We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds
Comments
-
Hello.
I have had my confirmation email from CISAS on the 5th day from their last email
I will just wait 4 weeks to see if they comply with the ruling.
If they do not it will be off to the scc
Thanks RC0 -
Can appeal for different adjudicator? Heard back 17th June how long got sort it?
Whats best do next not sure on small claim court0 -
Morning all! Been lurking in the background for a while (as I'm sure have many others) and just wanted to say a massive thanks to RC for all his above and beyond angelic work!
Just had Miss A Jennings appointed, anyone had any experience of her decisions yet? Thanks0 -
My defence from EE just arrived, so my 5 days have begun.0
-
Vodafone ignored my request to keep all communication via email and did not reply to my email asking for this.
I've been on the online chat for a good hour now and the advisor is saying that to avoid the increase I should either pay £3 extra a month or just continue to pay for 0845 calls etc. Another option was to use saynoto0870 which is fair enough but then most options are 0800 numbers which are still chargeable.
I've only been with Vodafone since February so there isn't too much bill data to make the '3 month rule' too fair coupled with the fact I recently ditched my landline.... sighCurrently in a Protected Trust Deed - 17 payments until DEBT FREE - February 20270 -
Vodafone ignored my request to keep all communication via email and did not reply to my email asking for this.
I've been on the online chat for a good hour now and the advisor is saying that to avoid the increase I should either pay £3 extra a month or just continue to pay for 0845 calls etc. Another option was to use saynoto0870 which is fair enough but then most options are 0800 numbers which are still chargeable.
I've only been with Vodafone since February so there isn't too much bill data to make the '3 month rule' too fair coupled with the fact I recently ditched my landline.... sigh
If you send the 2nd email that's on the fight mobile increases site they will start replying instead of phoning
I'm on the fourth email to them which seems to be taking longer than the previous three which is hopefully a good sign!0 -
OFCOM response received:
Dear Sir/Madam
Ed Richards has asked me as Ofcom’s Director of Consumer Protection to respond on his
behalf to your recent email. I apologise for the delay in my reply.
I have considered your email carefully, together with previous correspondence on this issue.
I deal with your specific questions below, but first set out the general position.
Your email suggests that Ofcom has failed to take action which it should have taken to
enforce against EE under General Condition (9.6) which covers materially detrimental
changes to contract terms, in relation to certain contracts entered into before 23 January this
year. Your concern is that EE has amended the term of those contracts which provides for it
to make price rises in a way you consider to be materially detrimental.
As you know from our previous correspondence on this issue, Ofcom has not taken the
action you suggest for a number of reasons including, importantly, that the new term did not
provide for price rises we considered likely generally to be materially detrimental. As you will
appreciate, Ofcom has to allocate its available resources in the way we think is most likely to
meet our main statutory duty to further the interests of citizens and consumers. In light of
Ofcom’s view that the new term did not provide for price rises we considered likely generally
to be materially detrimental, and given other areas of consumer protection which Ofcom
considers a high priority, such as silent and abandoned calls, we decided that we should not
pursue this issue further as a matter of administrative priority.
Generally, Ofcom monitors and keeps under continuing review our consumer protection
action and priorities, taking account of any changes in circumstances. In light of your further
email, including in particular the information you provided on a number of CISAS
adjudications on the relevant term which found material detriment, we have considered our
position again. We have given careful consideration to all relevant factors, including our view
that the new term did not provide for price rises we considered likely generally to be
materially detrimental and the view taken in the CISAS adjudications. Having done so, on
balance it remains our position that, at this time, taking action in this matter is not an
administrative priority.
I appreciate that this is not the answer you wanted. However, we have reached our view
after careful consideration. I should make clear that I do not accept your characterisation of
Ofcom siding with the industry. Rather, Ofcom has considered how best to prioritise the
various actions it takes in relation to consumer protection.
In the event you wish to pursue this any matter further with Ofcom, our complaints process is
that you should contact our Corporation Secretary, Graham Howell.
