Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

sarahdonnelly

My claim succeeded in full, thank you so much to RandomCurve for all your help with the templates etc.

I'll be donating the £100 compensation to charity and will email you directly

skuk21

sarahdonnelly wrote: »

My claim succeeded in full, thank you so much to RandomCurve for all your help with the templates etc.

I'll be donating the £100 compensation to charity and will email you directly

Awesome congrats! When was your adjudicator assigned?

Jamsandwich

I have just had EE's defense back to me and I think I have messed up the application.

The disconnection charge I quoted was incorrect. The actual charge will be £416.90, not £354.00 as I originally quoted. I have a 40% discount code on my account and I completely got mixed up.



Message follows:

1. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart of the Claimant’s Claim relates to a business decision taken by the Respondent to increase its prices.
2. Rule 2(a) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) provides that the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about (i) bills and/or; (ii) communication services provided to the Respondent’s customers.
3. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(b) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme.
4. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme and that pursuant to the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to consider the Claimant’s claim.
6. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
7. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
8. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters into service agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access the services. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
9. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject to the Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.
10. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent on the EE brand since 2 February 2013 in respect to account number 101686420. The Claimant has two mobile numbers being 0xxxx xxxxxxx (“the First Mobile Number”) and 0xxxx xxxxxx (“the Second Mobile Number”).
11. The Respondent submits that this dispute, as per the Claimant’s application, arises from the notification of the increase in prices effective from 28 May 2014.
12. The Claimant seeks termination of the Agreement in respect to the First Mobile Number without charge and for a compensation element. The Respondent submits that the Claimant entered into the Agreement in respect to the Second Mobile Number post-dates the date of the notice of the increase and therefore is not subject to the price increase matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Respondent submits that in any event the Claimant is therefore not entitled to seek termination without charge on the Second Mobile Number. The remainder of this defence is pleaded in relevance only to the First Mobile Number.
13. Upon entering into the Agreement in respect to the First Mobile Number 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 available to the Claimant at that time via the Respondent’s website or by contacting the Respondent’s customer services at any time.

14. The Respondent confirms that prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties for the First Mobile Number was subject to the terms and conditions CVN01A. From 29 January 2014 to 14 February 2014 the Respondent provided the Claimant with notice, pursuant to the Agreement at the time, that the Respondent’s terms and conditions would be updated and the new terms effective as of the 26 March 2014. Therefore, the Respondent submits that as from the 26 March 2014 the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement between the parties and so governing the Claimant, is CVN01B.

