MSE News: O2 to hike its prices by 2.7% - can you leave your contract penalty-free?

GolfBravo

ChilliP2012 wrote: »

Pretty much, but don't be downbeat as they could of easily misconstrued anything I have sent them in an email. Which knowing these muppets and how they operate, would be easy for them to do.

Like this?

ChilliP2012

Lmao, nearly fell off my chair :rotfl:

RandomCurve

Hi, I'm coming to this party a bit late, but I have been assisting someone on another forum with this very issue of the O2 price rise and the ombudsman's refusal to accept the case, and I have also been in touch with Ofcom. The whole forum is only 4 pages.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818999

I have not read all of the posts so I apologise in advance if I am covering old ground, but I will copy and paste from the other forum:
The approach we have taken to the increase and the reason put forward for it not been enforceable,
The Case to the ombudsman,
Correspondence with Ofcom.

The issue with the Ombudsman is that they are not reading the reason for the complaint - the complaint we put in starts of by saying that we are not challenging the business decision!

The other thing to be aware of (and on a quick scan of previous post this has been mentioned) is that just because O2 have a clause in their contract that says they can increase prices does NOT necessarily mean that legally they can. I would go as far as to say that even their new Post 23rd Jan contracts which very clearly state that RPI would be applied in March may not actually be enforceable in a court of law.

One final thing (that is not in any of the posts that I am about to copy here). I followed a link somebody on the forum has posted which links back to the O2 website and it says on the website quite openly that O2 only started drawing customers attention to price rise clauses in their adverts from January - so that will be your evidence for anybody claiming that the price rise clause was not clearly and adequately drawn to your attention. Why would you need to read a contract if you have been lead to believe the bargain you are signing up to has fixed benefits for a fixed period, and the price was only ever quoted as £x per month?

RandomCurve

Below is a standard letter that anybody on an EE/Orange/T-Mobile/Virgin/Vodafone/O2 contract could use - it demonstrates the points being argued


Dear Customer Services Representative,

Re: Mobile PhoneNumber 07xxxxxxxxx


I am writing to you to request that you reverse all price rises applied to my fixed term contract and credit my account so that any future payment is also in line with our original agreement. (if your account is closed replace this with a request for a cheque to refund the sums taken)

On review of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) general guidance on the UTCCRs I believe that the price variation clause in our contract is in breach of the UTCCRS and therefore unenforceable by I]Company name[/I as it breaches the following sections of the UTCCRs:

1. The price variation clause was not clearly and adequately drawn to my attention during the sales process
a. Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (i) & (L) and OFT Group 9 guidelines especially Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.4 and Group 12 especially 12.4


Without prejudice to the above
2. The price variation is discretionary (capped by RPI, but not linked to anything at all)
a. Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (J) and OFT Group 10 guidelines especially Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3b

Without prejudice to the above
3. You can not Implement a price rise clause other than for the purpose stated in the contract (there is no purpose stated in the contract– hence why it is discretionary).
a. Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (L) and OFT Group 12 guidelines especially Paragraphs 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3

Without prejudice to the above
4. You can not pass risks to me that I]Company name[/I is better able to control or anticipate
a. Group18b of the OFT Guidelines especially paragraphs 18.2.1, 18.2.3 and 18.2.5

Under UTCCRs Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (Q) the burden of proof does not lie with the consumer, therefore I put I]Company name[/I to strict proof that:

5. That the price variation is not discretionary

Without prejudice to the above
6. The price increase applied to my contract is an accurate reflection of cost increases incurred in operating my contract –over and above those already factored into the initial contract price;

Without prejudice to the above
7. That the initial price of the contract had not already factored in any anticipated cost increases associated with the operation of a [24] month contract

Without prejudice to the above
8. The price variation clause was clearly and adequately bought to my attention at point of sale


After considering the contents of this email I trust that sufficient credit will be placed on my account in the next billing cycle such that I am only ever charged the originally agreed contract price for the entire duration of the contract, [if your contract has ended then ask for a cheque to the value of the sums taken over and above the originally agreed contract price]. Should I]Company name[/I be of the opinion that a full refund is not due then in your response to the points above please provide the name and contact details of the adjudication scheme to which you belong.

