Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RandomCurve

WraithGR wrote: »

Sorry for the double-post. I have drafted a reply with reference to their response and my earlier emails which I plan to include just below the original message in my email. What do you think?
Dear Mr Swantee,

Case Reference: XXXXX
Account Number: XXXXX

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately your response once again 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.
In my correspondence of the 24th of April I am specifically referring to your letter of the 22nd of April, stating in detail the reasons for which your letter was an inadequate response. I have included those emails below for your convenience. Since my attempt to contact you on the 24th of April I had received no response other than your email below, which refers to your letter of the 22nd of April, completely ignoring my response and request for clarification on the 24th. Please kindly respond to my email of the 24th of April clearly articulating why you are refusing to provide a penalty-free cancellation with reference to each of the points in said email 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,

Looks good to me.

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

I had the same reference in my letter but hadn't checked what it related to as basically they ignored all points I quoted any way but 3.7 from revised EE contract that they linked to via text back in feb says

3.7 By using the Services You consent to Us copying and/or modifying images or information You have created where such copying and/or modification is carried out for the purposes of transmission. This also applies where You use the portal.

Not sure of the relevance of this clause in this case, but it does underpin shoddy customer care

EE have mixed up the T&C clauses - I would do as you suggest - cite as another example of shoddy Customer Service.

RandomCurve

Troy_Tempest wrote: »

Right, I'm just going through the Cisas submission and my reply from EE also had the reference to clause 3.7

This, from my paper copy T&C's (yes I kept it )

They've clearly mixed T&C's up with Orange? I wondered if this should be ignored or incorporated into the response.

As suggested above - use at as evidence of shoddy customer service.

My daughter has had a reply from EE on her August 2013 contract inviting her to go to Cisas. Slightly different response i think from some of the others.....

EE do not feel that this change is of material detriment to you as it is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation. I acknowledge you do not agree with this decision therefore the next step would be to seek independent adjudication via CISAS

A real softening of the language being used, they are trying to show a "nice side", but at the end of the day they should have informed you of your potential right to cancellation if the change is likely to be of Material detriment to you.

RandomCurve

Has ANYBODY has a response from EE that addresses:


That as EE changed the T&Cs after Ofcom announced new rules then the T&Cs must be subject to those new rules?
OR
That RPI is s areal terms increase because RPI in NOT a recognised National Statistic and it is higher then CPI?


I suspect not.

Maccadinho25

All sent off to CISAS correctly i think!

• Summary provided by RC in Summary box
• One email sent as supporting evidence with text from post 1 and 2 by RC (had to remove the blue text as i misplaced the letter with the new price on DOH)
• One sent with my 4 emails back and forth with EE as attached PDFs

Sound correct?

Thanks for all of this once again, just reading the text RC puts together makes my brain fry!!

Mikmonken

Maccadinho25 wrote: »

All sent off to CISAS correctly i think!

• Summary provided by RC in Summary box
• One email sent as supporting evidence with text from post 1 and 2 by RC (had to remove the blue text as i misplaced the letter with the new price on DOH)
• One sent with my 4 emails back and forth with EE as attached PDFs

Sound correct?

Thanks for all of this once again, just reading the text RC puts together makes my brain fry!!

Pretty much how I did it, although I attached it all to one email and also attached my latest bill as am asking for a my monthly contract as compensation.

skuk21

RandomCurve wrote: »

Has ANYBODY has a response from EE that addresses:


That as EE changed the T&Cs after Ofcom announced new rules then the T&Cs must be subject to those new rules?
OR
That RPI is s areal terms increase because RPI in NOT a recognised National Statistic and it is higher then CPI?


I suspect not.

THis is all I got buddy

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 Price Increase. As a company we are committed to offering the best value for service which is why we have kept the increase to a minimum. The increase is a result of the rising costs to our business and is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation.

We are obliged, as are all UK operators, to abide by General Condition 9.6 of the Ofcom. This condition sets out what we must do if a change is of material detriment to a customer, which is to provide 30 days' notice and allow a customer to end their agreement free of charge. When the changes are not of material detriment, the customer does not have the right to end their agreement. In the case of this price increase, the change is not of material detriment to customers.

The increase is in line with the Terms and Conditions of your contract specifically clause 7.1.4. As the increase is less than RPI should you wish to close the account early in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3 you would be subject to an early termination fee.

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

zcakg26

Hi Guys,

Received a reply from Tmob within the 7 days after sending my first email.

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX,

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


Now I know I need to submit post #175 but I need to edit it slightly to cater to the email I received. Would anyone be able to help me as I am a bit lost as to what to change exactly?!
This is what I have so far:

Dear Mr Swantee,

Re Phone number 07XXXXXXXX – Case reference XXXXX

Thank you for your email Dated 06/06/2014.
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 “…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 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 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.

I look forward to receiving my PAC (penalty free) and a penalty free cancellation back dated to 01/05/2014 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


Any help would be sincerely appreciated, I'm just a newbie at this I have no idea what needs to be changed and what doesn't.

Much Thanks

skuk21

Just received an email from OFCOM.

OCCtelecoms <OCCtelecoms@ofcom.org.uk>
3:57 PM (1 minute ago)
Reply
to me
Ofcom reference:

08 May 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email regarding the price increase to your EE contract.

I am grateful to you for making Ofcom aware of your concerns and these have been formally recorded here. Although we cannot get involved in individual complaints, I would like to supply some advice on how we see the situation.

In line with new Guidance issued by Ofcom, a subscription price increase on contracts taken out after 23 January 2014 is likely to constitute material detriment to consumers. If it is, we would expect providers to notify all affected customers of such price increases and of their right to withdraw from the contract without penalty.

Our Guidance does not apply to contracts taken out before 23 January 2014. However, for such contracts, providers have to notify affected customers of any changes that are likely to constitute material detriment.

Ofcom’s position is that where the provider’s terms and conditions allow for a core subscription price increase up to the Retail Price Index, we are unlikely to treat such an increase as materially detrimental. However, individual customers affected by these sorts of price increases might consider that the increase is to their material detriment. If this is so, they should complain to EE and supply evidence to support their position.

If you remain unhappy with EE’s reply, you should follow the procedure in their customer complaints code. EE should give you a copy if you contact their customer services and also make it easily accessible on their website.

Where a complaint cannot be resolved it can be submitted to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme. For the purpose of ADR, EE is a member of the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (CISAS). Please note that CISAS is not able to consider complaints about the fairness of price increases generally. However, CISAS may be able to consider an issue about EE not meeting its terms and conditions.

In order to take a complaint to CISAS, you should ask EE to send you a letter outlining their final position. This is known as a ‘deadlock’ letter. You can also take your dispute to CISAS if it remains unresolved 8 weeks after you first complained to EE. CISAS is a free and independent service which can award costs to the consumer. EE must abide by the decision of CISAS. However, you are not bound by this decision and can consider legal action if dissatisfied with their decision. CISAS can be contacted at:

CISAS
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street
London
EC4Y 1EU

Phone: 020 7520 3814


I hope the above information will be useful.





Yours faithfully

Jessica Eyles
Consumer Contact Team

RandomCurve

zcakg26 wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Received a reply from Tmob within the 7 days after sending my first email.

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX,

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


Now I know I need to submit post #175 but I need to edit it slightly to cater to the email I received. Would anyone be able to help me as I am a bit lost as to what to change exactly?!
This is what I have so far:

Dear Mr Swantee,

Re Phone number 07XXXXXXXX – Case reference XXXXX



Any help would be sincerely appreciated, I'm just a newbie at this I have no idea what needs to be changed and what doesn't.

Much Thanks

It looks fine as it is