Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RandomCurve

Oh sh!!!t,
However there may be some good news as if I recall correctly that a Adjudicator has sided with the customer in regards to the price rise issue.
I just hope they don't 'recognise' you

GolfBravo

It is the same replacement adjudicator again and will undoubtedly "recognise" me as my price rise case includes references to the t&c change case that I lost 2 months ago.

Only one thing is certain: no more contract phones for me. PAYG only from now on.

GolfBravo

Further development: my replacement adjudicator is out, adjudicator number 3 appointed.

Dear Mr ...

Further to our previous correspondence, we write to advise that the original appointed adjudicator has decided to recuse herself from the case in the above matter. Therefore, the adjudicator will not be making a decision in this case. A substitute adjudicator has been appointed.

The parties are advised that

Miss C.O.

has been appointed as adjudicator and that all of the case papers received have been forwarded for consideration.

We will contact you again on receipt of the adjudicator’s decision. In the meantime, either we or the adjudicator may contact you for further information if they require any clarification on any of the issues contained within the case papers.

Kind regards

Unfortunately, looking at Miss CO's previous decisions, I'm not holding my breath.

RandomCurve

Recuse:

• (of a judge) excuse oneself from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
  "it was the right of counsel to ask a judge to recuse himself from continuing to hear a case because of bias"
  
  

Hmm - bias as she realised she had passed a judgement already, or bias in her last ruling?????

GolfBravo

Just because I got the monkey off my back doesn't mean the circus has left town.

Slavalicious

Hi Everyone!

Coming out of the shadows, been following this thread since the beginning and applied every step that RandomCurve had suggested, for which I am very grateful to you RC!

I used the updated EE/T-mobile defence comments and finally received a decision from the adjudicator DG, which was unsuccessful

Adjudicator’s findings and reasons

41. I find that:

(a)Firstly, dealing with the company‟s submission that this matter does not

fall under the remit of the CISAS Scheme. I find that that this dispute

does fall within the Scheme. I have come to that decision because I

find that this dispute does not involve a complicated area of law.

(b)Further, I find that this dispute concerns the interpretation of the

company‟s Terms and Conditions for the supply of communication

services. CISAS is permitted to deal with disputes arising under the

contract for communication services and as a consequence this

dispute falls within the Scheme.

(c)The customer entered into the contract with the company on 11th July

2013. I find that this is the applicable date to be used when

considering if the Ofcom guidance applies to this matter.

(d)It follows that as the 11th July 2013 predates the Ofcom‟s guidance

which referred to contracts entered into on or after 23rd January 2014. I

therefore find that Ofcom‟s guidance, which was that they may view an

increase to the core subscription price agreed at the point of sale to be

a material detriment does not apply to the customer‟s contract.

(e)I find that the company when amending the Terms and Conditions

and/or when informing the customer of the amendments did not

breach the UTCCR. In my view and I so hold the change was not

unfair.

(f) In my view the company are perfectly entitled to amend the contract in

the manner which they have done. Further, I see no force in the

9

customer's argument that the company should not be entitled to rely

on the RPI measure. In my view, and I so hold, the use of the RPI

measure by the company is fair and reasonable and provides more

clarity for their subscribers.

(g)I do not accept the customer‟s submissions that another measure of

inflation should be used. In my view, and I so hold, the RPI measure is

universally understood and accepted and I find that its use by the

company is appropriate.

(h)The company is not obligated, in my view, to use any other form of

inflation measure. They have chosen to use the RPI measure and I

find that they have applied that correctly to the customer's contract. I

therefore find that the company have correctly applied clause 7.2.2.3

and that they have also provided the requisite written notice.

(i) I have carefully considered the scope of the increase to the cost of the

customer‟s price plan. In my view and I so hold the increase applied by

the company, which is in line with the RPI, does not give rise to

material detriment and as a consequence I find that the customer is

not entitled to be able to cancel his contract without having to pay a

cancellation charge.

(j) It follows that the customer‟s claim is unsuccessful.

