Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

ulaggy

Hmm, don't know if this is a good sign or a bad sign! Just had an email from CISAS, informing me of the following.

"The company states in its defence that, prior to 26 March 2014, the customer was subject to Terms and Conditions CVN58. It submits that, from 26 March 2014, he was subject to Ts&Cs CVN58C.

However, the customer disputes being subject to CVN58. He has provided a copy of his signed upgrade agreement dated 21 November 2012 with his reply, which shows that he was, in fact, subject to CVN59 when he entered into the agreement.

I would be grateful if the company could provide its comments on this issue."

At a minimum, it's going to delay my bleddy case! What a pain.

Mikmonken

Surely shows that EE don't know what contract you are on if they're being asked to prove the you went from a 59 to a 58?

ulaggy

Mikmonken wrote: »

Surely shows that EE don't know what contract you are on if they're being asked to prove the you went from a 59 to a 58?

It's less asking them to prove that I've gone from 59 to 58, more asking why they think I'm on 58 when I'm quite clearly not!

It's good in the sense it makes EE look incompetent. But how it'll affect my case, I don't know, other than delaying a verdict!

Preeble

I'm hessitant to post my entire decusion due to cisas being mardy over the private information being shared over on the T&C post, and due to the majority of ongoing cases I woudn't want EE to see a full decision and get a chance to beef up any of their defences for other cases, although I will share this extract:

e. There is no definition of what constitutes material detriment in Ofcom GC 9.6. However,the ordinary and natural meaning of detriment is to disadvantage or cause loss. In my view a price increase whether at the rate of inflation or not by definition will disadvantage the customer as the customer will have to pay more on his contract than before and therefore this must result in material detriment to the customer.

f. Having regard to all the findings above, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the company’s notice of price increase is likely to be of material detriment to the customer and that, by virtue of General Condition 9.6, it would have been fair and reasonable for the company to have permitted the customer to terminate the service agreement relating to the contract without penalty as requested. In the present circumstances, I am mindful that the company refused to permit the customer to terminate his contract without charge; as such, I must conclude that this amounts to a failure in the company’s duty of care owed to the customer to act in line with its obligations as set by Ofcom’s General Condition 9.6.

10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has failed in its duty of care owed to the customer.

b. The reasons given by the customer are sufficient to justify the company terminating the contract without penalty (this being backdated to --DATE-- 14 days after I contacted EE) and providing the customer with a PAC code.

11. Therefore, my decision is that the customer’s claims succeed in part. The company shall terminate the customer’s contract without penalty (this being backdated to --DATE-- 14 days after I contacted EE) and provide the customer with a PAC code.




I was on a orange contract version LEGv15 / LEGv15a (after march) according to EE's defence but found no version number on my original contract so went with what they said. Claim was unsucessful for any compensation, but my adujdicator also denied it for the T&C decisions so wasn't surprised.

Mikmonken

Anyone with a straight EE contract won yet?

RandomCurve

Preeble wrote: »

I'm hessitant to post my entire decusion due to cisas being mardy over the private information being shared over on the T&C post, and due to the majority of ongoing cases I woudn't want EE to see a full decision and get a chance to beef up any of their defences for other cases, although I will share this extract:.

EE will get a copy from CISAS so it is actually stopping us pre-empting EEs next move. I already see a word of caution to others in that this adjudicators interpretation of Material Detriment is not one I have seen before and may not be typical of the decisions to come.


Can you send me a copy at [EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL] - I won't publish any of it, but will give my observations.


Thanks

RandomCurve

ulaggy wrote: »

It's less asking them to prove that I've gone from 59 to 58, more asking why they think I'm on 58 when I'm quite clearly not!

It's good in the sense it makes EE look incompetent. But how it'll affect my case, I don't know, other than delaying a verdict!

The thing is you won't get another chance to respond to EEs response. I think the adjudicator agrees your stance - as you have proved a signed copy, and wants EE to explain themselves as to why their record keeping s so bad.

RandomCurve

skuk21 wrote: »

RC, are EE bound legally to follow the CISAS ruling or can they appeal it to a higher authority?

The one thing in our favour is that you get to decide if to accept or reject the decision - EE are BOUND by the decision!!!


Best policy - leave making your decision for 5 weeks and then accept. EE will then take 3 to 4 weeks to comply and you have just got another 8 or 9 weeks FREE use - especially useful if you are going abroad during that time!!!

sunshinerise111

delboy9 wrote: »

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you RandomCurve I have just had the decision sent to me by email from CISAS stating that WE WIN!!!

In short it says:

1. The claim succeeds in part.

2. I direct that the company should: provide the customer with an apology; provide the customer with his PAC; cancel the customer’s contract without penalty, backdating such cancellation to ***** 2014, thereby waiving any charges incurred after this date and; pay the customer compensation in the sum of £100.00

RandomCurve would you like the whole of the letter copy and pasted on here for the benefit and help of others?.............

Justine Mensa-Bonsu was my Adjudicator

What happens next?

Thanks again

Great News !!! Is this the first win with reference to the May Price Rise ???

Preeble

RandomCurve wrote: »

EE will get a copy from CISAS so it is actually stopping us pre-empting EEs next move. I already see a word of caution to others in that this adjudicators interpretation of Material Detriment is not one I have seen before and may not be typical of the decisions to come.


Can you send me a copy at [EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL] - I won't publish any of it, but will give my observations.


Thanks

Oh I didn't realize they recived a copy of it anyway, emailed one through, but feel free to publish what you need from it if it will help the rest of the cases.