Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Shaunyboy

RandomCurve wrote: »

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

I'll certainly be hopping with delight if I win. :T

gadgetshop

I received EE's response back yesterday, but after checking it CISAS have sent me someone else's. I'm not the claimant named and the 3 numbers mentioned aren't mine, I only have 1 with them. Emailed letting them know, will wait and see what they say.

more waiting time

bobbyh1982

RandomCurve wrote: »

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

:T Here's hoping! Are EE bound by CISAS decision - no questions asked then? I can just see them issuing a PAC code then sending out bills to people for £100's following cancellation.
Or am I just being too much of a cynic?

ulaggy

bobbyh1982 wrote: »

:T Here's hoping! Are EE bound by CISAS decision - no questions asked then? I can just see them issuing a PAC code then sending out bills to people for £100's following cancellation.
Or am I just being too much of a cynic?

I'm under the impression that EE could do that. But then you would just take them to the small claims court and would pretty much win, I'd assume - as EE wouldn't be honouring the judgement of their own disputes scheme!

Unrelated, but just seen someone on that other thread who made a text donation which they tried to charge him for (he got it refunded back in the end). I'm quite tempted to make a text donation before they close my account - free fundraising from T-Mob!

WraithGR

OK my response is ready to go tomorrow!

One last question to RandomCurve: Do you think we should address the point they make that we should have asked to leave on the 26th of march (i.e. before the new T&C's?) I don't even remember getting a letter of them trying to change the T&Cs (else I would already have tried to leave!). However I think it wouldn't hurt (and might help) to add a response along the lines of

"It is not my obligation to test each of EE's new terms vs. GC 9.6. The fact that they have allowed themselves to breach GC 9.6 in their new T&Cs was of no interest to me prior to their actually breaching GC 9.6 which happened at the start of April, immediately following which I first contacted them requesting a penalty-free cancellation"

what do you think?

RandomCurve

WraithGR wrote: »

OK my response is ready to go tomorrow!

One last question to RandomCurve: Do you think we should address the point they make that we should have asked to leave on the 26th of march (i.e. before the new T&C's?) I don't even remember getting a letter of them trying to change the T&Cs (else I would already have tried to leave!). However I think it wouldn't hurt (and might help) to add a response along the lines of

"It is not my obligation to test each of EE's new terms vs. GC 9.6. The fact that they have allowed themselves to breach GC 9.6 in their new T&Cs was of no interest to me prior to their actually breaching GC 9.6 which happened at the start of April, immediately following which I first contacted them requesting a penalty-free cancellation"

what do you think?

Personally I would play dumb:
"My claim is in regards to the price rise, which is totally unrelated to the change in T&Cs so I am bemused as to why EE would bring this up in a defence. However I was not aware that EE had caused a Material Detriment when they changed their T&Cs. EE certainly never contacted me and informed me of my right to a penalty free cancellation as required under GC 9.6 - other wise I would have read the detail of the change (the detail not being included in the text received). Does this mean that the adjudicator should also consider if the change to T&CS was of Material Detriment (as EE have not complied with GC 9.6) - and If so back date a penalty free cancellation to the 26th March?"

RandomCurve

gadgetshop wrote: »

I received EE's response back yesterday, but after checking it CISAS have sent me someone else's. I'm not the claimant named and the 3 numbers mentioned aren't mine, I only have 1 with them. Emailed letting them know, will wait and see what they say.

more waiting time

Not good for you, but generally good as it shows CISAS are swamped with claims

RandomCurve

I can't post details now, but I think I can get a penalty free cancelation for those who have been advised of the Vodafone price rise

ulaggy

Wonder when I'll hear back with regards to my case. CISAS didn't say how long they were giving T-Mobile to clarify why they claimed I was on version 58 contract when I'm on version 59.

Guess I just wait and wait!

Martinmal1

Just had my response and got mark mcgeoch as adjudicator