Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Swampsnake

Just joined the forum to thank RandomCurve for all the hard work. Whether this ends in a win or not at least I hope we have given EE a hard time.

corsaman2002

RandomCurve wrote: »

See my post #163 - seems EE have combined tactic 1 and tactic 2.


I will put a response up on the forum by Tuesday 22nd.


The good thing about their response is that they have ignored CPI and have not commented on changing the T&C after 23rd January - they are obviously worried and trying to ignore that part of the original email - I think we are onto a winner - make sure you tell everyone you know to send the original email.:)

Thsnks for your help with this EE just think they are too big for us to challenge them

Great first email

RandomCurve

I'm going to post a response to EE's first response email.


Just to explain a little about the first paragraph. When this goes to CISAS and you ask for compensation due to EEs poor responses they will argue:


"38. The Respondent notes that the Claimant has made no complaint as to customer services or any other complaint and in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant was provided with a good level of customer services at all times and that any dissatisfaction on the part of the Claimant simply stems from the fact that the Respondent confirmed that he could not cancel the Agreement without payment of a cancellation charge, which is a remedy to which he is not entitled in this instance.


EE will still quote the above in their CISAS defence, but you now have clear evidence that you are complaining about the level of customer service! - and also in the first email we clearly articulated that anything less than a FULL responses would not be acceptable (this whole thing is a game of chess).


Just so you are not put off by EEs legal response I have quoted above - in that case EE lost and had to award a penalty free cancellation AND £100 compensation for poor customer service!!

RandomCurve

Don't forget to change the red XXX's and DATES (there are 2) as appropriate and only leave the blue text in if you are a T-Mobile customer whose contract started before 30th October 2012. delete the Orange text as appropriate so that you just leave 15.1 or 7.1 in the email (it is the number EE will have included in their response to you).




The email addresses to use are:

[EMAIL="executive.office@ee.co.uk"]executive.office@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]; (or who ever responded to your original email) AND
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]


Dear Mr Swantee,

Re Phone number 07XXXXXXXX – Case reference XXXXX

Thank you for your email Dated.
Unfortunately the response falls short of a full response requested that addresses ALL of the points raised in my original email and as such I find the level of customer service unacceptable due to the number of issues that have remained unaddressed.

You state “…Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation.” however whilst it is a statement of fact that RPI is a A measure of inflation, it does not address my concern that CPI (1.7%) is the OFFICIAL UK measure of inflation as considered by the Bank England to regulate the economy, whilst RPI (Since March 2013) is not designated as a National statistic. Therefore you have not explained to me why EE considers this REAL TERMS increase not to be of Material Detriment – please respond in full.

I note that EE recognises its obligations under GC 9.6 “We are obliged, as are all UK operators, to abide by General Condition 9.6 of the Ofcom.” As EE will be aware you changed the price variation T&C effective 26th March 2014 (2 months after Ofcom changed the definition of Material Detriment in GC 9.6) therefore this clause is subject to the new GC 9.6 definition which is:

Paragraph 6.22“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

As previously requested please explain how EE has compiled with GC 9.6, and why you are refusing my request for an IMMEDIATE PENALTY FREE cancellation as the changed T&C is subject to the new Ofcom definition of Material Detriment?

You also mention clause 15.1 (Orange)/7.1 (T-Mobile/EE) of our contract, but our contract is regulated by Ofcom and it is under Ofcom regulation GC 9.6 that I am requesting a penalty free cancellation; can you explain why EE considers our contract not to be subject to Ofcom regulation?

Other points that you have missed/ignored form my original email:

Notwithstanding the fact that the price variation is subject to the new Ofcom definition of Material detriment you have not addressed how this price variation is not to my Material Detriment under the old definition (as requested in my original email) – am I to take it that EE agrees that the price variation is subject to the new definition?

If not please address the two points that were raised in my original email reproduced for you convenience below:

First point not addressed: Without Prejudice.
The term “likely to be of Material detriment” in the regulatory context can be determined by understanding why the term was introduced into GC 9.6 by OFTEL and retained by Ofcom, and by reference to the source European documentation for GC 9.6 which is the Universal Service Directive (USD) USD 20/(22) for which GC 9.6 is the UK enactment. It is clear that the intention of USD 20/(22) was to give the CONSUMER the choice to cancel their contract during a fixed period for ANY modification that is made which they do not accept as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
Chapter IV – End User Agreements
Article 20 – Contracts
Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.

