Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

muse213

Got a reply, they say as advised, they are still waiting for clarification from Cisas even though I put points in about other consumers about getting things backdated. I'm being seriously messed around here

RandomCurve

This is plainly nonsense! As you say if you contract is cancelled back dated to 4th March then there is no contract to bill you against it seems CISAS are bowing to pressure.
I would contact CISAS (copy in Ofcom) asking them to explain:

1. What Back dated means?
2. What was the adjudicators intention when saying back dated?
3. Why if the adjudicator agrees that EE should have cancelled the contract under the rules from 4th March are they being allowed to continue to bill you in breach of GC 9.6?
4. How can EE apply charges if there is no contract?
5. How the above fits with GC 11.1 (bills must be correct)?
6. Why are EE allowed to benefit from not complying with the regulation they were supposed to comply with from 4th March
7. On CISAS own rules:
8. 4.5 f) Adjudicators' decisions cannot be appealed
9. (e) In exceptional circumstances the adjudicator may award more 5 than has been claimed for by the customer
10. 8 b) With the exception of amending a decision following any minor clerical error, neither CISAS nor the adjudicator will enter into correspondence or dialogue relating to any decision.

http://www.cisas.org.uk/CISASRules-12_e.html


And copy in those useless bunch at Ofcom and ask for their view of EE contacting CISAS and CISAS "altering" a decision in contravention of CISAS own rules.

starsailor123uk wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]
Had a response from CISAS which wasn't good so are now formally starting a complaints process with them
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I am completely staggered by the last line as it should not have to be stated explicitly it is clearly a consequence of the situation. If the contract effectively ends on the 4th March Orange/EE cannot charge me for a service contract that wasn't under contract. If they argue you continue to use the service my response is that is a factor of you not applying the terms and conditions and therefore your problem!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“At the time of the customer's CISAS application, the customer made it clear that he was claiming for one of the following two remedies: 1) to maintain his existing contract at the original price and conditions or 2) be issued with a penalty free exit from the contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As the customer did not specifically request for the termination of his contract without penalty and have all charges waived from the point of termination onward, no such provision was made by me as the adjudicator. Accordingly, my decision for the company to terminate the customer's account (backdated to 4 March 2014) does not include a refund of charges incurred after this date.[/FONT]

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

QUESTION: As EE are clearly going back to CISAS asking for clarity re a decision, does this effectively open the door to a consumer i.e. me, going back to CISAS saying,

Hi just wanted to clarify, the adjudicator said that my claim failed as i should have cancelled when there was a change in T&C's an option that wasn't afforded to me at the time. Would you please confirm whether therefore based on this ruling I am able to cancel my contract with EE penalty free and back dated to March 26th 2014 with all cost waived, phones unlocked and PAC code provided?

It doesn't seems a little one sided if EE can contest and the consumer can't.

Yes do, and quote that you are aware that they have "amended" decisions based on contact with EE . They won't entertain your request - but hey go for it!

RedHeadPeter

I sent my response to EE's defence last Friday (quite late - probably only counts as Monday June 30.

When do you think I might be advised of adjudicator appointment?

Pilotmic

Is it me, but how can Ofcom disregard their own guidance link shown here?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/price-rises-fixed-contracts/statement

I have been doing more digging and CISAS still haven't got back in touch with me, so I have a day off tomorrow to chat to them.

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep

Just had my PAC code from EE - only thing is, whilst referencing two numbers, they have only sent a single PAC code to me. Now chasing them back again!

skuk21

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep wrote: »

Just had my PAC code from EE - only thing is, whilst referencing two numbers, they have only sent a single PAC code to me. Now chasing them back again!

same here

1 pac for 2 numbers

:money:

Mikmonken

RandomCurve wrote: »

Yes do, and quote that you are aware that they have "amended" decisions based on contact with EE . They won't entertain your request - but hey go for it!

RC BBC'd you to a response

for all those who are having decisions amended see following CISAS rule:

8 b) With the exception of amending a decision following any minor clerical error, neither CISAS nor the adjudicator will enter into correspondence or dialogue relating to any decision.

http://www.cisas.org.uk/CISASRules-12_e.html

unless there is a clerical error in the documentation i.e. they want to clarify what the meaning a bckdated to 40th April is (note a deliberate clerical error) I reckon you have grounds to go back.

starsailor123uk

My point exactly when calling them but they refused to talk to me as I had raised an official complaint with CISAS

It appears, irrespective of the outcome that one side is being treated more favourably in terms of contact than other. For example I sent the list as per RC email above and was promptly given a Rule 8 (b) defence wall. When I tried to argue that at least Question1 is no less of a simple clarification as EE's that they responded to they might has well have hung up the phone!

I have got together all the emails, decisions and paperwork and am sending it to OFCOM if only for them to see that the system is broke in that one side can make challenges but another cannot!

As for the refund I am looking at whether to work out a figure and then pursue a claim in the small claims court if only to see what the judgement is with regard to the use of the term "backdated" as I still can't get how that means anything less than I don't have a contract! and therefore cannot be charged.

RandomCurve

Here is email 5 for the Vodafone folk.


[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 Mr Hoencamp,

Ref: phone number 07XXX XXXXXX

RE: Out of Bundle Price Increases

Despite four very clear emails requesting that Vodafone cancel my contract penalty free under the protection afforded to me under GC 9.6 following the out of bundle price increase that I believe is of Material Detriment to me, Vodafone have not offered that Penalty free cancellation. Neither has Vodafone given any rationale as to why Vodafone believes they have not contravened GC 9.6 (again despite four very clear attempts to solicit a response). Also as I have requested the details of your Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and you have failed to provide them I also consider you are in breach of GC 14.4 (c) and (d).

As it is clear that Vodafone are unwilling to respond to a simple question which is – “Can you explain why Vodafone believes the recent increase in out of bundle charges is compliant with GC 9.6” (Vodafone only ever responded with the contractual context) you leave me with no other choice than to take this matter to ADR.

For the avoidance of doubt this action is not in connection with Vodafone’s business decision to increases prices (as a business Vodafone is free to make whatever decisions it deems suitable). This claim is that by denying me a penalty free cancelation under GC 9.6 Vodafone has contravened Ofcom Regulation GC 9.6. Further Vodafone are also in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) Schedule 2, paragraph 1, which states that terms may be unfair “if they have the object or effect of (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract” Which the associated Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidance states:
10.3 Such a term is more likely to be found fair if:
(c) there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation, and a right for the consumer to cancel before being affected by it, without penalty or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract.

I therefore request that Vodafone either:

• Processes a penalty free cancelation back dated to when I first requested it, OR
• Provides a deadlock reference in order that I can take this matter to the ADR.

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.