Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Irreverent

You can see why these big companies act so greedily. There's probably a few dozen, maybe a couple of hundred people tracking this thread. Maybe 60 grand worth of cisas cases, a few thousand additional customers who are angry and won't renew. Measured against the MILLIONS of extra pounds EE will rake in, their execs must find it hilariously easy. What a complete and utter farcical nonentity OFCOM really is.

RandomCurve

I have posted word versions of the revised response to EEs defence, and the defence it relates to onto the Fight Mobile Increases site.
http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/


I think I've corrected al the typos.

RandomCurve

For Vodafone customers who don't want to download a word document from an "unknown" site below is the first email to send to cancel you contract penalty free:


EMAIL 1 – please send BEFORE 28th June


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


Date: XX/06/14


Ref: phone number 07XXX XXXXXX


Dear Mr Hoencamp,


RE: Out of Bundle Price Increases


Following the recent out of bundle price rise advised to me please accept this letter as my notice to terminate my contract penalty free with immediate effect as the change is likely to be of material detriment to me as per GC 9.6. Please issue my PAC by return, and refund any prepaid credit.


As Vodafone will be aware our contract is governed by the General Conditions of Entitlement, and under GC 9.6 should a change in our contract be of Material Detriment I am entitled to a penalty free cancellation.


9.6 The Communications Provider shall:


(a) give its Subscribers adequate notice not shorter than one month of any modifications likely to be of material detriment to that Subscriber;


(b) allow its Subscribers to withdraw from their contract without penalty upon such notice; and


(c) at the same time as giving the notice in condition 9.6 (a) above, shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber.


In the regulatory context Ofcom have clearly articulated what is meant by Material Detriment when explaining why the term was introduced into GC 9.6 by OFTEL and retained by Ofcom (from Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013”, paragraph 6.22)
"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.”


It is clear from the above that under GC 9.6 ANY change that is neither to my benefit or neutral is of Material Detriment. In other words Material Detriment in the regulatory context simply means DETRIMENT.


This interpretation by Ofcom (although slightly more restrictive) clearly reflects the intentions of the Universal Service Directive (USD) USD 20/(22) for which Ofcom have a legal duty to incorporate into UK law and they have done so via GC 9.6. It is clear that the intention of 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 as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
Chapter IV – End User Agreements
Article 20 – Contracts
Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.


As this increase in prices is neither to my benefit nor neutral in its impact on me, I should be entitled to the penalty free cancellation under GC 9.6 as requested.


Whilst I am in the fixed period of my contract I am effectively trapped into my contract and therefore I cannot avoid the increase in prices that you have advised. I note that you have tried to place a time limit within the contract on when Material Detriment can be considered (comparing two 3 month periods chosen by Vodafone), however GC 9.6. (which takes precedence over our contractual terms) is not bound by time, and the only consideration is if over the course of the fixed period I am likely to suffer material detriment (which under the Ofcom definition = detriment) as a result of the change.


When deciding on which contract to take the price of ancillary service was taken into account as by virtue of being services available to phone users they are services that I am likely to use (regardless of if I have actually used them to date or not).


Under the price changes advised even one phone call to directory enquires could cost an additional £2.75p or 122% more, calls to free phone numbers an extra 6.4p or 45.7% more, and calls to mobile networks 5p more or 12.5%, these increases are clearly a change that is neither to my benefit nor neutral, i.e. under the regulatory definition of Material Detriment (which is detriment) I am entitled to a penalty free cancellation.


The fact that regulatory changes may have impacted on Vodafone’s income is not a consideration as Vodafone is required to pass on regulatory savings and has the option to pass on regulatory increases (the increases advised are not regulatory), Vodafone does not have an option (within the contract or under the General Conditions of entitlement) to recoup lost revenue via price increases (and indeed if there were such a right it would probably not pass the test of fairness under the Unfair Terms and Conditions in Consumer Contract Regulations).


