Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Maccadinho25

Random question but how do i know what contract version im on? :rotfl: and what difference does this make (im on Orange)

Most stuff on this thread has confused me to hell lol but ive gone through CISAS and got my response from them today with EEs defense and im going to go through it now - i think mines quite straight forward. I also threw out the price rise letter so im not sure if mines above inflation etc - i got my contract in October

Hopefully ive done everything right!

boatman

Any thoughts on the Vodafone price rises, they are increasing various prices but will not let people leave unless their bill will rise by over 10%. Surely it would be reasonable to allow people to leave because they do not accept the new terms imposed on them regardless of whether their bill will increase. Just because in the previous 3 months you have not used certain out of bundle items does not mean that you won't in the future, you wouldn't agree to a contract that let energy companies charge you more if you went over a certain number of kwh, so why do the mobile companies think its ok.

Just because the EU has imposed limits on roaming and cut their profits does not give them the right to claw it back. They knew the limits were coming before most people took out contracts so they should have factored that in when setting the initial contract price.

RandomCurve

boatman wrote: »

Any thoughts on the Vodafone price rises, they are increasing various prices but will not let people leave unless their bill will rise by over 10%. Surely it would be reasonable to allow people to leave because they do not accept the new terms imposed on them regardless of whether their bill will increase. Just because in the previous 3 months you have not used certain out of bundle items does not mean that you won't in the future, you wouldn't agree to a contract that let energy companies charge you more if you went over a certain number of kwh, so why do the mobile companies think its ok.

Just because the EU has imposed limits on roaming and cut their profits does not give them the right to claw it back. They knew the limits were coming before most people took out contracts so they should have factored that in when setting the initial contract price.

See post #596 for my thoughts

Maccadinho25

Couple of points - why does the defense say the respondent hasnt issued a deadlock letter when they did?!

Also my defense states im subject to the t&cs LEG300v15 but i havent seen this listed anywhere in the thread? Im on Orange btw - is this ok?

One final question, i have this line in my defense which makes no sense what so ever!

"9. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent in respect to account
number xxxxxxxx since 22 May 2013. The Claimant has one active mobile
number registered to the account, namely xxxxx xxxxxx (“the Mobile
Number”).
10. Upon entering into the Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) via one of the Respondent’s authorised retailers in respect to the Mobile Number on 31 October 2013 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 also available to
the Claimant at that time via the Respondent’s website or by contacting the
Respondent’s customer services at any time."

Whats going on with the dates as i never had this account in May 13?! I only opened it in October 13 - should i mention this in my response RC?

I presume my response will be the same as post #572 however @Danielsheards response has been removed so i cant cross reference it with mine? I want to make sure i get this right but have used Doug85s post at #603 to ensure my paragraphs match up and i generally have the same response

Ive prepped my reply so if anyone could answer the above me id appreciate it, not sure it will make a difference so if not ill send this reply over and await an adjudicators decision! Ill also be looking to donate to RCs choice of charity for all of his work as this baffles the hell out of me!

Cheers

Shaunyboy

duk3nuk3m wrote: »

So, predictably, EE have been granted a 5 day extension to respond to my case.

I have also received the same response from Ofcom as previous posters. I cannot see how they can claim to be seeking to protect the consumer but, on the other hand, ignoring these phone companies actions.

So much for these extensions only being possible in exceptional circumstances.

RandomCurve

Shaunyboy wrote: »

So much for these extensions only being possible in exceptional circumstances.

EE never asked for these extensions originally - so I am guessing that now they have seen the response to their defence they are going to change the defence as frankly the original did not address the issues raised.
This may bode well for those who have already submitted a response, but we may need to put our thinking caps on again for the next batch of defences.

RandomCurve

Maccadinho25 wrote: »

Couple of points - why does the defense say the respondent hasnt issued a deadlock letter when they did?!

Also my defense states im subject to the t&cs LEG300v15 but i havent seen this listed anywhere in the thread? Im on Orange btw - is this ok?

One final question, i have this line in my defense which makes no sense what so ever!

"9. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent in respect to account
number xxxxxxxx since 22 May 2013. The Claimant has one active mobile
number registered to the account, namely xxxxx xxxxxx (“the Mobile
Number”).
10. Upon entering into the Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) via one of the Respondent’s authorised retailers in respect to the Mobile Number on 31 October 2013 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 also available to
the Claimant at that time via the Respondent’s website or by contacting the
Respondent’s customer services at any time."

Whats going on with the dates as i never had this account in May 13?! I only opened it in October 13 - should i mention this in my response RC?

I presume my response will be the same as post #572 however @Danielsheards response has been removed so i cant cross reference it with mine? I want to make sure i get this right but have used Doug85s post at #603 to ensure my paragraphs match up and i generally have the same response

Ive prepped my reply so if anyone could answer the above me id appreciate it, not sure it will make a difference so if not ill send this reply over and await an adjudicators decision! Ill also be looking to donate to RCs choice of charity for all of his work as this baffles the hell out of me!