Further Ofcom GC 9.6 supports the USD implementation as the term "likely to be of material detriment" was introduced because:

"Our intention was to reflect our general duties and principles of good administration and proportionality in particular. We sought, in light of these, not to rule out contract variations altogether. For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.” (from Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013”

As Ofcom's (and OFTEL before them) reasoning for introducing the term was to protect me - the consumer - from changes which are not to my benefit or at the very least are neutral then a price rise of any kind is clearly neither to by benefit, nor neutral, and are therefore likely to be of Material Detriment.

Second point not addressed: Without Prejudice
In the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013. Ofcom defined “Likely to be of Material Detriment as follows:

Paragraph 6.22
“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

And whilst Ofcom have announced that this will only apply to contracts entered into on or after 23rd January all Ofcom have actually done is clarify a definition. They have not changed the words of GC 9.6. As they have only clarified a definition then the definition must apply to all contracts as it cannot be a legally correct position that two contracts subject to the same regulation with exactly the same wording (GC 9.6) can have two different meanings.


Without prejudice
Since my original email I have also realised that the price rise applied to my V58 T-Mobile contract – which was taken out before 30th October 2012, clearly has the wrong month’s annual inflation rate applied. In March 2013 T-Mobile were most forceful* in insisting that the Annual RPI applied to my account of 3.3% related to March 2013 RPI published in April 2013 (and not February RPI published in March), whereas now you are applying the February 2014 ANNUAL RPI rate to the same contract. Clearly EE are not allowed to apply a 12 Month inflation rate to an 11 Month period as this would effectively be applying an RPI rate higher than the actual RPI rate in that period, and is therefore is to my Material detriment (not only because the12 month rate was 2.5% and not 2.7% (7.5% higher), but also EE would have charged me the whole price rise for an additional month).

*T-Mobile Defence to a CISAS case regarding the wrong months RPI being applied in 2013.
COMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET SERVICES ADJUDICATION SCHEME
REFERENCE: 212132298

BETWEEN
MR XXXXXXXX Claimant
and
EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED
trading as T-Mobile Respondent
…………

19 As the Written Notice was issued in the month of April 2013 then the relevant month’s RPI figure for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 of the Agreement is the RPI figure as published by the Office of National Statistics (“ONS”) representing March 2013; being the month before the month in which the Written Notice was issued. The March RPI figure, published by the ONS Statistics was 3.3%. By way of the Monthly Statistical Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) published by the ONS the following is stated:-

The RPI 12-month rate for March [2013] stood at 3.3%

The Bulletin is a lengthy document so has not annexed to this Defence but can be made available to CISAS upon request. …………

The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.

Dated the 03 July 2013
Rue Kandi
Legal Executive
For and on behalf of the Respondent whose address for service is at:
Everything Everywhere Limited
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9BW.



I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) and a penalty free cancellation back dated to DATE when I first contacted you on this matter. Should EE not consider this to be an appropriate action then please clearly articulate why this is not the case with reference to each of the points above AND provide a deadlock reference in order that I can pursue a claim via CISAS. Any response which fails to address the specific points above would not be acceptable to me and will be used as evidence of EE’s lack of duty of care and poor customer service.

Regards

muse213

Coming up to a week since I sent them my account and phone number, what should I do now? And to top it off, they sent me this early upgrade offer thing through the post yesterday :rotfl:

Shaunyboy

First e-mail gone in.

corsaman2002

RandomCurve wrote: »

Don't forget to change the red XXX's and DATES (there are 2) as appropriate and only leave the blue text in if you are a T-Mobile customer whose contract started before 30th October 2012.




The email addresses to use are:

[EMAIL="executive.office@ee.co.uk"]executive.office@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]; (or who ever responded to your original email) AND
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]


Dear Mr Swantee,

Re Phone number 07XXXXXXXX – Case reference XXXXX

Thank you for your email Dated.
Unfortunately the response falls short of a full response requested that addresses ALL of the points raised in my original email and as such I find the level of customer service unacceptable due to the number of issues that have remained unaddressed.

