Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

corsaman2002

It looks like EE are changing the paragraphs around so we can not send a standard responce to their defence. It might be they are trying to win on a technical issue.

Very Crafty

RandomCurve

I notice that the Forum Keepers have closed the Vodafone price rise forum and redirected them here!


I have set up a Vodafone page on the "Fight Mobile Increases" Website


http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-vodafone/

RandomCurve

Pressuring Ofcom
To date 15 letters have been sent to Ofcom (or at least I have been copied into 15).


Please show your support by sending the Ofcom email (to Ofcom and the Media).


http://fightmobileincreases.com/pressure-ofcom/

skuk21

RandomCurve wrote: »

Pressuring Ofcom
To date 15 letters have been sent to Ofcom (or at least I have been copied into 15).


Please show your support by sending the Ofcom email (to Ofcom and the Media).


http://fightmobileincreases.com/pressure-ofcom/

EE were on BBC Watchdog tonight for their price rises! They only got around 5 seconds of coverage, but it was on there nevertheless!

BinarySolo

I'm a bit confused by this. I got a text from Vodafone which included a web link. The website states:

'This page applies only to people who received a text from us directing them here. You have the right to cancel only if you received such a message directly from us.

From 28 June 2014 we’ll be making some changes to our pricing. These changes will happen automatically so you won’t need to do anything. Please read this page for details on what these changes are and how they’ll affect you.

We really hope you decide to stay with us, but as these changes have increased your monthly bill by more than 10%, you can end your agreement without charge. If you decide to do this, please write to us before 28 June 2014 at Vodafone Limited, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 2FN.'

Doesn't this mean I can definitely cancel?

skuk21

RandomCurve wrote: »

@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.

Thank you RC, template amended and submitted. Fingers crossed!

danielsheard

RC,

Just got a reply from the email we sent to Ofcom;

Ofcom reference: 1-257******

29 May 2014

Dear Mr Sheard

I am writing in response to your recent email regarding EE (and its different brands) and Ofcom. I can confirm that your complaint has been logged.

Background
By way of background, it would be useful for me to explain Ofcom’s powers in relation to contractual modifications.
Ofcom has two sets of powers that are relevant to price increases and related contract terms. The first is in the General Conditions, which are sector-specific rules Ofcom has made that apply to all providers of telecommunications services. The second is in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “UTCCRs”), which are part of UK consumer law that applies to all providers in all sectors. The first is most relevant here. I provide some information about the second because Ofcom has also considered the application of those regulations at various stages of our work on mid-contract price rises.
Ofcom exercises these powers on behalf of consumers generally, rather having a role in individual consumer’s disputes. In deciding whether and how to exercise the powers – which cases to devote our limited resources to – we are guided by our administrative priority framework. I explain as follows.
General Conditions
The relevant General Condition here is General Condition 9.6 (“GC 9.6”). It says that if any contractual modification – including a price change – is likely to be of material detriment to a customer, providers are required to give customers at least one month’s notice of the change and allow them to withdraw from the contract without penalty. Ofcom’s recently published guidance is about how we intend to apply this rule in relation to price increases in contracts for landline, mobile and/or broadband services entered into on or after 23 January this year (the date the guidance came into force).
The guidance explains that, for these new contracts, Ofcom is likely to regard any increase to the core subscription price agreed at the point of sale as likely to cause material detriment. The core subscription price is the recurring, typically monthly, price the customer is bound to pay for services (e.g. for line rental and airtime). Where a provider seeks to increase the core subscription price agreed, the provider must allow customers to exit their contract penalty free. (The guidance can be found here:
***can't post links on this forum yet***

The UTCCRs
The UTCCRs apply to terms which providers of goods and services use in standard-form contracts (sometimes called the “small print”). They say that, subject to exemptions for certain terms relating to the price and the subject matter of the contract, those terms must be fair. In the words of the relevant regulation, the terms must not, contrary to the requirement of good faith, cause a significant imbalance in the consumer’s and provider’s rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The regulations include an indicative schedule of terms that in certain circumstances may be unfair. These include some terms that say the provider may vary the price.

Ofcom’s role
Ofcom’s role is to enforce the above rules on behalf of consumers generally. In particular, where we think a provider has broken the rules in a way that affects a significant number of consumers and we consider that action should be taken to penalise the provider and/or to change its conduct, for the benefit of consumers generally. We only have powers to do that. We do not have powers to become involved in, nor resolve, individual consumer’s disputes.
So, where we consider a provider has breached GC9.6, we may take action that results in the imposition of a financial penalty on the provider, and requires it to change its actions and processes to come into compliance with the GC and to remedy the breach. Where we think a provider is using terms that are unfair under the UTCCRs, we can apply to the court for an order to stop the use of those terms, for the benefit of all consumers. It would be for the court to decide if the term is unfair and whether to make the order.

