Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Pilotmic

Well, its happened, the first loss.

It seems to be down to him thinking my claim is too close to the end of my contract (ends sept). The other reasons given are that I should've cancelled free of charge when the terms changed. Which I obviously wasn't offered as you will all know the deal. His last problem with my claim was that even though I put my claim in because of the price rise, although agreeing it was detrimental he didn't feel it was materially detrimental. I hope you all have more luck, I seem destined for the SCC.

I find it amazing though, RC - if you have time, help would be appreciated. My father in law used exactly the same response to a contract taken out a month later, and with a different adjudicator he won. Is there any way of an appeal against CISAS as far as unfair treatment?

snakeyface

Pilotmic wrote: »

Well, its happened, the first loss.

It seems to be down to him thinking my claim is too close to the end of my contract (ends sept). The other reasons given are that I should've cancelled free of charge when the terms changed. Which I obviously wasn't offered as you will all know the deal. His last problem with my claim was that even though I put my claim in because of the price rise, although agreeing it was detrimental he didn't feel it was materially detrimental. I hope you all have more luck, I seem destined for the SCC.

I find it amazing though, RC - if you have time, help would be appreciated. My father in law used exactly the same response to a contract taken out a month later, and with a different adjudicator he won. Is there any way of an appeal against CISAS as far as unfair treatment?

I'm sorry you had this result. I hope SCC works out better for you. Do you mind me asking which adjudicator you had?

Mikmonken

Pilotmic wrote: »

Well, its happened, the first loss.

It seems to be down to him thinking my claim is too close to the end of my contract (ends sept). The other reasons given are that I should've cancelled free of charge when the terms changed. Which I obviously wasn't offered as you will all know the deal. His last problem with my claim was that even though I put my claim in because of the price rise, although agreeing it was detrimental he didn't feel it was materially detrimental. I hope you all have more luck, I seem destined for the SCC.

I find it amazing though, RC - if you have time, help would be appreciated. My father in law used exactly the same response to a contract taken out a month later, and with a different adjudicator he won. Is there any way of an appeal against CISAS as far as unfair treatment?

Doesn't bode well for me then if it was going to happen to anyone it would be me!

RandomCurve

@showmethemoola post 907

This is a significant change of tact by EE and will need 2 or 3 new paragraphs added to the defence response, I should be able to write them later this week if you can wait. If I don't respond in time send the standard defence but stress the PRE 23rrd JanuartGC 9,6 definition of not to your benefit or neutral.

Pilotmic

snakeyface wrote: »

I'm sorry you had this result. I hope SCC works out better for you. Do you mind me asking which adjudicator you had?

It was Richard Stevens. I wish you all luck. Next tact is going to be calling ee and telling them of me heading off to small claims court and seeing if they are willing to settle early having already had to pay £300 to keep me and go to cisas. I'll keep you all posted.

Mikmonken

Pilotmic wrote: »

It was Richard Stevens. I wish you all luck. Next tact is going to be calling ee and telling them of me heading off to small claims court and seeing if they are willing to settle early having already had to pay £300 to keep me and go to cisas. I'll keep you all posted.

Yep that's mind adjudicator too, good luck with this, i'll be keeping an eye out for your posts, mind contracts are up May 2015 and October 2015 so out will be interesting to see how this works out.

I find this interesting though - I should've cancelled free of charge when the terms changed. Which I obviously wasn't offered as you will all know the deal as you're right we could have but weren't told... maybe another application to CISAS could be on the cards???

pau1200

I'd love to see the response, and I'm not sure what you can do apart from SCC. According to CISAS webpage you don't have to accept the decision but you cannot appeal it. I would have thought you would have to reject it but I'd wait for RC to advise.


My first thoughts about what you have said about your response are:


The amount of time until the end of the contract should be irrelevant as a breach of the terms and conditions is a breach.


Also by agreeing that the change is detrimental but not material he clearly has a definition of material detriment that he has applied, I would ask for that definition and an explanation of why the OFCOM definition of any change in price is of material detriment wasn't applied?


I would also argue that when the t+c were changed there was no detrimental change at that time and seeing the grievance with the company is that the price increase is of material detriment I do not see how the two should be linked.


I wonder if you can email CISAS and claim that points set out in the complaint have not been fully addressed by the adjudicator. If your complaint hasn't been addressed you may be able to complain again maybe?


I'm awaiting my decision and my contract expires september also so I'm not holding my breath. If I fail I will be taking EE to SCC as the fact that we have 19 wins means we are right.

Pilotmic wrote: »

Well, its happened, the first loss.

It seems to be down to him thinking my claim is too close to the end of my contract (ends sept). The other reasons given are that I should've cancelled free of charge when the terms changed. Which I obviously wasn't offered as you will all know the deal. His last problem with my claim was that even though I put my claim in because of the price rise, although agreeing it was detrimental he didn't feel it was materially detrimental. I hope you all have more luck, I seem destined for the SCC.

I find it amazing though, RC - if you have time, help would be appreciated. My father in law used exactly the same response to a contract taken out a month later, and with a different adjudicator he won. Is there any way of an appeal against CISAS as far as unfair treatment?

factor29

factor29 wrote: »

Thanks again! :T

Have sent the response, and will keep you updated.

Ok response received -

Good afternoon

Thank you for contacting Vodafone.

As previously advised by Lorraine in our Directors office Vodafone are regulated by Ofcom.

Also Lorraine referred to the terms and conditions of your contract with Vodafone which highlights why you can not cancel without been charged the early termination fee.

