Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Mikmonken

RandomCurve wrote: »

@Mikmonken and @ SkuK21


Please refer to post #371
You need to put the following in the section "Take some action" in the CISAS claim form.


'take some action' - Give a back dated penalty free cancellation and a PAC and unlock code


It should be obvious from the correspondence and case that this is what you want, but the adjudicators can be sticklers for procedures and rule that as you never requested them to ask EE to take any action then they can not ask EE to take action regardless of the merits of your case.


If it is not too late I suggest you contact CISAS immediately and clarify this with them.


As an example on the T&C forum one person had 4 contracts but as they only referred to 3 in the claim document (even although EEs defence referenced all 4 numbers) the adjudicator stated that they could not make a decision on contract 4 as it was not in the claim!!!

For info i emailed CISAS and they got back to me today saying that they would update my claim to add this in for consideration.

danielsheard

Just received my response from EE via CISAS, quite a bit different to dellboy's, I'm on a 4GEE contract.

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

*** also when looking through this, EE denied the compensation claim of £140, however I never asked for £140, I quoted £75 for compensation... ***

delboy9

My first reply from EE via CISAS came a day after deadline day but nothing was mentioned? They usually always take the maximum 10 days going by what I have read on hear

muse213

Just had my defence through from EE, any help would be greatly appreciated

1. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart of the Claimant’s Claim relates to a business decision taken by the Respondent to increase its prices.
2. Rule 2(g) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) provides that the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about
i) bills and/or;
ii) communication services provided to the Respondent’s customers.
3. Rule 2(j) of the Rules provides that the dispute must not involve a complicated issue of law.
4. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Further the dispute, as pleaded, necessitates the consideration of the legal interpretation of clauses contained within the service agreement entered into between the Claimant and Respondent, applied as against facts, to ascertain whether a legal right of termination exists. The Respondent submits that such issues of legal interpretation and consideration requires evaluation and application of areas of law concerning contractual interpretation which are by their very nature complex and complicated.
6. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme and that pursuant to the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to consider the Claimant’s claim.
7. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
8. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
9. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters into service agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access the services. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
10. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject to the Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.

11. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent in respect to account number since 11 October 2012. The Claimant mobile number is (“the Mobile Number”).

12. Upon entering into the Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) in respect to the Mobile Number the Claimant would have been provided with the terms and conditions applicable at the point of entering into the Agreement. The applicable terms and conditions subject to the Agreement were available to the Claimant at that time via the Respondent’s website or by contacting the Respondent’s customer services at any time.

13. The Respondent confirms that prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties was subject to the terms and conditions LEGv14. From 29 January 2014 to 14 February 2014 the Respondent provided the Claimant with notice, pursuant to the Agreement at the time, that the Respondent’s terms and conditions would be updated and the new terms effective as of the 26 March 2014. Therefore, the Respondent submits that as from the 26 March 2014 the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement between the parties and so governing the Claimant, is LEG14C.

14. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being LEG14C applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-
4.3 You may also terminate your Contract if we give you written notice to vary its terms, resulting in an increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your material detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us giving you written notice about the changes). However this option to terminate without paying a cancellation charge does not apply if:
4.3.1 the increase in Charges (as a percentage) is equal to or lower than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistical (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we can give you Written Notice under point 4.3).
15. As Written Notice was given between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent was required, for the purposes of Clause 4.3.1 to use the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 4.3. Therefore the correct RPI figure to use was the RPI figure for February 2014 which was published on 25 March 2014, being the most recently published RPI figure before Written Notice of the increase was given.
16. The RPI figure published as at the time the Written Notice was issued (being 5-14 March 2014) was the RPI figure for month of February 2014 which was published on 25 March 2014 which was 2.7%.
The RPI 12-month rate for February 2014 stood at 2.7%
17. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 2.7% is an increase above the RPI as provided for by way of Clause 4.3.1.
18. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge as provided for by way of Clause 4.3.1 or indeed that such is a material detriment that entitles the Claimant to treat the Agreement as terminated without paying a cancellation charge.
19. As the increase in charges of 2.7% set out within the Written Notice is not higher than the RPI for February 2014 of 2.7% the Claimant is not entitled pursuant to Clause 4.3.1 of the Agreement or otherwise to cancel the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.
20. The Claimant claims that the use of the RPI measure is incorrect and that the Respondent should have used CPI. The Respondent denies that it is obligated to do so. The Respondent submits that the clause specifically refers to the use of RPI as a measure of calculation and therefore the use of any other measure, whether such be higher or lower, would not be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Respondent has given certainty to the Agreement to specify RPI as the measure that it would use for the purpose of any increase and accordingly it is the RPI measure that must be used and not any measure, such as CPI.
21. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter. However, as above, the Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is outside the remit of the Scheme.
22. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is free to cancel the Mobile Number by giving notice to cancel at any time. However, as the Claimant is within the minimum term period in respect to the Mobile Number he would be liable for a cancellation charge in the sum of £187.27 (reducing on a daily basis) should he terminate the Mobile Number within the minimum term period.
23. The increase in charges does not take effect until 28 May 2014 and therefore as at the date of the Claimant’s application and the Defence the Claimant has not been charged any additional charges and therefore a refund is not applicable, such being denied that the Claimant is entitled to such refund in any event.
24. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. As provided for by way of Annex 4 to General Condition 14, the Respondent is not required to issue a written deadlock letter when requested by a complainant where the subject matter of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. The Respondent remains of the view, and as previously stated by CISAS, that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter.
25. The Respondent has provided a response to the Claimant in a timely fashion and that such response has been consistent. Whilst the Claimant’s appears to dislike the content of such response it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent denies that it has failed to address each aspect of the Claimant’s claim and that in any event the Respondent submits that its position remains unaltered and that it does not accept the Claimant’s arguments that such response entitles them termination without charge and/or compensation it the sum of £75.
26. Save as is denied in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant’s only recourse should the increase be in excess of RPI is to termination of the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is entitled to seek an unlock code for any handset associated with the Agreement and such is not a remedy as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant with regards the facilitation of an unlock code for the handset, either as free of charge or chargeable. There is no contractual obligation to unlock a handset at any stage before, during or after termination of the Agreement and the Claimant is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
27. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
28. The Respondent denies that the Claimant is able to request that the prices are not increased. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
29. The Respondent further refers General Condition 9.6, imposed by Ofcom on Communications Providers under s.45 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides for Communications Providers to give subscribers one month’s notice of “any modifications likely to be of material detriment” and to allow subscribers to withdraw from the Agreement without penalty. The Respondent submits that he increase in charges at the rate of RPI is not of material detriment to the customer and the customer is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
30. Further or alternatively, the material detriment issue constitutes a complicated issue of law.
31. A proper resolution of the case would require CISAS to consider the proper construction of the term “material detriment” and the increase in charges is of material detriment.
32. Further, the meaning of material detriment needs to be established both as a matter of contractual construction and by reference to the regulatory context. The term is not defined explicitly in the Agreement or in GC9.6. The fact that Ofcom has recently published guidance on the issue of material detriment in respect of price change clauses indicates that absent such guidance, the issue of material detriment is unclear; and that the considerations applicable to determining material detriment can be complicated.
33. The application of the material detriment test to the change of terms is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the change could be of some detriment to the Claimant. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant establish that that increase is of material detriment.
34. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate his Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within his application or any other such reason. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is subject to the standard contractual termination clauses as per the applicable terms and conditions.
35. The Respondent denies liability to the Claimant as pleaded or at all, either contractually or otherwise.
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 16 May 2014

03029174

Hi Everyone, i've had my reply from EE telling m to go to CISAS. Which is the current best post to use for submitting the CISAS info?

ulaggy

COMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET SERVICES ADJUDICATION SCHEME

REFERENCE: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN


XXXXXXXX
Claimant


and


EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED
trading as T-Mobile

Respondent

DEFENCE

1. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart of the Claimant’s Claim relates to a business decision taken by the Respondent to increase its prices.
2. Rule 2(g) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) provides that the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about
i) bills and/or;
ii) communication services provided to the Respondent’s customers.
3. Rule 2(j) of the Rules provides that the dispute must not involve a complicated issue of law.
4. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Further the dispute, as pleaded, necessitates the consideration of the legal interpretation of clauses contained within the service agreement entered into between the Claimant and Respondent, applied as against facts, to ascertain whether a legal right of termination exists. The Respondent submits that such issues of legal interpretation and consideration requires evaluation and application of areas of law concerning contractual interpretation which are by their very nature complex and complicated.
6. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme and that pursuant to the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to consider the Claimant’s claim.
7. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
8. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
9. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters into service agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access the services. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
10. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject to the Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.
11. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent since 17 August 2008 in respect to account number XXXXXXXX. The Claimant has one active mobile number XXXXXXXXX (“the Mobile Number”).