15. Save that the Respondent denies that the change in terms effective 26 March 2014 gave the Claimant the right to terminate his Agreement without charge the Respondent submits that in any event the Claimant was required to give notice to terminate prior to the change of terms taking effect on 26 March 2014. The Respondent submits that the Claimant failed to give notice to terminate the Agreement prior to 26 March 2014 and therefore is bound by the terms of the Agreement effective 26 March 2014.
16. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being Conditions Version Number 01B (CVN01B) applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-
2.5.1 Unless We agree otherwise, a new Minimum Term will apply. Once that Minimum Term is over this Agreement will continue until terminated;
7.1.4. We can increase any Price Plan Charge. We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will then apply to You once that notice has run out;
7.2.2. You can only give Us notice to terminate this Agreement by calling customer services. Your Agreement will terminate 30 days from when We receive Your call, although You are free to change Your mind and call Us to withdraw Your notice of termination at any time during that period. You will be responsible for all Charges up to and including the date that this Agreement terminates;
7.2.3 A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
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); and (ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
17. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent issued to the Claimant (together with all of its pay monthly customers) written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 2.7% increase in price plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 28 May 2014.
18. As Written Notice was given between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent was required, for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 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 April 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%
20. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 2.7% is an increase above the RPI as provided for by way of Clause 4.3.1.
21. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge as provided for by way of Clause 7.2.3 or indeed that such is a material detriment that entitles the Claimant to treat the Agreement as terminated without paying a cancellation charge.
22. As the increase in charges of 2.7% set out within the Written Notice is not higher than the RPI for February 2014 of 2.7% the Claimant is not entitled pursuant to Clause 7.2.3 of the Agreement or otherwise to cancel the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.
23. The Respondent submits, if such is alleged, that it is not obligated to use any other method to calculate the price increase, such as the use of Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). The Respondent submits that the clause specifically refers to the use of RPI as a measure of calculation and therefore the use of any other measure, whether such be higher or lower, would not be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Respondent has given certainty to the Agreement to specify RPI as the measure that it would use for the purpose of any increase and accordingly it is the RPI measure that must be used and not any measure, such as CPI.
24. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
25. The Respondent further refers General Condition 9.6 (“GC 9.6”), imposed by Ofcom on Communications Providers under s.45 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides for Communications Providers to give subscribers one month’s notice of “any modifications likely to be of material detriment” and to allow subscribers to withdraw from the Agreement without penalty. The Respondent submits that he increase in charges at the rate of RPI is not of material detriment to the customer and the customer is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
26. Further or alternatively, the material detriment issue constitutes a complicated issue of law for the purpose of Rule 2(j) of the Scheme.
27. The Material Detriment Issue does not relate to any of the matters set out in Rule 2a.
Bills: It does not relate to any bill issued by the Respondent to the Claimant.
Customer Service: It does not relate to the quality of customer service provided by the Respondent to the Claimant.
Communications Services: For the reasons further set out below, the reference in Rule 2a to “Communications services provided to customers” relates to the physical provision of electronic communications services and/or does not relate to regulatory issues such as the Material Detriment Issue. Rule 2a is intended to implement General Condition 14.5 (“GC 14.5”) which requires the Respondent to “implement and comply with a Dispute Resolution Scheme, … for the resolution of disputes …in relation to the provision of Public Electronic Communications Services.” Electronic Communications Services are defined in s.32 of the Communications Act 2003 to mean “a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals”. That indicates that the focus of the dispute resolution scheme is on the service actually provided to customers.
28. A proper resolution of the case would require CISAS to consider the proper construction of the term “material detriment” and the increase in charges is of material detriment.
29. Further, the meaning of material detriment needs to be established both as a matter of contractual construction and by reference to the regulatory context. The term is not defined explicitly in the Agreement or in GC 9.6 The fact that Ofcom has recently published guidance on the issue of material detriment in respect of price change clauses indicates that absent such guidance, the issue of material detriment is unclear; and that the considerations applicable to determining material detriment can be complicated.
30. The application of the material detriment test to the increase in charges is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the change could be of some detriment to the Claimant. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant establish that that increase is of material detriment.
31. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate his Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within his application or any other such reason. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is subject to the standard contractual termination clauses as per the applicable terms and conditions.
32. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter. However, as above, the Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is outside the remit of the Scheme.
33. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is free to cancel the First Mobile Number by giving notice to cancel at any time. However, as the Claimant is within the minimum term period in respect to the Mobile Number he would be liable for a cancellation charge in the sum of £416.90 (reducing on a daily basis) should he terminate the First Mobile Number within the minimum term period. The Respondent submits that the charge is not £354 as claimed by the Claimant.
34. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. As provided for by way of Annex 4 to General Condition 14, the Respondent is not required to issue a written deadlock letter when requested by a complainant where the subject matter of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. The Respondent remains of the view, and as previously stated by CISAS, that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter.
35. The Respondent has provided a response to the Claimant in a timely fashion and that such response has been consistent. Whilst the Claimant’s appears to dislike the content of such response it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent denies that it has failed to address each aspect of the Claimant’s claim and that in any event the Respondent submits that its position remains unaltered and that it does not accept the Claimant’s arguments that such response entitles them termination without charge and/or compensation it the sum of £50.00. The Claimant is put to strict proof hereof as to his purported stress and inconvenience caused in solving ‘these issues’
36. The Respondent denies liability to the Claimant as pleaded or at all, either contractually or otherwise.
The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.
Dated the 10 June 2014
Carmel Codd
Senior Legal Counsel


For and on behalf of the Respondent whose address for service is at:
EE Limited 1 Trident Place Mosquito Way Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9BW


Any thoughts?

goldfink

Hi RC could you help me please?