You ask in your email dated 16th June 2014 "if Vodafone is still of the opinion that I am not entitled to a penalty free cancellation"

We have looked at your usage over the last 3 months and can see that your bills would not have increased by more than 10% as a result of the price increase. Therefore you are not eligible to cancel under the 10% clause.

If you would like to discuss this further please call our office on * between 8am-8pm 7 days a week.

claireb1

Got my decision back today The claim does not suceed. Any advice on appealing on this?

b. The company has updated its terms and conditions, effective 26 March 2014. Due notice of the change was provided between 29 January and 14 February 2014. I note that the customer did not request termination of the agreement at this point. Accordingly, I must find that, as the customer has not requested termination in line with the terms of the agreement (ie before the change takes effect), she has therefore accepted the change to the terms and conditions. I am therefore satisfied that the terms and conditions applicable to the customer’s contract is Version 01B

I did this from April letter I recieved I not had any other letter mentioning an increase.

claireb1

a. The company has submitted that the dispute falls outside the scope of the Scheme as it does not fall within Rule 2(g) stating that the dispute must be about bills, communication services, or the customer service provided. I do not accept this. Firstly the dispute relates to the customer’s future bills, specifically the price of the basic price plan. Secondly, determining material detriment in relation to this bill will also fit within the category of
4


billing. I am also not persuaded that the issue of material detriment is a complicated issue of law. I shall therefore proceed to determine the dispute in full.

b. The company has updated its terms and conditions, effective 26 March 2014. Due notice of the change was provided between 29 January and 14 February 2014. I note that the customer did not request termination of the agreement at this point. Accordingly, I must find that, as the customer has not requested termination in line with the terms of the agreement (ie before the change takes effect), she has therefore accepted the change to the terms and conditions. I am therefore satisfied that the terms and conditions applicable to the customer’s contract is Version 01B.

c. The customer submits that if the terms and conditions have been changed, then the Ofcom guidance relating to material detriment, effective to all contracts entered into after 23 January 2014, should apply to her. I do not accept this.

d. The change to the terms and conditions amounted to an amendment to an ancillary term, as opposed to a core term of the contract. The amendment was made in line with the terms themselves that allow for such changes. I find that the customer has accepted the updated terms and conditions but that as no other change has occurred to her contract, in particular to price or the end date of the minimum term, the amendment cannot be seen to amount to a new contract. I therefore find that the customer’s agreement is not automatically subject to the Ofcom guidance on material detriment applicable to new contracts.

e. The company has increased its prices in line with clauses 7.1.4 and 7.2.3.3 of the agreement. The price increase is of 2.7%. I note that clause 7.2.3.3 provides that a price increase will not give rise to the right to terminate without charge if the increase is not in excess of the RPI figure most recently published before notification of the price rise was given. As notice was given between 5 and 15 April 2014, the relevant RPI is that of February 2014, published on 25 March 2014.

f. In order to terminate the agreement without charge, the customer must show that the price increase is of material detriment. As above, the Guidance published by Ofcom is specifically not retroactive and does not apply to the customer’s agreement. I must therefore determine if the increase is of material detriment with regard to the evidence as a whole.

g. I am mindful that the terms and conditions have always had a price variation clause and have made reference to the RPI as the limit to any such increase. The clause has the effect of putting the customer on notice that the price may increase during the minimum
5


term of the agreement, and that if this increase is in excess of the RPI, it will give rise to a right to penalty-free termination.

h. The customer makes reference to the CPI being the accepted measure of inflation, and that an increase in excess of this will amount to a real terms increase and therefore will be material detriment. I do not accept this argument. The terms have provided for an increase that is no greater than the RPI and any such real terms increase in price must be viewed within this context.

i. I find that the terms and conditions provide the company with the right to implement a price increase up to the RPI. As the terms have always provided this right and the amended terms clarified rather than implemented this right, I find that any increase that is less than the RPI cannot be considered to be of material detriment unless the customer has individual, extenuating circumstances showing the effect of the increase would be materially detrimental to her. No such evidence has been provided.

j. I do not accept that the real terms increase amounts to material detriment within the context of the terms of the contract and that the agreement was entered into before the Ofcom guidance came into force. The customer was aware at the commencement of the agreement that the price could increase by no more than the RPI, and I find that this context is sufficient that any such increase cannot be considered to be of material detriment.

k. I also do not accept that the price increase amounts to the company applying 12 months of inflation to an 11 month period. The company previously increased its prices in May 2013. The disputed increase is effective from May 2014. The amended terms and conditions have clarified the relevant RPI for the purpose of the penalty-free termination right provided by clause 7.2.3.3. The increase itself is only effective twelve months after the previous increase; I am satisfied that this is an annual increase and that the customer has experienced no detriment as a result of the company clarifying the relevant RPI figure for the purposes of clause 7.2.3.3.

l. I also find no failure in the company’s duty of care in the manner in which it has handled the customer’s complaint. It has responded to correspondence and promptly referred the customer to CISAS. The customer has not been delayed in applying to CISAS and I am not persuaded that she has suffered any stress or inconvenience.

m. Accordingly, I find that the customer is not entitled to penalty-free termination as the price increase has not been shown to be of material detriment given the context of the date in
6


which the agreement was entered into. The customer is therefore not entitled to the remedies requested.

Conclusion
9. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has not failed in its duty of care to the customer.

b. The reasons given by the customer are not sufficient to justify back-dated penalty free termination, a PAC code, an unlock code and £50.00 compensation.

10. Therefore, my decision is that the claim does not succeed.

Alison Dablin LLB (Hons), MCIArb
Adjudicator