You state “…Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation.” however whilst it is a statement of fact that RPI is a A measure of inflation, it does not address my concern that CPI (1.7%) is the OFFICIAL UK measure of inflation as considered by the Bank England to regulate the economy, whilst RPI (Since March 2013) is not designated as a National statistic. Therefore you have not explained to me why EE considers this REAL TERMS increase not to be of Material Detriment – please respond in full.

I note that EE recognises its obligations under GC 9.6 “We are obliged, as are all UK operators, to abide by General Condition 9.6 of the Ofcom.” As EE will be aware you changed the price variation T&C effective 26th March 2014 (2 months after Ofcom changed the definition of Material Detriment in GC 9.6) therefore this clause is subject to the new GC 9.6 definition which is:

Paragraph 6.22
“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

As previously requested please explain how EE has compiled with GC 9.6, and why you are refusing my request for an IMMEDIATE PENALTY FREE cancellation as the changed T&C is subject to the new Ofcom definition of Material Detriment?

You also mention clause 15.1 of our contract, but our contract is regulated by Ofcom and it is under Ofcom regulation GC 9.6 that I am requesting a penalty free cancellation; can you explain why EE considers our contract not to be subject to Ofcom regulation?

Other points that you have missed/ignored form my original email:

Notwithstanding the fact that the price variation is subject to the new Ofcom definition of Material detriment you have not addressed how this price variation is not to my Material Detriment under the old definition (as requested in my original email) – am I to take it that EE agrees that the price variation is subject to the new definition?

If not please address the two points that were raised in my original email reproduced for you convenience below:

First point not addressed: Without Prejudice.
The term “likely to be of Material detriment” in the regulatory context can be determined by understanding why the term was introduced into GC 9.6 by OFTEL and retained by Ofcom, and by reference to the source European documentation for GC 9.6 which is the Universal Service Directive (USD) USD 20/(22) for which GC 9.6 is the UK enactment. It is clear that the intention of USD 20/(22) was to give the CONSUMER the choice to cancel their contract during a fixed period for ANY modification that is made which they do not accept as follows:

USD 2002/22/EC
Chapter IV – End User Agreements
Article 20 – Contracts
Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.

Further Ofcom GC 9.6 supports the USD implementation as the term "likely to be of material detriment" was introduced because:

"Our intention was to reflect our general duties and principles of good administration and proportionality in particular. We sought, in light of these, not to rule out contract variations altogether. For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.” (from Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013”

As Ofcom's (and OFTEL before them) reasoning for introducing the term was to protect me - the consumer - from changes which are not to my benefit or at the very least are neutral then a price rise of any kind is clearly neither to by benefit, nor neutral, and are therefore likely to be of Material Detriment.

Second point not addressed: Without Prejudice
In the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in October 2013. Ofcom defined “Likely to be of Material Detriment as follows:

Paragraph 6.22
“In particular, we consider guidance is needed as to price rises which we are likely to regard as materially detrimental (or likely to be materially detrimental) and invoking the requirements of GC9.6. Such price rises are likely to include any increase to core subscription prices.”

And whilst Ofcom have announced that this will only apply to contracts entered into on or after 23rd January all Ofcom have actually done is clarify a definition. They have not changed the words of GC 9.6. As they have only clarified a definition then the definition must apply to all contracts as it cannot be a legally correct position that two contracts subject to the same regulation with exactly the same wording (GC 9.6) can have two different meanings.


Without prejudice
Since my original email I have also realised that the price rise applied to my V58 T-Mobile contract – which was taken out before 30th October 2012, clearly has the wrong month’s annual inflation rate applied. In March 2013 T-Mobile were most forceful* in insisting that the Annual RPI applied to my account of 3.3% related to March 2013 RPI published in April 2013 (and not February RPI published in March), whereas now you are applying the February 2014 ANNUAL RPI rate to the same contract. Clearly EE are not allowed to apply a 12 Month inflation rate to an 11 Month period as this would effectively be applying an RPI rate higher than the actual RPI rate in that period, and is therefore is to my Material detriment (not only because the12 month rate was 2.5% and not 2.7% (7.5% higher), but also EE would have charged me the whole price rise for an additional month).

