Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RedHeadPeter

EE seem to be varying their replies, possibly in response to things happening here.

I sent the first e-mail 5 days ago and today received the same reply as Tezza316 at post 303 except mine refers to clause 7.1 in the terms and conditions.

Now this letter is subtly different from the one that post 175 is a response to - it doesn't refer to RPI as 'a measure of inflation', neither does it make any reference to GC9.6.

However I have had a previous letter which refers to these so I'm going to do my own edit of the post 175 e-mail as a kind of response to both letters and see where we go. And copy it to Ofcom (why not!)

Mikmonken

RandomCurve - Is it advisable to wait till after the bill following 28th May to pursue the CISAS claim? as we won't know what the real term increase is until that day?

Looking at their website - http://terms.ee.co.uk/ee-price-changes-information.html the actual changes look like they make will be less than 2.7%.

I'm not on t-mobile... am i just taking this to CISAS to cost them £300, the case that seems to be put together doesn't seem to stack up in my favour?

muse213

No reply after sending the third email (post #175) after the letter they sent me last week, can you confirm what I need to do next, and if they are ignoring me, does this prove dead lock?

margarino

margarino wrote: »

Hi RC,
I received a written letter in the post in response to my email on 16/04/14, it said:

21 April 2014

Mrs A Name
Address
Address
Address
Address

Dear Mrs Name

T-Mobile Account Number: XXXXXXX

Thank you for your email, received in the Executive Office, I have been asked to respond on behalf of EE.

I am sorry you are unhappy with the recent increase to our prices and some of our services. As a company we are committed to investing significantly in our network and work hard to give the best value for our service, we have in this instance tried to keep these increases to a minimum. However due to rising business costs linked to inflation we have had to revaluate our pricing structure.

In this instance, the increase to price plans is in line with RPI at 2.7 percent and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of your contract. Our Terms and Conditions give us the right to increase the cost of our services and this change does not give you a right to terminate your contract. Please refer to clause 7.1 in your Terms and Conditions.

Whilst I understand this is not the outcome you were looking for, I trust I have clarified EE's position regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely

Victoria Hunt
Executive Office, EE

Do i need to do this through CISAS or can i go straight to small claims? Happy to pay £30 to speed this up.
Thanks so much for all the help you are providing!

So i wrote this back, i amended some things from your 175 post as they didn't apply to my letter:

Dear Mr Swantee,

Re: Mobile number: xxxxxx / Account number: xxxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 21 April 2014.
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 “…the increase to price plans is in line with RPI at 2.7 percent”, however, this does not address my concern that CPI (1.7%) is the OFFICIAL UK measure of inflation as considered by the Bank of 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.

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 7.1 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 penaltyupon 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.

I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) and a penalty free cancellation back dated to 16/4/2014 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,

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

RandomCurve - Is it advisable to wait till after the bill following 28th May to pursue the CISAS claim? as we won't know what the real term increase is until that day?

Looking at their website - http://terms.ee.co.uk/ee-price-changes-information.html the actual changes look like they make will be less than 2.7%.

I'm not on t-mobile... am i just taking this to CISAS to cost them £300, the case that seems to be put together doesn't seem to stack up in my favour?

There is no immediate rush to go to CISAS once you have reached deadlock, so if you would prefer to wait for the bill then that is up to you.


Regarding the case itself there are THREE strong arguments which could win (I reckon 75% chance at CISAS - 90% chance at SCC):

1. RPI is NOT the official UK inflation rate - CPI is so this is a REAL TERMS increase - which falls foul of GC 9.6 (likely to be of material detriment). GC 9.6 takes PRIORITY over what your contract says.
2. EE changed the price variation clause effective 26th March,2 months AFTER Ofcom changed the regulations. I believe the revised term must be subject to the new regulations which is that any change in the core subscription price is likely to be of material detriment under GC 9.6
3. Ofcom only "clarified" the definition of "material Detriment", and did not change the actual words so the clarified (not new!)definition should apply to all contracts i.e a price rise is either a material detriment or not regardless of when you signed your contract.

If you win (on such a new contract) that is a significant benefit to you, and if you were to lose it has cost you nothing, and you have the "joy" of knowing it has cost EE more than they will gain from you.