I have not yet submitted my CISAS claim, I received my deadlock letter about 3 weeks ago, but wanted to sit on it as I was due a bill on the 29th May and I wanted to check the increase. (I have also been poorly, leading to a longer delay in looking into this, until today).

Firstly, my bill has increased since April by 3.15%. My usual bill was £19.16 plus VAT, my new bill is £19.76 plus VAT. Had it been an increase of 2.7% it should have gone up by 52p, it has infact gone up by 60p. (I have only used my standard allowance and no extras)

The thing I am concerned about is these different versions of contracts. I kept my copy of the T & C's in the box that came with the phone. At the top left on page 1 it says the Terms and Conditions Version 58a dated November 2010. I took out this pay monthly phone contract August 2013, however have been on a pay monthly sim for a few years with T Mobile prior to that.

What is the difference in these T & C's? I notice a few points about it, but, i'm rather confused.

Many thanks

factor29

Had a rather unhelpful response from Vodafone. No explanation as asked for in the template. No details of adjudicator. Nothing... What are my next steps?


Thank you for the recent email concerning out of bundle price increase. Currently you have one mobile number which Vodafone have reviewed, we would like to inform your number would not be affected by the changes in price and your bills would not increase by more than 10% based upon the last three months of normal usage.

Therefore Vodafone will not be canceling your agreement free of charge, if you would like to terminate your agreement then you would need to pay for the early termination charges.

Mikmonken

goldfink wrote: »

Hi RC could you help me please?

I have not yet submitted my CISAS claim, I received my deadlock letter about 3 weeks ago, but wanted to sit on it as I was due a bill on the 29th May and I wanted to check the increase. (I have also been poorly, leading to a longer delay in looking into this, until today).

Firstly, my bill has increased since April by 3.15%. My usual bill was £19.16 plus VAT, my new bill is £19.76 plus VAT. Had it been an increase of 2.7% it should have gone up by 52p, it has infact gone up by 60p. (I have only used my standard allowance and no extras)

The thing I am concerned about is these different versions of contracts. I kept my copy of the T & C's in the box that came with the phone. At the top left on page 1 it says the Terms and Conditions Version 58a dated November 2010. I took out this pay monthly phone contract August 2013, however have been on a pay monthly sim for a few years with T Mobile prior to that.

What is the difference in these T & C's? I notice a few points about it, but, i'm rather confused.

Many thanks

it looks like if its £19.76 on your bill they've got the digits round the wrong way, it should be £19.67(732)

not sure about the differences in contract, but to be honest if you follow the templates that RandomCurve has posted (see http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/ ) your defence will draw out the relevant points.

Mikmonken

Jamsandwich wrote: »

I have just had EE's defense back to me and I think I have messed up the application.

The disconnection charge I quoted was incorrect. The actual charge will be £416.90, not £354.00 as I originally quoted. I have a 40% discount code on my account and I completely got mixed up.



Message follows:

1. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart of the Claimant’s Claim relates to a business decision taken by the Respondent to increase its prices.
2. Rule 2(a) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) provides that the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about (i) bills and/or; (ii) communication services provided to the Respondent’s customers.
3. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(b) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme.
4. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neither directly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents a dispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme and that pursuant to the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to consider the Claimant’s claim.
6. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
7. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
8. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters into service agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access the services. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
9. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject to the Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.
10. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent on the EE brand since 2 February 2013 in respect to account number 101686420. The Claimant has two mobile numbers being 0xxxx xxxxxxx (“the First Mobile Number”) and 0xxxx xxxxxx (“the Second Mobile Number”).
11. The Respondent submits that this dispute, as per the Claimant’s application, arises from the notification of the increase in prices effective from 28 May 2014.
12. The Claimant seeks termination of the Agreement in respect to the First Mobile Number without charge and for a compensation element. The Respondent submits that the Claimant entered into the Agreement in respect to the Second Mobile Number post-dates the date of the notice of the increase and therefore is not subject to the price increase matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Respondent submits that in any event the Claimant is therefore not entitled to seek termination without charge on the Second Mobile Number. The remainder of this defence is pleaded in relevance only to the First Mobile Number.
13. Upon entering into the Agreement in respect to the First Mobile Number 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 available to the Claimant at that time via the Respondent’s website or by contacting the Respondent’s customer services at any time.

