Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Mikmonken

RandomCurve wrote: »

Am I blind - did anybody else see Ofcom cover the points asked in their previous responses?


We so desperately need some media attention on this! I am still in contact with MSE on this, but it seems pretty low on the priority list at the moment!

I think it's more like after all this time and effort they've spent looking at the questions that it's still not an administrative priority.

Which is kind of a conflicting message they're giving really.

But know they've not answered thee questions

Mikmonken

Personally though I'm interested in what they're administrative priorities are though so regardless of whether they'll answer I've popped in a cheeky FOI request to find out.

I wonder if we can use FOI to get some clarity on what we've actually asked

rockstarzzz

RandomCurve wrote: »

Yes you have a case, but the date you first contacted EE may be a problem!


The response you received is in the main the standard response and you can use the defence response below (but will need to cross reference the paragraph numbers) - the two documents can be downloaded from the fight Mobile increases website ( http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/ )
EE Defence updated version from Mid June
EE Defence Response from 26-6-14


As for the NET increase can you post on the forum the cost of each line the amount actually coming out of your bank account Before and After the price rise? I think you are saying:
Line 1 £32.00 + 98p = £32.98 or 3.1%
Line 2 £16.00 + 98p = £16.98 or 6.13%
if the above is correct then this is your response to Paragraph 28 as it proves that EE have used a rate higher 2.7% and by there own defence at para 28 they stated this would allow you to terminate the contract penalty free.


Regarding the date of the claim this will be an interesting test case for the new campaign! the response to Paragraphs 44 and 45 is as follows:
"As stated earlier my claim is based on a breach of GC 9.6 and NOT the contract therefore any time limit for action is not determined by clause 15.1(b) of the contract but by GC9.6. GC 9.6 only places a minimum time restriction on EE to provide me notice there is no time limit expressed or implied on when I need to take action, and as the Regulation is more in line with USD 20/22 and the UTCCRs the statutory time limit for me to take action should be used which is 6 years."

Thanks a bunch RC!

Since we are going right into the details, I've dug into my old bills as well as my bank statments.

I am paying on BOTH lines exactly same price plan.

The price plan is listed on my contract as Panther36 Loyalty Plus. This plan is £36 per month. But when I signed the contract, it said £37. No biggy.

Out of that, I get a Loyalty Plus discount of £20. That means each month I am on a discounted contract where I only pay £17 BEFORE any hikes. However, with 98p increase, that makes it £18. That is 18 per line.

Line 1 and 2 : I was paying £14.30 before VAT.
After increase: Line 1 and 2 : I am paying £15.12 before VAT

I am bad with VAT. But if VAT is 20%, that makes early bills to be £17.10. If 2.7% rise of based on this price, it should only be 46p rise, NOT 98p as they say. Correct? Is that how I should represent this?

blackaqua

I took a slightly less technical approach to my defence (also didn't spot RC templates until the last minute, also thought I may have an advantage going 'off'script'), I didn't want to appear to know what I was talking about, so I took the approach of small time hard up consumer vs Goliath being a muppet.

I'm won't share the full defence until I accept the decision - not sure if I will cancel (I asked for a choice of cancellation), as it could be a lucrative way of getting a very cheap contract (with compo) if EE repeat this stunt yearly.

Basically all letters leading up to CISAS stated "you're charging me 5% extra, why" - as RC has said, you should be fine if you already have this point.

I did mention "material detriment" in my CISAS case, though I didn't elaborate on this at all. My compo claim was based on £10 per letter/phone call, plus a small sum for stress - in hindsight I would have upped this and included an additional figure for CISAS case letter.

My reply to EE's defence letter was 3 short paragraphs to enforce my view on the adjudicator. My responses to EEs defence were in an attached table as a failsafe if my primary point failed (TBH I didn't think my response to the defence would sway the adjuicators opinion and I didn't want to clutter my core point).

--Ultimately boiled down to:

EE have continued in their failure to explain why the increase has been calculated on a sum that I do not pay for my 12 month fixed minimum contract. They have attempted to have this case thrown out by claiming that this is too complex to explain and then mount an unnecessarily technical legal defence that is significantly more complex than the contract I have with them. I feel that this shows continued disregard to me as their customer.

Ultimately, this is a case of simple math. I have contractually agreed that I pay EE £x per month for a minimum fixed term of 12 months. As part of that contract, EE may increase the price by RPI. EE have actually increased my bill, within the minimum term of the contract, by 5.x% and have refused my rights I then can enforce under the contract. The cancellation contractual clauses are in relation to this minimum term.

