Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RandomCurve

One of the T&C cases has failed due to the trimming of the claim as follows:

Both Clause 4.3 and Clause 15.1 require the customer to inform the company of his intention to terminate the agreement without penalty within one month of him receiving
　
the notification from the company. The customer did not contact the company until two calendar months after receiving the notification. I am therefore satisfied that the customer did not inform the company within the agreed time period, and so, through his conduct, he accepted the changes made to the agreement which then came into effect on 26 March 2014.

This shows that in order for a new case to succeed we will need to demonstrate:

1. The EE never informed us of the change in a manner compliant with GC9.6 (both our right to a penalty free termination AND the nature of the change);
2. That GC9.6 place an obligation on E to give 30 days notice, but contains no time limit for action to betaken, and
3. under UTCCRs we have aright to cancelation (but that does have a proviso that we need to act before harm occurs)

factor29

RandomCurve wrote: »

I think in your case another email to Voda is required (you may want to send them a copy of your full response from Ofcom)


Thanks, have sent

Mikmonken

RandomCurve wrote: »

One of the T&C cases has failed due to the trimming of the claim as follows:

Both Clause 4.3 and Clause 15.1 require the customer to inform the company of his intention to terminate the agreement without penalty within one month of him receiving
　
the notification from the company. The customer did not contact the company until two calendar months after receiving the notification. I am therefore satisfied that the customer did not inform the company within the agreed time period, and so, through his conduct, he accepted the changes made to the agreement which then came into effect on 26 March 2014.

This shows that in order for a new case to succeed we will need to demonstrate:

1. The EE never informed us of the change in a manner compliant with GC9.6 (both our right to a penalty free termination AND the nature of the change);
2. That GC9.6 place an obligation on E to give 30 days notice, but contains no time limit for action to betaken, and
3. under UTCCRs we have aright to cancelation (but that does have a proviso that we need to act before harm occurs)

Re the first point - An email i copied you into had an attachment detailing the change in T&C's and all associated links, there is no reference to a right to cancel. i can resend if needed, it has nothing personal specific so happy for everyone to use as evidence

point 2 - taken from here - http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc9/statement/guidance.pdf

A1.23 The minimum timescale that CPs should give subscribers the ability to exit the contract for any relevant changes is 30 days. This is to enable subscribers to consider the proposed contractual modification and give them time to research their options.
as we were not informed of termination rights we were also not informed of a timescale.

Point 3 - take from here page 12 -> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317667/UTCCR-explained-an-overview-in-an-easy-to-digest-format.PDF

Over-restricting a consumer’s ability to cancel might be unfair too, such as denying them any right to cancel, or making it difficult to end the agreement, even when the business commits a serious breach
of contract. Termination charges and over-lengthy notice periods can have this effect, tending to force consumers to continue with contracts, or renew them, when they have no wish to do so.

"Even when" suggests past tense and therefore suggests a proviso as you mentioned would not apply?.

Do we have a case? ;-)

skuk21

Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for your e mail of 30 June 2014. I apologise again for the delay in responding but,

as before, I wanted to make sure I considered everything you said carefully.

I know you disagree with the responses I have given to your emails, but I am afraid I do not

agree Ofcom has misunderstood the questions here. We have had lengthy correspondence,

which I have always considered carefully, and I have tried to explain Ofcom’s position in a lot

of detail. I have thought again about what you have said, but I am afraid I do not think your

email raises new points not covered by what I have already said and therefore our position

has not changed.

We have looked at EE’s old and new terms, and taken into account all the recent

correspondence and CISAS adjudications. I have explained that on GC9.6 there were a

number of reasons for our position. One was our view that EE’s new term does not enable it

to raise prices in a way that is likely to be materially detrimental, so changing from the old

term to the new one was not likely to be materially detrimental either. I have explained that

we use RPI as a general guide in forming this view, which still applies. On the UTCCRs, I

have explained the action we took which led to EE adjusting its price rises and amending its

terms. I know you do not agree with us but, in light of these points and all our consumer

protection priorities, we have decided not to take further action on administrative priority

grounds.