The real downside of NOT doing it is if you see loads of people winning - and you stay "trapped" - how would you feel then?

RandomCurve

margarino wrote: »

So i wrote this back, i amended some things from your 175 post as they didn't apply to my letter:

Dear Mr Swantee,

Re: Mobile number: xxxxxx / Account number: xxxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 21 April 2014.
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 “…the increase to price plans is in line with RPI at 2.7 percent”, however, this does not address my concern that CPI (1.7%) is the OFFICIAL UK measure of inflation as considered by the Bank of 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.

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 7.1 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 penaltyupon 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.

I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) and a penalty free cancellation back dated to 16/4/2014 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,

Great email - a good template for others who have had the same response as you.

RandomCurve

Martinmal1 wrote: »

Hi random curve

Have tweaked a bit for cisas what you think?
Summary


My claim is not in regards to EEbusiness decision to increase prices, as a business EE is free to make whatever business decisions it chooses. My claim is that the price rise notified to me is of material detriment as per the Ofcom definition of Material Detriment under GC 9.6, and therefore under GC 9.6 I am entitled to a penalty free cancellation.





Without Prejudice

The price rise applied to my account means that the actual net monthly core subscription price that I am paying to EE reflects an increase higher than the February RPI rate allowed under the contract, and as per our contract I am entitled to a penalty free cancellation.! My contract commenced on the 16th!January 2014 and when the price rise begins on the 28th!May this will be an increase of around 7.12% over the 135 days the contract will have been active, far higher than the 2.7% quoted as it has not had a full 365 days for EE’s costs to increase this much over this period, so this is putting me in material detriment.! Had I have known the contract would have been increased so quickly I would not have renewed with EE at the time and shopped around for possibly a better deal.



Without Prejudice

EE are also arguing the RPI is a measure of inflation, whilst this is correct it is not the official UK inflation statistic, the main measure of UK inflation is CPI which was 1.7% for the. RPI does not reflect a business costs as it takes into account costs that a business does not have such as council tax and mortgage payments. Again this is putting me in material detriment and is far higher than the official level of UK inflation.

!

Without Prejudice

When the price increase commences on the 28th!May, my wage will still be at the same basic level of XXXXX which it was on the 16th!January when my contract commenced.! The result of EE increasing my contract means I have less money left over from my monthly wage so is causing me material detriment.







Adjust the figures below and remove the points that do NOT apply to you – some will have all there others just 2 and some only the first point.


Further I request that I be awarded £64.46!compensation (£32.23!for each, worked out as the cost of my contract per month) of the following:


EEs breach of GC 9.6 – not informed of my rights to cancel the contract penalty free should I consider the increase to be of Material Detriment, (£32.23)
EE falling to address the points raised in my original email even though I had made it clear that a response that did not address each point would not be an acceptable response (£32.23).

Details are at appendix 1
Correspondence is at Appendix 2 to X

!

Yes that is looking like it should (you need to remove some of the instructions). This is ONLY the summary, you need to send a detailed case too - I am working on that.

Mikmonken

Thanks for getting back to me, I'll definitely pursue it, Nothing ventured nothing gained and on 2 contracts coming in at over £70 I reckon I can make a £40 a month saving. That's worth having!

Just wanted to get my head how the case will be formed, and I think I only have one point to add to my case which I hope doesn't weaken it.

PeteM1967

RandomCurve wrote: »

Depends on your view point. You could just sit it out for 6 weeks or you could request the penalty free cancellation knowing it will cost EE £300 for putting in a sneaky price rise!! (I know which I would do). Also your contract has the highest chance of winning this case and you may get some compensation as well.

Thanks RC,
well guess there's no harm in giving it a go - so email now sent!

I ought to thank EE really, if they had done nothing I would most likely have just let the contract role over out of inertia and they'd have got a few more months at the original price out of me; but now I'm annoyed with them and busily planning my escape!

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep

Now got my deadlock letter from EE after sending letter 2. I will await RC's next thoughts before proceeding. My contract with two lines on ends 31/8, so there is a fair few quid at stake. Needless to say, I am leaving EE at the end if this drags on!