Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

skuk21

Just got an email from EE
they have put a cheque in the post and issued PACs for my numbers.

Happy days
Thanks again RC!

RedHeadPeter

Swampsnake wrote: »

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

This won't help you much, but...

My defence from EE has exactly the same Para 28. I can't trace that I ever requested an unlock code, but in fact my phone isn't locked anyway (the hand of Carphone Warehouse again I think) so I have just ignored that para. I can't see the adjudicator throwing out the whole claim just because of that, though they may rule you shouldn't have one, but as you didn't ask for one (or need one) it's a phyrric victory for EE.

RedHeadPeter

RC, OK - I got the underlining back on track and I see your point.

And as for EE adding in new stuff, in the defence to me there is a Para 45:

45. Furthermore, the Respondent denies the Claimant’s claim that that it applied an ‘annual inflation’ rate to the Claimant’s Account in March 2013. As at March 2013 the Claimant was not a customer on the Respondent’s EE brand. The Respondent avers that pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 it can increase any Price Plan charge so long as the requisite 30 days’ written notice is given. The Respondent denies that the Agreement implies a price change can only occur annually and submits that the Claimant is not a position to speculate as to the Respondent’s intention when drafting agreements.

I never said anything about 'annual inflation rate' in March 2013 in anything I submitted. The only reference to March 13 was to RPI being disowned as a National Statistic! I have commented on that too.

OK - I will get it off today.

RandomCurve

Swampsnake wrote: »

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

I've not taken much note of this before, but if your phone is locked it may be worth adding in:


Paragraph 28
The phone provided was part of the contract to enable me to access mobile telephony services. By virtue of EE breaching their obligations under GC 9.6 it only seems right that my access to telephony via another provider should not be hampered by EE refusing to issue the unlock code. The unlock code has only become necessary due to EEs own actions, and I should not be put in a less advantageous position due to EEs actions, indeed this section of EEs defence appears to go against Ofcom's general policy thrust of creating an open and completive market if EE are allowed to put obstacles in the way of me joining another network.


No guarantee - as contractually I think EE are right, but hey no harm in trying!!

Swampsnake

RandomCurve wrote: »

I've not taken much note of this before, but if your phone is locked it may be worth adding in:


Paragraph 28
The phone provided was part of the contract to enable me to access mobile telephony services. By virtue of EE breaching their obligations under GC 9.6 it only seems right that my access to telephony via another provider should not be hampered by EE refusing to issue the unlock code. The unlock code has only become necessary due to EEs own actions, and I should not be put in a less advantageous position due to EEs actions, indeed this section of EEs defence appears to go against Ofcom's general policy thrust of creating an open and completive market if EE are allowed to put obstacles in the way of me joining another network.


No guarantee - as contractually I think EE are right, but hey no harm in trying!!

Sorry I should have said I paid EE for an unlock code earlier in the year so have no need of one. I suspect that they are using blanket paragraph points and not editing them properly to match the customer. In one paragraph they say I requested £50 compensation and in another towards the end they have the correct amount. I assume I should highlight all these errors as EE's failure of care?

pwillan

Good old EE, they are now arguing whether I should be backdated for the monthly contract cost, the adjudicator said in his decision; "I direct that the company should: provide the customer with his PAC and allow him to cancel his
contract without penalty backdated to 13 April 2014; and pay the customer compensation in the
sum of £50.00."

I took that as meaning I will get the line rental costs I have paid since putting the claim in however they disagree and asking for the adjudicator to comment, am I right in thinking this?

At the end of the pdf it does say "I therefore direct the company to: cancel the customer’s contract as of 13 April 2014 without
applying a penalty for doing so; provide the customer with a PAC; and, pay the customer the
sum of £50.00 in compensation."

Surely that means that any payments after the 13th April should be refunded?

jakethepeguk

It does send an email to [EMAIL="guy.perring@ee.com"]guy.perring@ee.com[/EMAIL]
cisas have me his contact details. Also copy Ofcom in.

jakethepeguk

It might be .co.uk sorry am mobile atm

factor29

RandomCurve wrote: »

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.

No response from Vodafone so far, they have always been a day or two max for the previous emails so not sure if this is a positive/negative sign or if there just ignoring me

How long do they have to respond to the mail?

Swampsnake

factor29 wrote: »

No response from Vodafone so far, they have always been a day or two max for the previous emails so not sure if this is a positive/negative sign or if there just ignoring me

How long do they have to respond to the mail?

I'm sure that buried somewhere in the Unfair Trading Regulations there is a requirement that forces a supplier to reply to an on-going dispute and that it is illegal for them to ignore you. A friend of mine is well up on these regulations and I'll ask him on Monday, unless anybody here is familiar with the law???