For the avoidance of doubt:
9. I am not seeking a standard letter informing me that you have complied with GC 9.6. Any such response will be considered a lack of a duty of care in responding to my request;
10. I am not seeking to challenge I]Company name[/I business decision to raise its prices (that is a decision for I]Company name[/I to make) I am challenging whether the contract clause is enforceable under the UTCCRs 1999 for the reasons stated above (Paragraphs 1 to 4).


Regards


O2s response can be found at Post #30 on: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818999

RandomCurve

The second letter sent to O2 - Just noticed that in the section on what cost increases O2 suffered, it should have included that the cost of the handset could not possibly be subjected to an inflationary increase!!!




Dear Mr Malloch,

Thank you or your correspondence of XXXXX. I have considered the response received, and still believe – as detailed below – that the price variation clause in our contract is unenforceable by O2. In light of my response below I request that O2 reconsiders its’ position on the price increase as applied to my contract and repay all sums taken under the price variation clause as originally requested. If on review O2s’ position remains unchanged can you state that this is O2s’ final position in order that I may progress this with the Ombudsman

Regards.



XXXX



Without prejudice
1 – Price rise not clearly and adequately brought to my attention.

MY contract was entered into on line, and whilst there was a box to check that I had read the T&Cs the narrative with that box did not state “I have read the T&Cs which contain a price vacation clause”. All screens prior to this screen only ever mention the monthly price in relation to the fixed allowances and fixed length of the contract. There was no mention of “initial monthly price” or “variable month price” just a fixed number of months and a price. Therefore I had no expectation that the contract would contain a price variation clause and I entered into the contract with a genuine belief and expectation that the bargain I had signed up for was a contract with fixed allowances, for a fixed term and with a fixed price.


Without prejudice
2 The price variation is discretionary (capped by RPI, but not linked to anything at all)

My reference to Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (J) was in relation to the O2 price variation clause 5.2 being discretionary and I will address this point further in 3 below. However I disagree with your interpretation that you are not varying the terms of the contract, the term I agreed to was a monthly payment of £61. Indeed as you will be aware Ofcom addressed this very point in its statement on mid-term price increases which was published on 23rd October at paragraph 3.31 which is as follows:

3.31 We note Sky and Telefonica’s question as to whether a price increase in accordance with a price variation term can be considered to be a “modification to the contractual conditions” covered by Article 20(2). We consider that a price increase constitutes a change to the price agreed at the time the contract was concluded and is therefore a “modification to the contractual conditions”. The price variation term merely enables (or purports to enable) that change to occur.

I would further argue that the fact you wrote to me giving me 30 days’ notice as per your obligations under GC 9.6 and USD 2002/22/EC is further evidence that this is indeed a modification to the terms of our contract.


Without prejudice
3 You cannot implement a price rise clause other than for the purpose stated in the contract.

Whilst your Clause may be “very similar” to the example to the one in the OFT guidance the guidance also states (12.4) that they are only “likely to be acceptable”, it does categorically state that they are acceptable. This also needs to be read in conjunction with 12.2:

12.2 Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has become bound to pay is obviously objectionable……... It also applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where consumers are 'captive' – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel

12.4 Terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable

Whilst the contract states how often and by how much prices can be varied there is no reference in clause 5.2 as to the grounds on which O2 can increase prices, hence why it is a discretionary price increase. The fact that clause 5.3 places a limit on the price variation (RPI) does not indicate that O2 can only increase prices if O2s costs increase. Your response refers to the contract “talking about RPI” you do not state that the contract “only allows price variations in line with cost increases”, and that is because the contract does not state that. There is a World of difference between:
· Increasing prices due to cost increases incurred byO2 and
· Increasing prices in line with RPI


Without prejudice
4 You cannot pass risks to me that O2 is better able to control or anticipate.

