Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

Mikmonken

CISAS say you can't appeal, but you can reject the offer and take it to Small Claim Court.

It seems the brief winning spell may have come to an abrupt end!!:sad:

claireb1 wrote: »

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.

Mikmonken

got my CISAS claim too, and not a winner here either, it would seem RS thinks I should have cancelled my contract back when they changed the T&C's

h. I observe that the company provided notice of a change in its terms and conditions to the customer and he could have terminated his contract at that point if he had wished to do so. He only exercised a right to terminate at a later point after receiving notification of a price increase.

i. This to me is decisive: having accepted the change to the terms, I do not accept that he can now argue that a change, as allowed by the revised terms, is of material detriment. While there may arguably be a detriment, it is not in the circumstances of this case a material one.

RC I have emailed info@fightmobileincreases.com

pau1200

The adjudicator's are missing the point and think that you will win in SCC. The argument that the change is not of material detriment is based on the fact that an RPI increase is not considered to be of material detriment. If that was the case then why did ofcom define material detriment to be of any increase to the customer. The adjudicator are claiming that you should have requested termination when the t+c changed but you can argue that change was of no detriment to you as nothing material had changed.
I see the adjudicators decision to be based on a flawed argument of material detriment that ofcom had to address to stop supplier increasing bills

ulaggy

Another defeat here. I'll post the full judgement when I get home but basically I'm not getting a termination, not getting a pac code. I get £15 though. I'd laugh but I'm fuming about this. The £15 is because T-Mobile failed to give me a detailed response.

Brief version is that I should have queried the change of T&C. Thanks Caroline Obolensky for !!!!!! all.

RC - Do you want me to forward the entire decision PDF or just copy and paste the info from it?

amf

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.

Damn...he is one of my adjudicators. I got another one for my second claim. Looks like all is now going pear shaped after a good start

Mikmonken

amf wrote: »

Damn...he is one of my adjudicators. I got another one for my second claim. Looks like all is now going pear shaped after a good start

It might be worth asking if you can change adjudicator but do it sooner rather than later, I lost too on the fact I should have left contract earlier.

tracy3108

After waiting over 2 and a half weeks I got my reply today, I WIN!!!


It said in part, however the only part I didn't get was an unlock code, so that's cancellation backdated 3 months, £75 and an apology.


Very pleased - Many thanks to everyone, especially RC who I hope is feeling better.


My adjudicator was Justine Mensa Bonsu and I (was) on Orange.

Swampsnake

Has anybody got a scorecard of what claims succeeded and which failed? Are price rise claims successful but T&C's not? Or is it a case of some adjudicators are more biased towards the company than others?

WraithGR

Sorry to hear about the defeats.. Tally still seems to be in favour of consumers though, so I'm keeping optimistic.

Also really glad I took the extra time to address EE's point about not asking to cancel at the time of the change in T&C's. It seems unfortunately some adjudicators are strongly favouring EE in this case... EE even admit they never let anyone know about the right to cancel since they don't recognize that changing the T&Cs gave anyone the right to cancel!

If anything, that last discrepancy between CISAS justification of the rejection and EE's admission of breaching GC9.6 in respect of the T&Cs should help in scc...

ulaggy

Adjudicator’s findings and reasons

8. I find that:

a. Having read the submissions, I consider that the dispute is over the interpretation and application of the company’s terms and conditions. As such, I accept that CISAS is able to consider the claim. I do not consider the dispute relates to a complicated issue of law.

b. In the interest of clarity, the account number to which the dispute relates is XXXXXX and mobile phone number XXXXXXX.

c. I note that the company attached the incorrect version of the terms and conditions relating to the customer’s dispute. The mistake was recognised by the customer, in his comments, and the correct version (CVN59A) was later presented by the company.

Whilst I can see that the company acknowledged the error, I accept the customer’s comments that it indicates that the company failed to manage the account with care and skill in this regard.

d. The customer sent an email to cancel the contract 08/04/14 which was not accepted by the company. The customer claims that he is entitled to cancel the contract without penalty in accordance with GC9.6. The customer asserts that the change is of material detriment to him.

e. Whilst I note the increase effective from 28/05/13, I do not accept that the customer is entitled to cancel the contract in accordance with GC9.6. It is important to consider what is reasonable for the parties to understand in regards to the contract terms. In this instance clause 7.2.3.3 clearly stipulates that the customer is able to cancel the contract without penalty if the increase is higher than the most recently published RPI figure.

f. I note that the customer was told of the increase on or around 05/04/14 and that the available published figure on this date was February 2014 which showed the RPI at 2.7%.

g. In light of the fact that the customer does not appear to have disputed the change in terms and conditions when it was amended, I consider it reasonable to understand that
the customer agreed to the revised contract terms. The clause is clear and unambiguous. As such, I accept that the customer is bound by the terms of the contract.

h. I do not consider that the increase exceeds the RPI figure. I accept that it was reasonable for the company to use the figure published for February 2014 for an increase in May 2014, in order to provide sufficient and reasonable notice to its customers.

i. Therefore, having considered the parties’ submissions, I do not accept that the increase gives the customer the right to terminate the contract without penalty on the grounds of the changes being of material detriment to him. The customer had an opportunity to dispute the new terms when they were amended, but chose not to do so. As such, I accept that the company is able to increase the price plan in line with the RPI.

j. I note that the company replied to the customer’s complaint in what I consider to be a reasonable time frame. I do not accept the customer’s comments that there were unacceptable delays in the response. I note, for example, that the company replied to the customer’s email dated 08/04/14 on 15/04/14, requesting further information. The company provided a reply on 21/04/14 and again on 28/04/14.

k. Whilst I do not accept that there was a delay in the company’s response, I accept that had the company provided a more detailed reply to the customer’s complaint, it may have avoided the dispute escalating. Namely, the company could have provided more detail about why GC9.6 would not apply and why it considered that the increase was not of material detriment to the customer.

l. The company did not believe that the price increase gave the customer the right to terminate the contract. As such, I do not accept that the company was obliged to inform the customer of his right to cancel. Therefore, I do not uphold the claim of £36.00 submitted by the customer in this regard.

m. I do not accept that there was an unacceptable delay in the company’s response, as such I do not make an award. However, I do accept that the company could have provided a more detailed response in its replies, and that it made an error in the management of the account by submitting the wrong set of terms and conditions in its defence. Therefore, I accept that the company has failed in its duty of care in this regard.

I consider the customer’s claim of £36.00 disproportionate in the company’s shortfall in its duty of care owed in regards to its obligation to manage the account with care and skill. As such, I direct that the company pays £15.00, which I consider a reasonable sum of compensation.

n. For the reasons given, I do not accept that the customer is entitled to the other remedies claimed.

Conclusion

9. My conclusion on the main issues is that:

a. The company has failed in its duty of care to the customer.

b. The reasons given by the customer are sufficient to justify compensation in the sum of £15.00.

10. Therefore, my decision is that the claim succeeds in part.

tl:dr - Bah humbug