14. The Respondent confirms that prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties for the First Mobile Number was subject to the terms and conditions CVN01A. From 29 January 2014 to 14 February 2014 the Respondent provided the Claimant with notice, pursuant to the Agreement at the time, that the Respondent’s terms and conditions would be updated and the new terms effective as of the 26 March 2014. Therefore, the Respondent submits that as from the 26 March 2014 the terms and conditions applicable to the Agreement between the parties and so governing the Claimant, is CVN01B.

15. Save that the Respondent denies that the change in terms effective 26 March 2014 gave the Claimant the right to terminate his Agreement without charge the Respondent submits that in any event the Claimant was required to give notice to terminate prior to the change of terms taking effect on 26 March 2014. The Respondent submits that the Claimant failed to give notice to terminate the Agreement prior to 26 March 2014 and therefore is bound by the terms of the Agreement effective 26 March 2014.
16. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being Conditions Version Number 01B (CVN01B) applicable to the Agreement entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing the Agreement contains amongst other things the following;-
2.5.1 Unless We agree otherwise, a new Minimum Term will apply. Once that Minimum Term is over this Agreement will continue until terminated;
7.1.4. We can increase any Price Plan Charge. We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will then apply to You once that notice has run out;
7.2.2. You can only give Us notice to terminate this Agreement by calling customer services. Your Agreement will terminate 30 days from when We receive Your call, although You are free to change Your mind and call Us to withdraw Your notice of termination at any time during that period. You will be responsible for all Charges up to and including the date that this Agreement terminates;
7.2.3 A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
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); and (ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
17. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent issued to the Claimant (together with all of its pay monthly customers) written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 2.7% increase in price plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 28 May 2014.
18. As Written Notice was given between the 5-15 April 2014 the Respondent was required, for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 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 April 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%
20. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 2.7% is an increase above the RPI as provided for by way of Clause 4.3.1.
21. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge as provided for by way of Clause 7.2.3 or indeed that such is a material detriment that entitles the Claimant to treat the Agreement as terminated without paying a cancellation charge.
22. As the increase in charges of 2.7% set out within the Written Notice is not higher than the RPI for February 2014 of 2.7% the Claimant is not entitled pursuant to Clause 7.2.3 of the Agreement or otherwise to cancel the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.
23. The Respondent submits, if such is alleged, that it is not obligated to use any other method to calculate the price increase, such as the use of Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). The Respondent submits that the clause specifically refers to the use of RPI as a measure of calculation and therefore the use of any other measure, whether such be higher or lower, would not be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Respondent has given certainty to the Agreement to specify RPI as the measure that it would use for the purpose of any increase and accordingly it is the RPI measure that must be used and not any measure, such as CPI.
24. The Respondent denies that, if such is alleged, that it mis-sold the terms of the price plan to the Claimant. At the time of entering into the Agreement the Respondent did not have plans to increase its prices and that therefore the price quoted to the Claimant was the correct price at that time. The Respondent submits that it did not mis-sell or mis-lead the Claimant in respect to such charges. The Respondent submits that it was not a ‘fixed term contract’ and that the Respondent could increase its charges, as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent has exercised its contractual right to increase charges and the Claimant is not entitled to the remedy sought.
25. The Respondent further refers General Condition 9.6 (“GC 9.6”), imposed by Ofcom on Communications Providers under s.45 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides for Communications Providers to give subscribers one month’s notice of “any modifications likely to be of material detriment” and to allow subscribers to withdraw from the Agreement without penalty. The Respondent submits that he increase in charges at the rate of RPI is not of material detriment to the customer and the customer is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
26. Further or alternatively, the material detriment issue constitutes a complicated issue of law for the purpose of Rule 2(j) of the Scheme.
27. The Material Detriment Issue does not relate to any of the matters set out in Rule 2a.
Bills: It does not relate to any bill issued by the Respondent to the Claimant.
Customer Service: It does not relate to the quality of customer service provided by the Respondent to the Claimant.