You are trying to placing on me a burden of an increased price based on RPI. I am not claiming that O2 is in a position to control RPI; I am claiming that O2 is better placed than I am to control and anticipate likely costs increase in its business over an 18 month period. O2 can control/anticipate:

· Pay increases to its staff,
· Cost increases associated with leases
· Maintenance costs
· Call termination charges – which are fixed and agreed and published in advance by Ofcom and have decreased approximately 50% between December 2011 and May 2013.
· Cost of the “spectrum” was incurred in April 2000 and therefore not subject to any cost increase.
· Utility charges

So I am at a loss as to what costs O2 are unable to anticipate or control?


Without prejudice
5 O2 to provide evidence that the price variation is not discretionary

Your response does not provide any evidence to support O2s claim that the price rise is not discretionary


Without prejudice
6 O2 to provide evidence that the price increase applied to my contract is an accurate reflection of cost increases incurred in operating my contract –over and above those already factored into the initial contract price

Your response does not address the point of proving that O2s costs in operating my contract OVER and ABOVE those factored in to the initial price have increased by RPI. You state in response to my point 7 below that O2 have indeed factored in some anticipated cost increases into the initial price of the contract– and the burden of proof lies with O2 to provide evidence that your costs have increased over and above those factored in. In respect to RPI the “basket of goods” referred to has very little – if anything – to do with the cost incurred by O2 in operating my contract - Food/Clothing/Holidays/Toys/Sports Equipment/Tobacco/Alcohol etc. You will also know that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) publish Service Provider Price Indices (SPPI) for specific industries including Telecoms. The Telecom indices show that costs have decreased between 2005 and 2012 by some 12%. A review of Telefonica’s own Annual report for 2012 contains the following year on year operating expense price decreases:

· Page 83 & 90 Company Worldwide Operating Expense decreased by 4.9%
· Page 110 European Operating Expense have decreased by 15.5%, and
· Page 111 European Mobile phone Operating Expense has decreased by 14.8%

So please provide evidence that O2s’ costs in operating my contract OVER and ABOVE those factored into the initial price have increased by RPI, which was the reason stated in your price increase communication.


Without prejudice
7 O2 to provide evidence that the initial price of the contract had not already factored in any anticipated cost increases associated with the operation of my 18 month contract

Given that O2 now admit that they have (as required) factored in anticipated cost increases into the initial price of my contract can O2 provide evidence that demonstrates that you have not double counted those factors when applying an RPI increase to my 18 month contract?


O2 response at post #44
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818999

RandomCurve

The first part of the case sent to the Ombudsman - note it clearly sates:
Please note this compliant is not against O2s business decision to increases prices, as a business O2 is free to make any business decision its o choses, this compliant is about the enforceability of the contract clause that O2 have relied upon to apply the price increase.




Resolution sought:

That the price increase applied to my account is cancelled. All sums taken from my account in excess of the originally agreed contract price are refunded, and that future charges are made at the value of the originally agreed contract price.


Compliant:

Please note this compliant is not against O2s business decision to increases prices, as a business O2 is free to make any business decision its o choses, this compliant is about the enforceability of the contract clause that O2 have relied upon to apply the price increase.

On Date O2 wrote to me informing me of an increase in the cost of my fixed term contract price from £X to £Y which applies from Date until Date when the contracted ended/will end.