12. The Respondent confirms that prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties was subject to the terms and conditions CVN58. From 29 January 2014 to 14 February 2014 the Respondent provided the Claimant with notice, pursuant to the Agreement at the time, that the Respondent’s terms and conditions would be updated and the new terms effective as of the 26 March 2014. Therefore, the Respondent submits that as from the 26 March 2014 the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement between the parties and so governing the Claimant, is CVN58C.

13. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being CVN58C applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-
2.5.1 Unless We agree otherwise, a new Minimum Term will apply. Once that Minimum Term is over this Agreement will continue until terminated;
7.1.4. We can increase any Price Plan Charge. We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will then apply to You once that notice has run out;
7.2.2. You can only give Us notice to terminate this Agreement by calling customer services. Your Agreement will terminate 30 days from when We receive Your call, although You are free to change Your mind and call Us to withdraw Your notice of termination at any time during that period. You will be responsible for all Charges up to and including the date that this Agreement terminates;
7.2.3 A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
7.2.3.3 We have given You Written Notice of an increase in a Price Plan Charge under point 7.1.4 and (i) the increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) is higher than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 7.1.4); and (ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
14. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent issued to the Claimant (together with all of its pay monthly customers) written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 2.7% increase in price plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 28 May 2014.
15. As Written Notice was given between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent was required, for the purposes of Clause 7.2.2.3 to use the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 7.1.4. Therefore the correct RPI figure to use was the RPI figure for February 2014 which was published on 25 March 2014, being the most recently published RPI figure before Written Notice of the increase was given.
16. The RPI figure published as at the time the Written Notice was issued (being 5-14 March 2014) was the RPI figure for month of February 2014 which was published on 25 March 2014 which was 2.7%.
The RPI 12-month rate for February 2014 stood at 2.7%
17. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 2.7% is an increase above the RPI as provided for by way of Clause 4.3.1.
18. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge as provided for by way of Clause 7.2.3 or indeed that such is a material detriment that entitles the Claimant to treat the Agreement as terminated without paying a cancellation charge.
19. As the increase in charges of 2.7% set out within the Written Notice is not higher than the RPI for February 2014 of 2.7% the Claimant is not entitled pursuant to Clause 7.2.3 of the Agreement or otherwise to cancel the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.
20. The Claimant claims that the use of the RPI measure is incorrect and that the Respondent should have used CPI. The Respondent denies that it is obligated to do so. The Respondent submits that the clause specifically refers to the use of RPI as a measure of calculation and therefore the use of any other measure, whether such be higher or lower, would not be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Respondent has given certainty to the Agreement to specify RPI as the measure that it would use for the purpose of any increase and accordingly it is the RPI measure that must be used and not any measure, such as CPI.
21. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter. However, as above, the Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is outside the remit of the Scheme.
22. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is free to cancel the Mobile Number by giving notice to cancel at any time. However, as the Claimant is within the minimum term period in respect to the Mobile Number he would be liable for a cancellation charge in the sum of £153.76 (reducing on a daily basis) should he terminate the Mobile Number within the minimum term period.
23. The increase in charges does not take effect until 28 May 2014 and therefore as at the date of the Claimant’s application and the Defence the Claimant has not been charged any additional charges and therefore a refund is not applicable, such being denied that the Claimant is entitled to such refund in any event.
24. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. As provided for by way of Annex 4 to General Condition 14, the Respondent is not required to issue a written deadlock letter when requested by a complainant where the subject matter of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. The Respondent remains of the view, and as previously stated by CISAS, that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter.
25. The Respondent has provided a response to the Claimant in a timely fashion and that such response has been consistent. Whilst the Claimant’s appears to dislike the content of such response it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent denies that it has failed to address each aspect of the Claimant’s claim and that in any event the Respondent submits that its position remains unaltered and that it does not accept the Claimant’s arguments that such response entitles them termination without charge and/or compensation it the sum of £108.
26. Save as is denied in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant’s only recourse should the increase be in excess of RPI is to termination of the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is entitled to seek an unlock code for any handset associated with the Agreement and such is not a remedy as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant with regards the facilitation of an unlock code for the handset, either as free of charge or chargeable. There is no contractual obligation to unlock a handset at any stage before, during or after termination of the Agreement and the Claimant is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
27. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
28. The Respondent denies that the Claimant is able to request that the prices are not increased. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
29. The Respondent further refers General Condition 9.6, imposed by Ofcom on Communications Providers under s.45 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides for Communications Providers to give subscribers one month’s notice of “any modifications likely to be of material detriment” and to allow subscribers to withdraw from the Agreement without penalty. The Respondent submits that he increase in charges at the rate of RPI is not of material detriment to the customer and the customer is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
30. Further or alternatively, the material detriment issue constitutes a complicated issue of law.
31. A proper resolution of the case would require CISAS to consider the proper construction of the term “material detriment” and the increase in charges is of material detriment.
32. Further, the meaning of material detriment needs to be established both as a matter of contractual construction and by reference to the regulatory context. The term is not defined explicitly in the Agreement or in GC9.6. The fact that Ofcom has recently published guidance on the issue of material detriment in respect of price change clauses indicates that absent such guidance, the issue of material detriment is unclear; and that the considerations applicable to determining material detriment can be complicated.
33. The application of the material detriment test to the change of terms is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the change could be of some detriment to the Claimant. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant establish that that increase is of material detriment.
34. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate his Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within his application or any other such reason. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is subject to the standard contractual termination clauses as per the applicable terms and conditions.
35. The Respondent denies liability to the Claimant as pleaded or at all, either contractually or otherwise.
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 16 May 2014
Carmel Codd
Senior Legal Counsel