*T-Mobile Defence to a CISAS case regarding the wrong months RPI being applied in 2013.
COMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET SERVICES ADJUDICATION SCHEME
REFERENCE: 212132298

BETWEEN
MR XXXXXXXX Claimant
and
EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED
trading as T-Mobile Respondent
…………

19 As the Written Notice was issued in the month of April 2013 then the relevant month’s RPI figure for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 of the Agreement is the RPI figure as published by the Office of National Statistics (“ONS”) representing March 2013; being the month before the month in which the Written Notice was issued. The March RPI figure, published by the ONS Statistics was 3.3%. By way of the Monthly Statistical Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) published by the ONS the following is stated:-

The RPI 12-month rate for March [2013] stood at 3.3%

The Bulletin is a lengthy document so has not annexed to this Defence but can be made available to CISAS upon request. …………

The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.

Dated the 03 July 2013
Rue Kandi
Legal Executive
For and on behalf of the Respondent whose address for service is at:
Everything Everywhere Limited
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9BW.



I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) and a penalty free cancellation back dated to DATE when I first contacted you on this matter. Should EE not consider this to be an appropriate action then please clearly articulate why this is not the case with reference to each of the points above AND provide a deadlock reference in order that I can pursue a claim via CISAS. Any response which fails to address the specific points above would not be acceptable to me and will be used as evidence of EE’s lack of duty of care and poor customer service.

Regards

What a great e-mail the second one in now on its way.

I will keep you updated what happens

Thanks alot

ShowMeTheMoola

Hi RandomCurve,

I have been reading though your posts on the MSE forums and would like to know if it's too late to send the template you posted above given that I received the letter a few weeks ago? I upgraded to another 24 month Tmobile contract in April 2013.

ulaggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

I'm going to post a response to EE's first response email.


Just to explain a little about the first paragraph. When this goes to CISAS and you ask for compensation due to EEs poor responses they will argue:


"38. The Respondent notes that the Claimant has made no complaint as to customer services or any other complaint and in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant was provided with a good level of customer services at all times and that any dissatisfaction on the part of the Claimant simply stems from the fact that the Respondent confirmed that he could not cancel the Agreement without payment of a cancellation charge, which is a remedy to which he is not entitled in this instance.


EE will still quote the above in their CISAS defence, but you now have clear evidence that you are complaining about the level of customer service! - and also in the first email we clearly articulated that anything less than a FULL responses would not be acceptable (this whole thing is a game of chess).


Just so you are not put off by EEs legal response I have quoted above - in that case EE lost and had to award a penalty free cancellation AND £100 compensation for poor customer service!!

EE replied on the 7th day after I sent the first email so the second email is still in my draft folder. Where would I stand with that? It's nearly 7 days since I sent the reply (with my phone number in it). Do I send the second email (as no case manager has been forthcoming yet)? Because the first email doesn't say anything about customer service and if that is an important part of our case, I need to have some kind of email stating poor customer service, is that right? Thanks mate Or do I send the third email, editted to include something about customer service?

Edit: Just re-read 3rd email - you've mentioned customer service. My reply from EE was last Tuesday. Do I send today or wait till tomorrow do you reckon?

Twmbarlwm

Just joined. Thanks so much for all the useful info in this thread and the hard work of many people!

I'm going to send off the initial letter. Can I ask one thing - this increase has come at a time when my signal has declined appreciably.

After 12 years on Orange, it got worse under EE and now I can get no signal for large parts of the day. I stay at my elderly mother's place in Tenby in Pembrokeshire a lot of the time and it's the only internet I have.

Should I amend the letter to include my complaint about the declining service?

Just for info, Orange was always seen as the best network in Pembrokeshire and the majority of people had that network. Lots of disgruntled people there right now!

One final thing is - my letter is from the 7th April. Can I just confirm I have 30 days from then?

Any information gratefully received.

Thanks



Si