Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

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

Yes - and again mention it is further evidence of EEs lack of care in dealing with this matter.

RandomCurve

pwillan wrote: »

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?

V58 and V59 are T-Mobile contract numbers, if you are not on T-Mobile it is irrelevant.
Officially V59 replaced V58 on 30th October 2012, but EE records show customers as v58 who took out contracts several months after 30th October 2012.

pinkpinkfizz

RandomCurve wrote: »

See post #596 for my thoughts

Hi, I've read through the posts and I'm hoping for some advice as I'm still not clear...I received a message from Vodafone with information on price increases and linking to http://www.vodafone.co.uk/campaigns/price-changes/pricechangesjuly14/pricingchanges1/index.htm?cid=vnty-vod-auto/azjujthumnthqs1 ... which doesn't state anything about being able to cancel my contract.

Does this mean I'm not one of the lucky ones? :huh:
Thanks in advance.

Maccadinho25

RandomCurve wrote: »

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"

Thanks RC will add that in and send tomorrow night.

Any thoughts on the deadlock statement or am i barking up the wrong tree?

Anyone else on Orange had the same contract version mentioned in their defense? LEG300v15?? Ill be honest i cant find my t&cs in my paperwork to check and confirm

Mikmonken

RandomCurve, am i being a bit dense here. the defence i received from EE is the same as SKU21 (see post #600 page 30).

Paras 18 and 19 have different dates but i think they're referring to the same "written notice" am I right? my defence is due back one the 3rd so i just wanted to make sure there was nothing else i could add that would act in my favour?

18. 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.

19. 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%

skuk21

RC - email sent

RandomCurve wrote: »

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);

muse213

Had a reply from CISAS, have been appointed an adjudicator, Mr Dean Taylor, anyone had any experiences with him? Now have to wait 3 weeks -.-

ulaggy

muse213 wrote: »

Had a reply from CISAS, have been appointed an adjudicator, Mr Dean Taylor, anyone had any experiences with him? Now have to wait 3 weeks -.-

"We acknowledge receipt of comments on the company’s response to the claim from the customer. A copy is provided for the company’s information.

The parties are advised that Mr [Redacted] has been appointed as adjudicator and that all of the case papers received have been forwarded for consideration.

Upon receipt, the Decision will be sent to both parties (usually within 3 weeks). In the meantime, we may contact you if the adjudicator requires any clarification or further information on the documents submitted.

When the Decision is issued the Customer will be given 6 weeks to advise us whether they

accept or reject it."

So a Mr D.S. for me then. Fingers crossed he's a decent sort!

Mikmonken

Can I get some clarity as to when this increase is likely to take place?
is it for the billing month including the 28th May i.e 2.7% applied to the whole month or, is it for x days up until the 28th May and x days after and including the 28th May, everything i've read clearly states that the the increase is from the 28th May.

The reason I'm asking is following the post earlier from CSKEL #635 i've had a look at the bill i can see. it indicates that my next month bill due on 8th June will be for £35.08 (this value is just under 2.7% increase on my current £34.17 bill (EE 41 4G contract) however this is applied to the whole month increase.

I think it should be 18 days at the old rate and 13 days at the 2.7% uplift (please bear with me)

34.17/31 = £1.10 per day (lets round to £1.11)
35.08/31 = £1.13 per day

18days @ £1.11 = £19.98
13 days @ £1.14 = £14.71
Total for May/June should be = £34.80

so by my reckoning assuming that I do get billed for £35.08 + VAT this month I would have overpaid by £0.28 above the anticipate 2.7% increase (i think it works out as a 4.71% increase over those 13 days.

on this basis regardless of the CISAS outcome if my bill stays the same I can cancel it penalty free?

does that seem to make sense? It's early days yet as I haven't yet received my final bill, but i'm keeping my fingers crossed!

boatman

muse213 wrote: »

Had a reply from CISAS, have been appointed an adjudicator, Mr Dean Taylor, anyone had any experiences with him? Now have to wait 3 weeks -.-

Unfortunately yes, he's the idiot that gave me a partial win, i was awarded pac, compensation and a rather limp apology, but he did not back date it to when i asked to cancel the contract, so i missed out on 4 months line rental back. The reason was that i would have had to pay line rental to a company so why not T-Mobile, a completely ridiculous comment, if i had not wanted it back dating i would not have bothered complaining. T-Mobile lost virtually nothing in my case as they got the line rental, by the time the adjudication came through my 2 year contract was complete, they then had the cheek to charge me a contract termination penalty, a 'notice period charge' as they call it which i am still fighting to get back, small claims very soon..