Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

duk3nuk3m

Deadline is today but no response yet.

If I don't receive any response by the end of the day, any ideas what my next step should be?

RandomCurve

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep wrote: »

I am on a pre Oct 2012 contract and attach my response received today and would welcome the thoughts of others on this as this is one of the missing defences on these cases:

Can you confirm that your CISAS case included the paragraphs regarding EE using March 2013 and now using Feb 2014 RPI.

duk3nuk3m

Called CISAS this morning as I have still not received a response from EE. Received this email a few minutes ago. Will be interesting to see if the adjudicator allows a time extension or not!



We note that we have not received a Response in the above named case, and therefore we have proceeded to appoint an adjudicator for directions in this case.

The parties are advised that, Miss Vidette Ogden has been appointed as adjudicator.

The documents so far submitted are being forwarded to the adjudicator. The adjudicator may proceed to determine the dispute on the basis of the statement of claim documents only. Alternatively if the adjudicator sees fit, he/she may direct that the company may have a further extension of time within which to submit the defence to claim.

boatman

I don't see why they should get an extension, you as they customer have done your bit, if they don't want to loose money then they need to defend the case, not forget about it, their choice. If they can't get themselves organised with all the unhappy customers they have made then they only have themselves to blame...

duk3nuk3m

boatman wrote: »

I don't see why they should get an extension, you as they customer have done your bit, if they don't want to loose money then they need to defend the case, not forget about it, their choice. If they can't get themselves organised with all the unhappy customers they have made then they only have themselves to blame...

You'd hope that would be the case, but in the previous dispute regarding EE's change of T&C I think they were granted an extension to submit a response for no apparent reason.

Also, looking at the change of T&C thread, the cases which Miss Vidette Ogden was appointed as adjudicator have a good success rate.

RandomCurve

@SKUK21


The defence response is correct, but you need to adjust the paragraph numbers in the headings of the response to match the numbers in EEs defence to you.

RandomCurve

If you receive a defence that we have already had please do not post the whole defence as it makes it difficult to keep track of the thread, It would be helpful if you put (change update the blue sections as appropriate):

"I am on EE/Orange/T-Mobile taken out on DATE, and I have received the defence as posted at #XXX and sent the case posted at #XXX including/excluding the V58 section, Including /excluding the section on the price being higher than 2.7%.


Thanks

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep

RandomCurve wrote: »

Can you confirm that your CISAS case included the paragraphs regarding EE using March 2013 and now using Feb 2014 RPI.

I did include this into my case. I have added para numbers back in for simplicity of reading as the forum bulleted this when I pasted.

RandomCurve

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep wrote: »

I did include this into my case. I have added para numbers back in for simplicity of reading as the forum bulleted this when I pasted.

Thanks.


Okay EE have made a half hearted attempt to refute the increase in March stops them increasing costs in May 2014 at paragraph 21

21.The Respondent submits that the previous increase of charges in March 2013 does not prevent the increase in charges in May 2014. The Respondent submits that, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement that it can increase its charges providing that notice of such increase of charges is given to the Claimant. The Respondent submits that due notice was correctly given to the Claimant.


I would use the standard defence at post #574 and add the following:
Paragraph 21
EE appear to be attempting to misled the adjudicator by referencing the dates as they have, The Price increase in 2013 was based on the MARCH 2013 RPI and effective 9th May 2013. the 2014 increase is based on FEBRUARY 2014 RPI and is effective 28th May 2014. Whilst EE have attempted to disguise the fact that they have applied a 12 month RPI rate to an 11 month period by selectively quoting the dates (yet more evidence of not acting in Good faith) as per my case to CISAS the contract implies by virtue of referring to the annual rate of inflation that the rate applied must be applied to a 12 month period. If EEs interpretation is allowed to stand then the contract would allow EE to increase the price by annual RPI every month if it so decided. It is also obvious that EE have not actually addressed the argument that the contract does not allow them to apply a 12 month inflation rate to an 11 month period.

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep

Response back to CISAS - a few paragraph number amends as per the ongoing attempts by EE to confuse and frustrate the campaign!!


Thanks to RC.