Ofcom does not, however, have the resources to pursue every case in which a provider may have breached GC 9.6 and/or used unfair terms. To ensure that we use our resources effectively, we must make decisions about whether or not to open investigations by weighing up the likely benefits of doing so against the resources that would be required.
Accordingly, when deciding which cases to pursue – whether and how to use our powers – we apply our administrative priority framework. This takes into account factors such as the degree of harm and the risk to consumers’ interests as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. Another relevant factor is whether the alleged conduct is, or appears to be, a repeated, intentional or particularly flagrant breach of the relevant rules.

The overall effect is that we do not pursue all cases that come to our attention. Neither can we, nor do we, take action that will necessarily resolve every individual consumer’s dispute in the way they would like. There are some cases in which our action does not resolve those disputes. There are others where we take a position or action, or decide not to act, and individual consumers do not agree.

Individual consumer’s complaints
Consumers are able to able to pursue their own individual complaints with providers, whether or not Ofcom takes action on behalf of consumers generally. Ofcom’s GCs require providers to publish and follow complaints procedures and to belong to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes. Consumers can generally pursue their cases through those procedures and schemes. Although Ofcom has no role in these individual matters, we may be able to provide some general advice about what the rules say and about how consumers may pursue their own complaints.

Application
Against the above general background, I deal below with the specific matters covered in your email.
Your ‘Complaint 1’ - EE modification of price variation terms
We are aware that EE has modified the relevant price variation terms for consumers who entered into a contract with EE (including Orange and T-Mobile) before 23 January 2014. The modification included a more specific reference to the measure (RPI) by which EE sought to reserve the right to increase its prices.
We acknowledge that there may be scope to take different views. However, Ofcom has taken the view, based on the information we have, that the change does not appear to us to be one likely to give rise to the right to cancel the contract under GC9.6. We do not consider it to be a matter we should pursue further as a matter of administrative priority.
The reasons are as follows:
1. The revised terms are likely to put consumers in a better, or at least no worse, position than the previous terms. They do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case, and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used in such increases. We note in this context that EE and its brands always previously used RPI rather than CPI.



2. The new term sets out a position that, if or when applied, is unlikely in our view to cause material detriment to relevant consumers. Consumers to whom the new term applies (who will be consumers who entered into their contracts before 23 January 2014, and in respect of whom, therefore, our recent guidance does not apply) will be able to exit the contract without penalty for price increases that exceed the relevant published RPI figure.



3. Accordingly, the new term is unlikely to be a change that itself is likely to cause material detriment. On that basis, it would not require providers to notify and provide subscribers with the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty under GC9.6.

Your ‘Complaints 2 and 3’ - EE price increase in 2013 (version 59 of T-Mobile Pay Monthly contract)

Your comments on these matters do not accurately reflect all of the relevant position. Ofcom considered the 2013 price increase you refer to (relating to v59 of T-Mobile’s contract). We took the action we considered appropriate weighing up all the relevant factors.
In particular, we wrote to EE asserting its obligations under the current regulatory framework, including the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“UTCCRs”) and General Condition 9.6 (GC9.6). This resulted in EE agreeing to take action for customers on v59 of its mobile pay monthly terms and conditions, including adjusting price increases and making repayments. It communicated the details to relevant customers at the time and applied the adjustments.

We secured an outcome which in our judgment dealt with this matter appropriately, taking into matters such as the expedited securing of a positive outcome for consumers as a whole and the appropriate use of limited Ofcom resources. We decided on grounds of administrative priority that this was not a matter in which we needed to take further action on behalf of consumers generally.

ADR decisions
As mentioned above, Ofcom’s position on contractual modifications does not prevent individual customers from pursuing the matter through their provider’s complaints procedure. If the complaint is not resolved after 8 weeks, or a deadlock is reached earlier, the customer may refer the complaint to the relevant ADR scheme.
It is then for the ADR scheme to decide whether it can consider a case (i.e. is it a case falling within their terms of reference). If so, it will also decide if the complaint has merit. Clearly, these points depend on the specific facts. The outcome is not guaranteed and Ofcom has no role in it.

We note from your email that cases considered by the ADR scheme have been found in favour of the customer. We have considered this, but it does not change our overall assessment of our administrative priorities and the action we should take on behalf of consumers as a whole.

In particular, ADR decisions do not override Ofcom's general duties and investigation and enforcement powers which are derived from various pieces of legislation. The role of ADR schemes is different to ours in that the schemes adjudicate on individual complaints about a provider on a case by case basis, looking carefully at the specific evidence and details that have been submitted with the claim. It is entirely plausible that the scheme reaches a decision on an individual complaint that differs from our overall assessment on behalf of consumers generally, and that this shows that the Ofcom-approved ADR process is operating effectively.





Yours sincerely

Jessica Eyles
Consumer Contact Team

Martinmal1

Last day today for EE to reply, but will no doubt get the free extension if they do not.
Will be interesting how they defend a 12 month interest rate being applied to a 3 month old contract

ulaggy

That Ofcom response looks like the same response I got when I CC'd them in to emails to EE (to encourage EE to get moving)

Shaunyboy

ulaggy wrote: »

That Ofcom response looks like the same response I got when I CC'd them in to emails to EE (to encourage EE to get moving)

Yep, exactly the same reply to me, word for word.