For and on behalf of the Respondent whose address for service is at:
EE Limited 1 Trident Place Mosquito Way Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9BW

ulaggy

With regards to my defence from T-Mobile. I note at least 2 issues.

1) I never asked for a phone unlock code, merely a PAC code to take my number with me. (Edit: Ignore this, RC's template for CISAS included asking for me so I guess I did ask for phone unlock code!)


2) They say I'm on contract CVN58. Although I've been with T-Mobile nearly 6 years, on November 2012 I changed my contract tariff from whatever it was (that had "unlimited internet") to the Full Monty 36 tariff. Mostly it was because their unlimited internet was actually subject to fair usage policy of 0.5gig - a change which nearly lost them their customer base as they did it mid-contract but then backed down on. Also note that it says 36 in the name. My receipt for the transaction (to pay £49 towards new phone) also mentions PPLNLTD36. Anyway, the new agreement I signed at that time, in-store, has the T&C attached to it. And these say Version 59 on it.

Just thought it was important to mention that as could it affect my reponse?

ulaggy

03029174 wrote: »

Hi Everyone, i've had my reply from EE telling m to go to CISAS. Which is the current best post to use for submitting the CISAS info?

Posts 371-374 I believe!

muse213

Ulaggy, same with me, they mentioned about the phone unlock code, hopefully RC can give us some advice!

Mikmonken

ulaggy wrote: »

With regards to my defence from T-Mobile. I note at least 2 issues.

1) I never asked for a phone unlock code, merely a PAC code to take my number with me.

2) They say I'm on contract CVN58. Although I've been with T-Mobile nearly 6 years, on November 2012 I changed my contract tariff from whatever it was (that had "unlimited internet") to the Full Monty 36 tariff. Mostly it was because their unlimited internet was actually subject to fair usage policy of 0.5gig - a change which nearly lost them their customer base as they did it mid-contract but then backed down on. Also note that it says 36 in the name. My receipt for the transaction (to pay £49 towards new phone) also mentions PPLNLTD36. Anyway, the new agreement I signed at that time, in-store, has the T&C attached to it. And these say Version 59 on it.

Just thought it was important to mention that as could it affect my reponse?

Did you check what you put in the action box as I think the unlock part was part of RCs template and action along with PAC code