond to my queries adequately (no comp for not being informed I can cancel under GC 9.6. Apparently because EE didn't think I was entitled to a cancellation they didn't need to inform me of that right! Also no comp for taking 2 weeks to reply instead of one)



RC, please contact me if you need to have a look at the full text...

muse213

Still no reply from CISAS as I have accepted the decision last monday, don't know what to do. Also, I'm going to France tomorrow, so does that mean if I use data etc and get charged a ridiculous amount it'll get paid back to me? :P

ulaggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

For everyone else we should put in a claim regarding the change in T&Cs. The benefit of going tis route (apart from it costing EE more) is that ANYBODY who has yet to submit a claim to EE can join in and submit a claim - I.e. we have another opportunity to try and encourage as many as possible to submit claims.
Most of the required templates are already written (will require a little tweaking) so I will work on those and try and post something within the week - I need to put a little more effort into the Vodafone price rise first.


As always a little help required from you all - I will explain shortly.

So we'll be going through CISAS again, but taking a T&C tact rather than price rise one? That's fair enough! Will we have to go through EE/T-Mob/Orange again or are we able to just go straight back to CISAS?

Also, I've yet to reject the original CISAS decision - should I send my snotty email now (or should I rewrite it to be less snotty) or should I continue to hold off? Cheers RC

RandomCurve

@ulaggy


Essentially yes.

1. We will major on the T&C and use the Price rise as evidence that the likely detriment is not theoretical - as it has actually happened.
2. We will argue that GC 9.6 only places a time limit (30 days) on the Communications Provider (CP) and not on the consumer, and
3. That EE have not complied with GC 9.6 thereby trying to deny our rights under GC 9.6 (we are consumers, we are not meant to be legal experts).
4. We will also claim that IF EE have not provided the proper regulatory notice then the old T&Cs stands as the price rise was greater than CPI!
5. We will put EE to strict evidence to demonstrate how they considered the change in T&Cs not be of Material Detriment.

And we will win (I hope) - if not then the SCC is still an option.


Regarding rejecting CISAS decision - yes do it, no particular format required.

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

Dumb question but who do we PM?

RandomCurve wrote: »

And my second request:


I want to try and get some support/publicity for this fight before we start. can you all PM MSE and ask them to publish a news item on what we are doing so that way we can get the maximum amount of people involved .


Thanks

My fault:
MSE Helen (it is case sensitive)