I am being billed 5.x% more than I agreed to pay for the minimum contract term, fact. EE have failed to recognise this fact when I have tried to amicably resolve it with them, hence the need to pursue my case.

Defence summary on the attached table:
Defence on the following points (RC templates cover these points):
- EE abusing the system attempting to get the case thrown out on 'complex T&C' outside CISAS remit. Stated T&C need to by understandable by the consumer + end result = higher bill, CISAS accepted

- EE sent a very legally technical reply. I outlined that this overwhelmed me, which paragraphs I didn't understand in line with my small time consumer approach. CISAS didn't comment

- Material detriment in EE view was "significant harm", not a couple pence increase.I replied with just the ofcom definition, how this takes precedence. If CISAS accepted EEs definition then I viewed 'significant harm' as bankruptcy & EE would never pass credit check someone in that position where a few pence would make a difference, hence it would be impossible for anyone to use the material detriment clause in their contract. In light of people not getting a backdated refund due to them continuing to use their contract I added that I couldn't cease using the contract. I couldn't afford the loss of my mobile number and the expense of a new contract - this was of material detriment to me.

- Stated that EE acted unreasonable and single minded in their letters to me, never addressing why they were applying the 2.7% to the full priced contract (customer service justification for CISAS claim). If they had offered 2.7% I would have been OK and I wouldn't be using valuable CISAS time.

CISAS commented:
- Within its remit (win)
- Relevant T&C (win)
- 5.4% increase (win)
- right to cancel via T&C for above RPI increase (win)
- request for EE to remove price rise back to 2.7% (loss, outside remit)

I especially liked the line:
"The company breached the contract between the parties by refusing to allow the customer to cancel his contract without paying a cancellation charge. Given the seriousness of this breach..."

Mikmonken

For info, the application of VAT doesn't make a difference to the price increase if it's more than 2.7% before VAT it will be more than 2.7% after VAT and vice versa.

rockstarzzz

RandomCurve wrote: »

I would not get bogged down in the detail of VAT. Simply say
"I was paying £14.30 before VAT for each line, £14.30p plus RPI of 2.7% = £14.69p, but EE are charging £15.12p before VAT an increase of £0.82p or 5.7% which is in excess of the RPI and as per EEs defence at Para 28 I should be entitled to a penalty free cancellation as requested."

Thanks! That clears it out. I will finalise my defense doc today. We have to simply reply the email with EE defense right? Or do we do this online?

edi

Another win here.... MASSIVE thanks to RC, a true consumer champion


The claim succeeds in part.
I direct that the company should: provide the customer with an apology; provide the customer with his PAC; cancel the customer’s contract without penalty, backdating such cancellation to 14 April 2014, thereby waiving any charges incurred after this date and; pay the customer compensation in the sum of £50.00




Guess, I need to accept the decision ... lol

edi

RandomCurve wrote: »

Guess so- as the adjudicator has made it clear that you pay nothing from 14th April - then you might want to wait most of those six weeks you have to "decide" what to :rotfl:

Good point RC.... I've until 1st week of Sep to 'decide'

The.Real.Me

edi wrote: »

Good point RC.... I've until 1st week of Sep to 'decide'

And if you pay EE to unlock your phone before you accept the decision you 'may' get that cost back as well :j

Perhaps Random Curve or anyone else who has done so could clarify if that would indeed be the case?

sick_of_paying_more

RandomCurve wrote: »

May be worth pointing out to CISAS that on many occasions they have extended deadlines to EE to submit defences, that when EE seek clarification CISAS do not enforce that EE still have to comply within 4 weeks including the wait for clarification - so why - when the clarty is need due to the decision being ambiguous are CISS unable to "stop the clock" until the clarification is given - surely this would be the most impartial way forward. (copy in Lynn Parker at Ofcom)


If CISAS still want to play silly bug**rs then on 29th accept the decision and add that it is with the expectation that "Backdated" can only mean including a refund of sums taken since the contract cancellation date.

not really good news here rc, the adjudicator has decided i can't backdate charges, not really an issue as i haven't really used the phone that much, and even though i'd like to give ee a fight i think i may as well just accept the decision as is and move away from the contract, backdating 6 weeks is better than nothing i suppose!!!
thanks again rc!! i will see your chosen charity gets a donation from me, any chance of a pointer where that would be please?
once again many thanks for your help
Thank you for your e-mail. Please see below the Adjudicator’s clarification:

The Decision relates to the date of the cancellation. It does not provide for a refund of charges after this date.

Please be advised that the deadline cannot be extended. We look forward to receiving your acceptance rejection of the decision on or before 29/07/2014.