Communications Services: For the reasons further set out below, the reference in Rule 2a to “Communications services provided to customers” relates to the physical provision of electronic communications services and/or does not relate to regulatory issues such as the Material Detriment Issue. Rule 2a is intended to implement General Condition 14.5 (“GC 14.5”) which requires the Respondent to “implement and comply with a Dispute Resolution Scheme, … for the resolution of disputes …in relation to the provision of Public Electronic Communications Services.” Electronic Communications Services are defined in s.32 of the Communications Act 2003 to mean “a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals”. That indicates that the focus of the dispute resolution scheme is on the service actually provided to customers.
28. A proper resolution of the case would require CISAS to consider the proper construction of the term “material detriment” and the increase in charges is of material detriment.
29. Further, the meaning of material detriment needs to be established both as a matter of contractual construction and by reference to the regulatory context. The term is not defined explicitly in the Agreement or in GC 9.6 The fact that Ofcom has recently published guidance on the issue of material detriment in respect of price change clauses indicates that absent such guidance, the issue of material detriment is unclear; and that the considerations applicable to determining material detriment can be complicated.
30. The application of the material detriment test to the increase in charges is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the change could be of some detriment to the Claimant. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant establish that that increase is of material detriment.
31. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate his Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within his application or any other such reason. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is subject to the standard contractual termination clauses as per the applicable terms and conditions.
32. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter. However, as above, the Respondent remains of the view that the decision to increase its prices is outside the remit of the Scheme.
33. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is free to cancel the First Mobile Number by giving notice to cancel at any time. However, as the Claimant is within the minimum term period in respect to the Mobile Number he would be liable for a cancellation charge in the sum of £416.90 (reducing on a daily basis) should he terminate the First Mobile Number within the minimum term period. The Respondent submits that the charge is not £354 as claimed by the Claimant.
34. The Respondent denies that it has breached its Agreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. As provided for by way of Annex 4 to General Condition 14, the Respondent is not required to issue a written deadlock letter when requested by a complainant where the subject matter of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. The Respondent remains of the view, and as previously stated by CISAS, that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and falls outside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside the remit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlock letter.
35. The Respondent has provided a response to the Claimant in a timely fashion and that such response has been consistent. Whilst the Claimant’s appears to dislike the content of such response it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty of care to the Claimant. The Respondent denies that it has failed to address each aspect of the Claimant’s claim and that in any event the Respondent submits that its position remains unaltered and that it does not accept the Claimant’s arguments that such response entitles them termination without charge and/or compensation it the sum of £50.00. The Claimant is put to strict proof hereof as to his purported stress and inconvenience caused in solving ‘these issues’
36. The Respondent denies liability to the Claimant as pleaded or at all, either contractually or otherwise.
The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.
Dated the 10 June 2014
Carmel Codd
Senior Legal Counsel


For and on behalf of the Respondent whose address for service is at:
EE Limited 1 Trident Place Mosquito Way Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9BW


Any thoughts?

I don't think you need to worry about the termination fee (i made a comment about it because they provided the wrong amount in mine, but i don't think it's anything to worry about) If you're on an EE contract go back a few pages and you'll see a number of responses to EE's defence where the paras have been altered to match the paras you have (you may still need to do some tweaking to it though to make sure your comments are relating to the right paras)

Martinmal1

Another verdict here. Will send verdict rc.

goldfink

Mikmonken wrote: »

it looks like if its £19.76 on your bill they've got the digits round the wrong way, it should be £19.67(732)

not sure about the differences in contract, but to be honest if you follow the templates that RandomCurve has posted (see http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/ ) your defence will draw out the relevant points.

Well spotted, it does look like they have transposed the figures.

I will see if RC comes back to me re the contracts. Many thanks.

goldfink

Martinmal1 wrote: »

Another verdict here. Will send verdict rc.

Presumably congrats is in order?

Would you be allowed to tell us what happened re the point you made re the contract being less than 12 months old so the increase was higher in real terms? Or possibly dm me? as I am in the same boat as you and yet to submit my claim, thanks.