Your questions
In response to your specific questions:
1. I confirm Ofcom has treated your email as a complaint against both EE and Ofcom.
2. We have reviewed both EE’s old and new terms and CISAS adjudications, and have
taken them into account in reaching our position as set out in this letter.
3. I confirm we have seen and reviewed both EE’s old and new terms.
4, 5 and 6. We have taken into account the fact that in a number of adjudications CICAS has
upheld the consumer’s complaint but, for the reasons set out in my letter, we remain of the
view that this matter is not currently an administrative priority for Ofcom resources.
7. RPI is an established price index used for a number of purposes, even if no longer a
designated national statistic. On that basis, Ofcom uses it as a guide for the price rises in
contracts made before 23 January this year that we are not generally likely to treat as
meeting the material detriment requirement in GC 9.6. Our position in respect of contracts
made after that date is in our guidance at
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc9/statement/guidance.pdf.
8. This seems to be based on a mis-reading of Ofcom’s statement, “Price rises in fixed term
contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6.” The part you quote gives
examples of contract changes that are not materially detrimental, not an exhaustive definition
of that phrase.
9. I confirm as set out above our view that EE’s change of term did not provide for price rises
we considered likely generally to be materially detrimental.
10. I set out above why Ofcom after careful consideration maintains our position that this
matter is not currently an administrative priority.
11 & 12. Your characterisation of our position on administrative priorities is not correct. You
should note, for example, that Ofcom currently has an open investigation into EE’s
compliance with our Approved Code of Practice for Complaints Handling (General Condition
14). More information about that is here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-
cases/cw_01120/.
13. Ofcom’s recently published guidance on the application of GC 9.6 only applies to new
contracts made after 23 January 2014. This is the date the guidance came into force and, in
line with general legal principles, it does not have retrospective effect. That guidance does
not therefore apply to the price rise you refer to. The fact the price rise will modify the terms
of pre-existing contracts does not result in new contracts being made and does not bring the
matter within our guidance.
Yours sincerely,
Lynn Parker0 -
Just had the exact same Ofcom reply, word for word. Yay for companies using generic responses!
RC - I've forwarded my copy to info@fightmobileincreases.com for you0 -
OFCOM response received:
13. Ofcom’s recently published guidance on the application of GC 9.6 only applies to new contracts made after 23 January 2014. This is the date the guidance came into force and, in line with general legal principles, it does not have retrospective effect. That guidance does not therefore apply to the price rise you refer to. The fact the price rise will modify the terms of pre-existing contracts does not result in new contracts being made and does not bring the matter within our guidance.
So am i right in thinking then that OFCOM don't recognise that the March 2xth change of T&C's aren't classed as a entering into a new contract.
If that is the case then surely we can reject the price rise under old T&C's but i can't find the old T&Cs to check...0 -
Ofcom - a regulator in its own little bubble!
Is anybody out there under any illusions that Ofcom actually gives a damn about protecting consumers?
So:- Ofcom bring in a new definition specifically aimed at price rise variation clauses,
- EE change their price variation clause
- New regulation does not apply!
Under the old T&C if EE applied a rate "higher than RPI or ANY OTHER inflation rate" you could have cancelled. So part of the new claim is either the new T&Cs is subject to the new regulation, or the old T&C is still applicable - how can they have it both ways?
And are Ofcom now running the National Statistics office and suddenly RPI is okay - I don't think so.
Ofcom are happy for EE to increase prices by 58.8% higher than the old contract allowed -and that is not of Material Detriment (to your benefit or neutral)?
Lynn Parker:
"As you know from our previous correspondence on this issue, Ofcom has not taken the action you suggest for a number of reasons including, importantly, that the new term did not provide for price rises we considered likely generally to be materially detrimental"
Well that is a LIE they actually said:
“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,”
SO completely ignored the question (or rather changed the answer).
I will compose another email - when I have claimed down.
We so desperately need a journalist to shine a spotlight on this S**t.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards