Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Citroen

Mikmonken wrote: »

that £75 in compensation will get your phone unlocked!!

Reading the unlock page of EE they do say the cost of unlocking will be added to your bill...

danielsheard

Afternoon chaps.

Got my results back from CISAS today, took them 2 weeks

Claim succeeds in full - "The company shall terminate the customer’s contract without penalty and must reimburse the customer any payments taken from the date of cancellation and provide the customer with compensation in the sum of £50.00. In addition, the company must provide the customer with a PAC and make reasonable efforts to request an unlock code from the manufacturer"

Massive thanks to RC and the other members for helping everyone out. Best of luck to them still waiting.

nfz300zx

Hi All,

Just wanted to Say a huge thanks to RC and everyone else. I used their examples and got a Partial Settlement as well

"I direct that the company compensates the customer in the sum of £47.47; allow the customer to terminate her contract penalty free (backdated 21 April 2014); provide a PAC code to the customer as soon as possible."

Very happy with this, however I am not sure how they can back date the PAC code as I was almost at the end of my contract and gave my 30 days notice while I was waiting for this to go though. and to top things off I got my final bill last month and today got another for a whole 1p. wonder what that 1p is for lol.

Anyway Thanks again everyone! nice to see the people winning aganst a company for a change.

jogplc

Hello All,

Got my decision from Cisas today (2 weeks):

1. The claim succeeds in part.

2. I direct that the company cancel the customer’s contract without penalty; provide the customer
with a PAC code; backdate the cancellation of the contract to 8 April 2014 and waive any and
all charges incurred under the contract after 8 April 2014. I also direct that the company pay the
customer compensation in the sum of £32.00.

No unlock code though but oh well, can't complain lol.

Big thanks to RC.

Mick_Cranes_Sidestep

So that's 19-0 so far. Great to see all these victories coming in. Hope this helps RC's recovery.

ShowMeTheMoola

Hi Guys

I would really appreciate some guidance on how to respond to EE's defence...
I also submitted my claim as a post Oct 2012 customer thinking I should go by the start date of my current contract (April 2013) not when I joined EE (May 2012). Did I botch my claim up??

DEFENCE
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. Rule 2(b) of the Rules provides that the dispute must not involve a complicated issue of law.
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(a) and therefore is a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Further the dispute, as pleaded, necessitates the consideration of the legal interpretation of clauses contained within the service agreement entered into between the Claimant and Respondent, applied as against facts, to ascertain whether a legal right of termination exists. The Respondent submits that such issues of legal interpretation and consideration requires evaluation and application of areas of law concerning contractual interpretation which are by their very nature complex and complicated.
6. 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.
7. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
8. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent since 20 May 2011 in respect to account number 70

---

. The Claimant has one mobile number being 075

---

(“the Mobile Number”).
12. 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.
13. The Claimant seeks termination of the Agreement without charge and to transfer the Mobile Numbers to another network service provider and for the cancellation to be back dated to the date of her request for termination. In addition the Claimant also seeks an unlock code for an unspecified handset, but presumably the handset associated with the Mobile Number on the Claimant’s account.
14. Upon entering into the Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) in respect to the 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.
15. The Respondent confirms that prior to the 26 March 2014 the Agreement between the parties was subject to the terms and conditions CV59. 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 CVN59A.
16. Save that the Respondent denies that the change in terms effective 26 March 2014 gave the Claimant the right to terminate her 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.
17. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the terms and conditions being Conditions Version Number 59A 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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%1 1.
1http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/february-2014/stb---consumer-price-indices---january-2014.html#tab-Retail-Prices-Index--RPI--and-RPIJ-
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is free to cancel the 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 she would be liable for a cancellation charge in the sum of £267.12 (reducing on a daily basis) should she terminate the Mobile Number within the minimum term period.
26. 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.
27. 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 £100.00.
28. Save as is denied in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant’s only recourse should the increase be in excess of RPI is to termination of the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is not entitled to seek an unlock code for any handset associated with the Agreement and such is not a remedy as provided for by way of the Agreement. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant with regards the facilitation of an unlock code for the handset, either as free of charge or chargeable. There is no contractual obligation to unlock a handset at any stage before, during or after termination of the Agreement and the Claimant is hereby put to strict proof thereof.
29. 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.
General Condition 9.6 (GC9.6)
30. 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.
31. The Claimant refers to a guidance note published by Ofcom on its website entitled “Protection for consumers against mid-contract price rise” published by Ofcom October 23 2013 (“the Guidance”). The Guidance states that it only applies to agreements for new landline, broadband and mobile contracts (including in some cases bundled contracts) entered into after this date. The Guidance further states that “The new Guidance comes into effect three months from today. It will apply to any new landline, broadband, and mobile contracts (including in some cases bundled contracts) entered into after this date” The Guidance therefore only applies to agreements entered into on or after 23 January 2014.
32. The Claimant entered into the Agreement with the Respondent prior to 23 January 2014 and therefore the Guidance is not applicable to the Agreement.
33. In respect to agreements that were entered into prior to 23 January 2014 the Guidance adds that “[1.30] for existing contracts, GC9.6 will continue to apply as it does now. Any question regarding whether a price increase meets
the material detriment requirement will be considered on a case by case basis.”
34. The Respondent submits that as the Agreement predates 23 January 2014, the question as to whether the price increase is or is not of material detriment must be considered only on the express terms applicable to the Agreement and the unique facts relating the Claimant’s circumstances rather than on the basis provisions contained within the Guidance.
35. In the absence of any definition of material detriment provided through the operation of General Condition 9.6 the Respondent submits that general definitions applied in the Oxford English Dictionary (“OED”) as to the interpretation of the words ‘material’ and ‘detriment’ should be applied. The OED applies the following definitions
Material - Significant; important:
Law (Of evidence or a fact) significant or relevant, especially to the extent of determining a cause or affecting a judgement
Detriment - The state of being harmed or damaged:
36. The Respondent submits, without prejudice to the express terms within the Agreement, that for the increase to be of material detriment to the Claimant, the Claimant must establish that it is both significant and capable of causing harm or damage to the Claimant. The Claimant has not provided
any evidence to support the proposition that the increase causes the Claimant significant harm or damage.
37. In respect to the Agreement the effect of the increase, which was an increase equivalent to the prevailing RPI of 2.7%, in actual monetary terms was to increase the amounts payable per month by the sum of £0.99. The increase is in line with inflation and thus is in keeping with the general cost of living. In real terms the effect of the increase is cost neutral. The Respondent submits that the increase of £0.99 cannot be described as being significant and nor does it causes real harm or damage to the Claimant.
38. Further the Claimant has not provided any evidence to establish that the increase of £0.99 per month will cause the Claimant significant harm or damage.
39. The remainder of this defence is pleaded without prejudice to the above position.
40. Further or alternatively, the material detriment issue constitutes a complicated issue of law.
41. 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.
42. 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 GC9.6. 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.
43. The application of the material detriment test is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the increase in charges could be of some detriment to the Claimant. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant establish that that increase is of material detriment.
44. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate her Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within her 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.
45. Furthermore, The Respondent avers that pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 it can increase any Price Plan charge so long as the requisite 30 days’ written notice is given. The Respondent denies that the Agreement implies a price change can only occur annually and submits that the Claimant is not a
position to speculate as to the Respondent’s intention when drafting agreements.
46. 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 13 June 2014

Thanks in advance.

Mikmonken

This looks predominantly the same as the previous defences that EE have submitted, so many of the arguments will be the same and can be taken from the standard template, but will need referencing the paragraphs though.

Where they seem to have changed tact though is that they are saying it's of neutral impact on you, so not of material detriment para 37 onwards and in para 16 says you failed to give notice when T&Cs changed. I'm not sure how to respond to those points but I think RC has something re the fail to give notice as they didn't clearly state it was your right to.

With material detriment it isn't neutral as RPI is the cost of a basket of goods, a basket of goods is generally bought weekly and not by contract and not wholly comparable (that's probably not what you should say though)

Hope this helps a little, your case isn't about what contract you're on, it's about the fact they haven't responded to your comments poor customer service. So don't worry about that too much.

Hope that helps, you'll just have to compare your defence with that on the fightmobileincreases.com it'll take time but hopefully be worth it in the end

corsaman2002

aye wrote: »

You mentioned earlier you had the same adjudicator as me, just wondering if you stuck to using all the templates supplied by RC? Hopefully I'll get the same result!

I used excatly the same as everyone else word for word.

Fingers crossed for you

edi

Just a note to thank RC for the brilliant job. You have put the 'so-called' consumer organizations to shame by encouraging as well as assisting us to stand up against crooked corporates. Strange that the mighty Which? seem to think emailing Mr Numpty at EE will do the trick esp when he care a damn. Best wishes for your speedy recovery m8.

muse213

Got a couple of questions, once you've accepted it, how long does it take for EE to usually send the PAC code etc, and how do they send you the PAC code, via email?