Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Shaunyboy

Maccadinho25 wrote: »

Hi mate, was a week. I sent a chasing email after 6 days and got the adjudicator email the next working day They acknowledged the email so should be coming through soon!

Loving these wins coming through!

Adjudicator allocated today. Fingers crossed.:T

corsaman2002

Shaunyboy wrote: »

Adjudicator allocated today. Fingers crossed.:T

Who have you been assigned to ?

I have MS Claire Andrews

pau1200

Ive been assigned Dr Mair Coombes Davies fingers crossed we get another win. Has anyone had her yet?

pau1200

Just noticed in the t+c case she decided in the companies favour, bloody typical the first loss may be coming soon

Swampsnake

goldfink wrote: »

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.

Mine contract is also less than 12 months (Sept 2013) so I too would like to know please.

traylerc

Hi, ok so Just had T-Mobile/EE respond and it's about 80% on par with what the template on here says so will link/correct each Point for my reply.

If someone is able to help I will place the points that T-M/EE have added on with there new response and hope someone can assess what if need be I add/reply with. Thanks in advance!

---

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.

21. The Respondent submits that the previous increase of charges in March 2013 does not prevent the increase in charges in May 2014. The Respondent submits that, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement that it can increase its charges providing that notice of such increase of charges is given to the Claimant. The Respondent submits that due notice was correctly given to the Claimant.

28. 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.



Also as a side note, they have said I am on T&C version CVN58/C, but clearly even on there website when I log in it states on the link It CVN59 (My phone contract with them started on 14th March 2013).

And one more point, they have made a real big messup on maths and said "cancellation charge in the sum of £701.53" now I only have 9 months left on my contract that is about £36 a month, so 9 X £36 = £324, where are they pulling the extra £377.53p charge from if I cancel? Should I bring this point up in my reply to show there incompetence of basic math skills?

ulaggy

traylerc wrote: »

Hi, ok so Just had T-Mobile/EE respond and it's about 80% on par with what the template on here says so will link/correct each Point for my reply.

If someone is able to help I will place the points that T-M/EE have added on with there new response and hope someone can assess what if need be I add/reply with. Thanks in advance!

---

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.

21. The Respondent submits that the previous increase of charges in March 2013 does not prevent the increase in charges in May 2014. The Respondent submits that, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement that it can increase its charges providing that notice of such increase of charges is given to the Claimant. The Respondent submits that due notice was correctly given to the Claimant.

28. 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.



Also as a side note, they have said I am on T&C version CVN58/C, but clearly even on there website when I log in it states on the link It CVN59 (My phone contract with them started on 14th March 2013).

And one more point, they have made a real big messup on maths and said "cancellation charge in the sum of £701.53" now I only have 9 months left on my contract that is about £36 a month, so 9 X £36 = £324, where are they pulling the extra £377.53p charge from if I cancel? Should I bring this point up in my reply to show there incompetence of basic math skills?

Yup, I'd bring up both the contract version and the calculations, as it is further proof of a lack of duty of care to individual customers. They are probably inundated, but that isn't our fault and should be no excuse for shoddy customer service.

As a side note, I am also one of those who was told I was supposedly on version 58 of the contract. However, I knew I wasn't (because of the dates) and I took photos of my T&C which clearly stated version 59. I attached those to my CISAS response. CISAS then asked T-Mob to explain themselves. The response, for your info, is below

Please accept our apologises. This is an error in our defence where we have referenced an incorrect term of CVN58 when the customer was on CVN59.

EE gave notice of a change of terms that CVN59A which took effect from 26 March 2014.

The remainder of the defence is correct and the terms referred to in the defence are the same in CVN58C and CVN59A.

Attached is a copy of the CVN59A effective for this customer from 26 March 2014 which was applicable as at the date the notice of the increase in charges were issued.

Please accept our apologises for the error in the defence.'

The only problem is that it has meant delays in my case. I started this off at the same time as most of those who have had decisions already. CISAS asking for an explanation meant that a few days passed before T-Mob provided one and CISAS forwarded it to me. CISAS then invited me to make further comment - I did so, pretty much stating that this was further evidence of a lack of duty of care, using generic letters which resulted in factual errors. However, as the deadline for me to comment is the 16th, I've got to wait for that to pass (I think) because it'll then go back to the wait 3 weeks for a decision thing.

Just thought I'd mention it - if you aren't in a rush, then I'd definitely pull them up for the errors. But it may result in a delay!

RandomCurve

6-0; and 3 with compo

RandomCurve

pau1200 wrote: »

Ive been assigned Dr Mair Coombes Davies fingers crossed we get another win. Has anyone had her yet?

Oh boy!!!


In the T&Cs cases rather than basing a judgement on the facts presented she questioned:

1. The customers motives for entering the contract in the first place
   1. what does that have to do with deciding if EE have breached the contract/GC 9.6 or not?, and
2. Why the customer had asked for a penalty free cancellation rather than asking for the T&Cs to remain unchanged?
   1. Maybe because that is NOT a remedy under the contract nor GC 9.6!

We have complained to Ofcom about this (you'll never guess their response - "we can't get involved" - Once again regulation at its finest!!!).
GolfBravo has asked for her not to judge his T&C case - we await a CISAS second response to the request. But CISAS did contact MSE and ask for the names of the adjudicators to be removed - me thinks they are worried that we are shinning a light into their murky little World!!!

RandomCurve

factor29 wrote: »

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.

Send to:
[EMAIL="jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com"]jeroen.hoencamp@vodafone.com[/EMAIL]
CC, [EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
info@fightmobileincreases.com




Dear X,
Phone number 07XXXX


Thank you for your email dated X.


Unfortunately your response fails to address ANY of the points raised in my email of X.


For your convenience I have reattached the original email and respectfully request that you respond to the actual points raised in that email.


Any further response which fails to address the legitimate issues raised will be used as evidence of Vodafone's lack of duty of care when dealing with this matter should we be unable to resolve this dispute without going to arbitration.


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.