Conclusion

42. My conclusion on the main issue is that:

43. I find that the company did not breach the duty of care that they owe to the

customer.

44. It follows that the customer‟s claim is unsuccessful.

I am guessing every single point made in the claim and comments was put aside

GolfBravo

@Slavalicious

Who was your adjudicator? Was it Dr MCD by any chance?

PS
Apparently you can't post the full name here - the adjudicators initials would do.

RandomCurve

@Slavalicious


Thank you for "coming out of the shadows".


Interesting the number of "in my view" statements, that is the language that I would use as an AMATEUR who is not legally trained, as a trained legally qualified adjudicator the language should have been much more forceful and definite about the points of law!
I love the way the adjudicator quotes the dates and the progression, but ignores the date of the change in T&Cs of March 2014!!!


And yes they do seem to have ignored most of the points raised.


My advice - try the change in T&Cs challenge: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5021418

Slavalicious

GolfBravo wrote: »

@Slavalicious

Who was your adjudicator? Was it Dr MCD by any chance?

PS
Apparently you can't post the full name here - the adjudicators initials would do.

I think I did put it in the first post, DG.

RC, I will definetely give T&C a try although I see there are complications with it already!

GolfBravo

Me 0 : EE 2

Following my defeat a couple of months ago re: T&C's change, today I received this:

Decision
The claim does not succeed.


Adjudicator’s findings and reasons
The issue relates to the revised terms and conditions, which stipulate that the company is able to increase its prices in line with the most recently published RPI at the time notice is given (clause 4.3.1). Whilst I note from the customer’s submissions in his comments, that he challenged the change in terms and conditions, the claim was not upheld (CISAS:2*****5). As such, I accept that the customer is bound by the revised terms and conditions.

I note the customer’s comments about rule GC9.6 and contracts entered into after January 2014. However, I do not consider it applicable in this instance as the revised terms do not constitute a new contract. The change is in relation to an existing contract. Therefore, I do not consider this to be a contract entered into on or after 23/01/14.

I consider the change in the price difference is in accordance with the correct published RPI, which was 2.7% at the time notice was given. As I acknowledge that the company is entitled to increase its prices in accordance with RPI, and as stipulated in the most recent version of its terms and conditions, I accept the charges are correct. I note that
the company explains that the increase in monetary terms is £1.24 (excluding VAT) per month.

I note the customer emailed the company requesting a termination only one day before it was due to take effect. The customer sent the correspondence on 27/05/14, having been informed of the proposed change between 05/04/14 and 15/04/14. It is not clear why the customer did not dispute the increase earlier. I note that the company provided a swift response, which was sent to the customer on 28/05/14. Following the customer’s further email on 31/05/14, the company replied again with its final position on the matter, on 02/06/14.

I remind the parties that the issues that form the heart of this dispute are considered on a case by case basis and on the evidence presented. I cannot see that the customer has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the increase is of material detriment to him. There is no evidence of his income and outgoings and I remind the parties that this is not a contract entered into on or after 23/01/14. I consider that there is an argument that the change is of marginal but not material detriment. However, as the terms and conditions clearly allow the company to increase the price in accordance with RPI, I do not see that there is a breach in this regard.

In light of my observations above, I do not accept that the customer is entitled to cancel the contract without penalty on the basis of the price increase.

I have read and considered the responses by the company, which I accept were provided in a timely manner. Whilst I note that the customer’s points were not responded to in their entirety, I consider the main points were addressed and a satisfactory level of information provided. Under the circumstances, I do not accept that the company has failed to provide a reasonable response and therefore, I see no breach in its duty of care owed to the customer.


Conclusion
My conclusion on the main issues is that:
a. The company has not failed in its duty of care to the customer or breached its terms and conditions.
b. The reasons given by the customer are not sufficient to justify the remedies claimed.
Therefore, my decision is that the claim does not succeed.



This is B/S. My EE contract runs out this Saturday. Will ask for my PAC code today, off to PAYG.