Cheers

Definitely use the mixed dates to your advantage:
"Paragraph's 9 and 10
Yet further evidence of the lack of care EE have applied in servicing my contract and why this has been a stressful and frustrating experience. EE have quoted two separate dates on which I entered my contract, for clarity my contract was taken out on XXXX"

Mikmonken

RandomCurve in defence EE sent to me, although the talk about phne number 1 and phone number 2 early on, they then change it later on and refer to only 1 phone re the payment needed to terminate, is it worth drawing CISAS attention to the blunder as it should be 2 contracts not one and around £600 not £395 the mention

pwillan

Hi,

How do you know what contract you are on, a V58 or V59, I cant see any reference to either?

Also they have misspelt my surname if thats makes any difference?

RandomCurve

Please can you send this email to Ofcom if you have received a replay to the first email (and send the first one if you have not already).
http://fightmobileincreases.com/pressure-ofcom/
Cheers.




[EMAIL="Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
Graham.Howell[EMAIL="Graham.Howell@Ofcom.org.uk"]@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk"]OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

And CC.
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk"]Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="news@the-sun.co.uk"]news@the-sun.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your response to my email, however you appeared to have not addressed the concerns raised. For clarity and ease of response there are 13 questions below (marked Q 1 to Q 13).

Firstly can you please confirm that you have formally recorded my email as an official compliant against both EE for failure to comply with GC 9.6, and Ofcom for failure to act? (Q 1)

Concentrating on EEs change in T&Cs you have said:
“.. 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. ….
Can you clarify what information you have? (Q 2)It does not appear that you have reviewed both an OLD and NEW version of the contracts can you confirm that you have reviewed them (copied below for your reference)? (Q 3)
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,”
This seems to plainly incorrect – the old clause allowed an increase no higher than RPI OR ANY OTHER measure of inflation (e.g. lower rates such as CPI/RPI(J)), the new clause allows an increase up to RPI – can you explain how Ofcom reached the conclusion that the change does not “… purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case”? (Q 4) (For your reference the February 2014 rates were: RPI 2.7%; CPI 1.7% (RPI 58.8% HIGHER); over the last 24 months RPI has been 18.8% higher).
“… and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used in such increases.”
By giving more clarity it reduces the scope for challenge, whilst this is good for EE it is not good for the consumer as there is less scope to exercise cancellation rights, Can Ofcom explain –with its consumer protection remit – why it considers giving consumers less scope to leave their contracts is beneficial? (Q 5)
“…We note in this context that EE and its brands always previously used RPI rather than CPI.”
Effectively you are saying that in all past increases EE have put in place an increase that triggers a consumer’s right to a penalty free cancellation, and Ofcom has done nothing to compel EE to write to consumers FULLY EXPLAINING their right to a penalty free cancellation. Can you explain why Ofcom considers this to be acceptable? (Q 6)


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.
Can you explain why RPI is not considered to be of Material Detriment to consumers? (Q 7). Your previous definition of Material Detriment taken from the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in November 2013 Ofcom explains the rationale for including the term at paragraph 3.6 as follows:

“…..Ofcom and, before us, OFTEL has included a material detriment requirement in the relevant part of GC9. 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.”

Please explain how a REAL TERMS increase (CPI and RPI(J) being the OFFICIAL UK measures of inflation – RPI is not even a designated as a National Statistic), is to the consumers benefit or neutral to the consumer? (Q 8)


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.
On reflection of the above points is this still Ofcoms view? (Q 9)
Why in 93% (more cases have been won since I last contacted you) are the legal experts at CISAS finding that this change IS of Material Detriment? What does it take for Ofcom to acknowledge that it got this wrong and to take respective action? (Q 10)

Ofcom appear to be mixing two separate points for their reason for inactivity:

• Ofcom does not consider the change to be of Material Detriment; and
• That Ofcom will not take action due to its administrative priorities and/or only on behalf of consumers as a whole

I have addressed point 1 above and look forward to receiving the explanations requested above,
As regards point 2 – EE are by far the largest CP in the UK and the change has affected every customer who joined EE before 23rd January 2014 – how can Ofcom possibly consider that this does not affect a “body of consumers as a whole”? (Q 11)
As regards to your administrative priorities are you saying that as Ofcom does not have the resource to take on EE then EE are effectively “above the law”? (Q 12)


Finally in connection with the EE price rise under the new T&C effective from 26th March 2014 Ofcom does not consider that EE are bound to the Ofcom rule on GC 9.6 dated 23rd January 2004?
Can you explain how this can be possible please? (Q 13)
It was disappointing that Ofcom sided with the industry and has allowed CPs to continue to apply price rises during the fixed period of the contract (especially as if CPs change T&Cs mid contract consumers are bound by the new term), but to go further and to say that changes to T&Cs that occur AFTER the new rules are implemented are also not subject to the new rules seems to defy all rules of natural justice and UK law.
.


Regards

A supporter of “FightMobileIncreases” – a pressure group dedicated to assisting consumers use the protection of the UTCCRs and GC 9.6, and to monitor and highlight Ofcoms actions (inaction) in relation to the Mobile Phone Market.

Old Clause (Orange EE and T-Mobile (Post 30 October 2012) – Clause number may vary
7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is: (i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retail price index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice;


Whereas the new clause is as follows:
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);