Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

corsaman2002

RandomCurve wrote: »

Thanks Preeble.


Having read through the whole judgement I am a little confused. None of the points raised have been given any detailed reasoning, the only detail is as per what Preeble has already shared - that the adjudicator considers the change to be of Material Detriment, so on one hand I am a little worried for everyone else, but on the other hand.....


..... it could be that the judgement that the change is of Material Detriment was an easy judgement to make because the adjudicator accepts the argument that as EE changed the T&Cs after Ofcom changed the Material Detriment definition to ANY change in the core subscription price them the new definition does apply as per our case - but they do not expressly state that in the findings, if they had I would be very confident for everyone.


Delboy9 can you email me your result ASAP please - [EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]

Its great a few people have won part of their cases. It holds hope for the rest of us.

davalo

Many thanks Random Curve, response sent today.

Samarkand

Just received this from T-Mobile-

Thank you for your email response, I am sorry you are unhappy with the recent Price Increase.

EE do not feel that this change is of material detriment to you as it is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation. I acknowledge you do not agree with this decision therefore the next step would be to seek independent adjudication via CISAS.

You may refer your complaint to CISAS. CISAS will determine whether the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of its ADR Scheme. We may argue that it does not. If CISAS agrees its Scheme applies, it will adjudicate on the complaint in line with the Scheme rules. CISAS's details are as follows:-

I am post oct 2012 which template do i use for CICAS please.

Thank You

Martinmal1

How long a gap between responding to the EE defence and getting an adjudicator assigned are people having? Mines been a week now

Mikmonken

Martinmal1 wrote: »

How long a gap between responding to the EE defence and getting an adjudicator assigned are people having? Mines been a week now

Did you get an email confirmation saying they'd received your comments on the defence?

I emailed comments on Monday and was allocated and adjudicator by Wednesday think the letter said within 5 days.

Maccadinho25

Preeble wrote: »

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.

Music to my ears as im on the exact same taken in Oct 2013!

I sent my response and further comments to EEs defense on Monday to CISAS but heard nothing back so far and no adjudicator appointed should i be worried? How long did it take people to be appointed one please?

Great work guys

Maccadinho25

Martinmal1 wrote: »

How long a gap between responding to the EE defence and getting an adjudicator assigned are people having? Mines been a week now

Makes me feel a bit better! I had a automatic reply from CISAS so they did get it at least

(Sorry for double posting)

Shaunyboy

Maccadinho25 wrote: »

Makes me feel a bit better! I had a automatic reply from CISAS so they did get it at least

(Sorry for double posting)

3 days up to now.

Martinmal1

Mikmonken wrote: »

Did you get an email confirmation saying they'd received your comments on the defence?

I emailed comments on Monday and was allocated and adjudicator by Wednesday think the letter said within 5 days.

Yes got the automatic reply last Friday but have heard nothing, have just re-sent it today and again got an automated response. May give them a ring on Monday to make sure they have it. Althought if the success' keep rolling in it is hopefully free mobile service for longer :T

RandomCurve

delboy9 wrote: »

Done as requested RandomCurve

Thanks.


Having reviewed both judgements I think I can read between the lines what the adjudicators are saying.


Some history first:
In the T&C claim process we tried to prove that the original definition of Material Detriment meant just detriment as Ofcom says - change has to be beneficial or neutral to the consumer. CISAS acknowledged this was the case, BUT then when went on to assess if the detriment was material!! I have no idea why, but thankfully they judged the change was material.


Anyway back to these cases:
Here they acknowledge that original Ofcom meaning translates to Detriment (not beneficial or neutral). They are agreeing that a price change is not beneficial nor neutral and therefore the claim succeeds. I don't know why they are not going on to assess if the change is "Material" as they did in the T&C cases, but I think it is because of the revised "ANY change" definition.
So I think that the adjudicators agree that the price rise clause is subject to the new definition of "ANY change, but do not want to state that explicitly for fear of upsetting Ofcom.


If my thinking above is correct - we should be looking forward to a lot more wins - here's hopping