For the sake of clarity I am familiar with the terms and conditions of our contract, and any response that simply repeats the contractual position will be deemed as Vodafone deliberately avoiding the question being asked and demonstrating a lack of duty of care when dealing with this matter For the avoidance of doubt my request for a penalty free cancellation is under the protection of GC 9.6 and NOT the contract terms.


Should Vodafone consider that the price increases are not of Material Detriment under GC 9.6 please fully explain the rationale and how that complies with GC 9.6. Also please advise me of the contact details of the adjudication scheme of which Vodafone is a member. Note that any respond which fails to address how Vodafone have complied with GC 9.6 will be considered inadequate and a sign that Vodafone is hiding behinds it contract rather than explaining how its price change complies with GC 9.6.



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.

claireb1

Can appeal for different adjudicator? Heard back 17th June how long got sort it?

Whats best do next not sure on small claim court

Any help appreciated as not sure what do next.

RandomCurve

Score 36-11

RedHeadPeter

I have prepared my response to EEs defence based on posts 1106 and 1107 here and the document on the fightmobileincreases site. Thanks again to RC for all that.
I have modified my response to para 14 to state that I was not provided with the T&Cs on signing (I signed at a Carphone Warehouse shop on Carphone Warehouse/T-mobile paper. On the back of that was a section that said "The Legal stuff you need to know (Version 59) but it only went up to clause 2.3. There was no pointer to a website or any other source of the full T&Cs) I scanned that and will be sending it in.
I also tidied up some typos , sorted out some formatting and took out quite a bit of the bold and underlining, I find that a bit 'shouty', which isn't my style :-)
Just checking back here before I send it that there aren't any last minute changes?

Jamsandwich

Really disappointed, I think the fault lies with me.

Should have taken more care filling out the documents.

:(:(:(

Mikmonken

Jamsandwich wrote: »

Really disappointed, I think the fault lies with me.

Should have taken more care filling out the documents.

:(:(:(

Real shame, I lost too based on adjudicator saying I should have cancelled back in March it's really just down to the luck of the adjudicator. If you look at how many errors EE made that makes no difference.

Just ready up for the next wave of CISAS claims!

Swampsnake

Hi all. I am responding to EE's "new"defence and I have a query: They have included what appears to be their "standard" paragraph 28:

[FONT=&quot]28. Save as is denied in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant’s only recourse should the increase be in excess of RPI is to termination of the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is not entitled to seek an unlock code for any handset associated with the Agreement and such is not a remedy as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant with regards the facilitation of an unlock code for the handset, either as free of charge or chargeable. There is no contractual obligation to unlock a handset at any stage before, during or after termination of the Agreement and the Claimant is hereby put to strict proof thereof.

At no time did I request an unlock code in my claim!


I need to address the RPI / GC[/FONT] 9.6 point that RC raised in his excellent template, so I would appreciate any feedback as to what reply I should give to this
thanks in advance

RandomCurve

RedHeadPeter wrote: »

....took out quite a bit of the bold and underlining.....

Not sure why but when copying into the forum the formatting does go a little weird the only Bold and under lined sections should be:




Bold & Underlined
under BOTH the PRE and POST 23rd January 2014 Definitions of Material Detriment provided by Ofcom, an increase of RPI is “likely to be of Material Detriment”.


Bold & Underlined
For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.”


Underlined only
clarty on the notification


Bold & Underlined
10.1 A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract after it has been agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under strong suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced only if both parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.


10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs


Bold & Underlined


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.

It is entirely up to you what to bold/underline, but those parts above are the KEY elements to the case which recent adjudicators have totally ignored, and I would not trust them picking up on the points if they were mot emphasised in some way.
Your right to push the contract angle, but the issue may be that adding in about the contract (and the additions in the defence response at Paragraphs 15-16) the adjudicator may count this as "new evidence" which is not "admissible" which seems a bit strange given that EE have raised points to try an discredit the claim which were nothing to do with the claim!!!


Good Luck:)