Having set out Ofcom’s position a number of times, I do not think any further correspondence

on this matter will be helpful. As you are aware, if you remain dissatisfied with Ofcom’s

response, you may complain about how we have handled this matter by writing to our

Corporation Secretary, Graham Howell.

Yours sincerely

Lynn Parker

Mikmonken

Not got my response yet, so come 16:00 when my deadline for a response was I will forward to Graham Howell. interesting Vodafone did get in contact and asked if they can do anything to assist me (only if i have a contract with them though)

Mikmonken

15:55 received a letter - Dear Surname, not even a Mr Surname.

claireb1

I got til 29th of July. Do just reply straight to the e-mail got with 2 attached files?

Mikmonken

If you're rejecting yep just reply to the email to say you reject the decision

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

Re the first point - An email i copied you into had an attachment detailing the change in T&C's and all associated links, there is no reference to a right to cancel. i can resend if needed, it has nothing personal specific so happy for everyone to use as evidence

point 2 - taken from here - http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc9/statement/guidance.pdf

A1.23 The minimum timescale that CPs should give subscribers the ability to exit the contract for any relevant changes is 30 days. This is to enable subscribers to consider the proposed contractual modification and give them time to research their options.
as we were not informed of termination rights we were also not informed of a timescale.

Point 3 - take from here page 12 -> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317667/UTCCR-explained-an-overview-in-an-easy-to-digest-format.PDF

Over-restricting a consumer’s ability to cancel might be unfair too, such as denying them any right to cancel, or making it difficult to end the agreement, even when the business commits a serious breach
of contract. Termination charges and over-lengthy notice periods can have this effect, tending to force consumers to continue with contracts, or renew them, when they have no wish to do so.

"Even when" suggests past tense and therefore suggests a proviso as you mentioned would not apply?.

Do we have a case? ;-)

Page 14 on the link above also makes interesting reading!!!


I have no doubt that we have a VERY strong case against EE as they seem to have breached nearly every aspect of the UTCCRs in connection with variations! The problem is how we word the case to ensure it does not just get "kicked out" due to the 30 day limit in the contract.
One could go as far to say (and I would not use this word in a claim) that they have deliberately set out to defraud the consumer by making it appear on a casual reading that they were changing the notification process of price rises and not the quantum of price rise! (we may be able to use the hidden clause rules (group 12 OFT)
I guess the way around that is to go down the "not acted in Good Faith" route in that they would have known, or ought to have know, that the change was more than a change in Notification and so at the very least they have not applied a duty of care in the notification of the change and as such customers should not be disadvantaged by EEs failure to follow the correct notification procedure.


I think on it over the weekend - And no news from MSE so will also start a new thread!

RandomCurve

I said somewhere at the beginning of this thread that even if we lose the case (and most have won) you would have discovered just how "effective" Ofcom is at protecting consumers.


Hopefully you are all as disgusted as I am at Lynn Parkers constant ability to avoid addressing the questions asked even to the extent that she has the cheek to suggests that she knows what question we have asked better than we do:
"...but I am afraid I do not agree Ofcom has misunderstood the questions here."
If the person asking the question has said you have mis-understood it how can the respondent reply with that? What she means is:
"You have not asked the question we want to answer."!


Of course she has not explained how Ofcom initially concluded that the change:
"..does not purport to give EE the right to impose a higher increase than was previously the case"


She has also conveniently forgotten to address the point as to which definition of Material Detriment EEs new clause is subjected to, and why my proposed definition on pre 23rd January contracts is not correct!


If only we could get some publicity on these responses then Ofcom would be seen as the ineffective industry loving consumer hating regulator that it is - and I suspect heads would roll or tunes would change - preferably both! I would apply for Lynn's job if it were vacant - that would address the industry/consumer imbalance over night (although I'd probably get sacked within the week for not displaying the correct "cultural attitude" to the industry)!