I believe that under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 the price variation clause that O2 are relying is unfair and unenforceable for the following reasons:


Without prejudice
1. The price variation clause was not clearly and adequately drawn to my attention during the sales process

a. Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (i) & (L) and OFT Group 9 guidelines especially Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.4 and Group 12 especially 12.4


Without prejudice
2. The price variation is discretionary (capped by RPI, but not linked to anything at all)

a. Schedule2 Paragraph 1 (J) and OFT Group 10 guidelines especially Paragraphs 10.2 and10.3b



Without prejudice
3. O2 cannot Implement a price rise clause other than for the purpose stated in the contract (there is no purpose stated in the contract – hence why it is discretionary).

a. Schedule2 Paragraph 1 (L) and OFT Group 12 guidelines especially Paragraphs 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3


Without prejudice
4. O2 cannot pass risks to me that O2 is better able to control or anticipate
a. Group18b of the OFT Guidelines especially paragraphs 18.2.1, 18.2.3 and 18.2.5


Without prejudice
b. O2 have not acted in good faith in applying a price rise to an 18 month contract.

DETAILS

Without prejudice
1 – Price rise was not clearly and adequately brought to my attention.

My contract was entered into on line, and whilst there was a box to check that I had read the T&Cs the narrative with that box did not state “I have read the T&Cs which contain a price vacation clause”. All screens prior to this screen only ever mention the monthly price in relation to the fixed allowances and fixed length of the contract. There was no mention of “initial monthly price” or “variable month price” just a fixed number of months and a price. Therefore I had no expectation that the contract would contain a price variation clause and I entered into the contract with a genuine belief and expectation that the bargain I had signed up for was a contract with fixed allowances, for a fixed term and with a fixed price.


Without prejudice
2 The price variation is discretionary (capped by RPI, but not linked to anything at all)

12.2 Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has become bound to pay is obviously objectionable……... It also applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where consumers are 'captive' – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel

Whilst the contract states how often and by how much prices can be varied there is no reference in clause 5.2 as to the grounds on which O2 can increase prices, hence it is a discretionary price increase. The fact that clause 5.3 places a limit on the discretion that O2 can use (RPI) it does not indicate that O2 can only increase prices if O2s costs increase, there is a World of difference between:

· Increasing prices due to cost increases incurred by O2 and
· Increasing prices in line with RPI

Therefore as a discretionary price variation clause it is unenforceable under the UTCCRs

Without prejudice
3 O2 cannot implement a price rise clause other than for the purpose stated in the contract

The contract does not state a reason as to the circumstances under which O2 can increase its charges therefore it is unenforceable.

Without prejudice, the price rise letter indicates that the price rise is necessary due to inflation, however the OFT guidance states that

12.4 Terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable

O2 have relied on the fact that they have referenced RPI, however RPI is not a relevant inflation factor in this situation as the RPI represents a “basket of goods” which has very little – if anything – to do with the cost incurred byO2 in operating my contract - Food/Clothing/Holidays/Toys/Sports Equipment/Tobacco/Alcohol.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) publishes quarterly statistics that would be more relevant to my contract - Service Provider Price Indices (SPPI) for specific industries including Telecoms. The Telecoms indices show that costs have decreased.

There is also a body of evidence within Telefonica’s Annual report for 2012 that seems to indicate that rather than O2s costs increasing they have actually DECREASED and therefore there are no grounds for applying an RPI (or any other) increase to my contract:

· Page 83 & 90 Company Worldwide Operating Expense decreased by 4.9%
· Page 110 European Operating Expense have decreased by 15.5%, and
· Page 111 European Mobile phone Operating Expense has decreased by 14.8%

Therefore the evidence above suggests that the price increase is less to do with O2s increased costs and more to do with O2s profit line which is specifically not allowed under the UTCCRS:

10.4 …… Where the criteria of reasonableness are vague, or clearly meant to include the best commercial interests of the business, there will be scope for the supplier to change the bargain unfairly to the detriment of consumers, simply on the basis that he needs to protect his profit margins.


Without prejudice
4 O2 cannot pass risks to me that O2 is better able to control or anticipate

O2 are trying to place on me a burden of an increased price based on RPI, however O2 is better placed than I am to control and anticipate likely cost increases in its business over an 18 month period. O2 can control/anticipate:

· Pay increases to its staff (general wage inflation has been at 1.1% throughout 2012),
· Cost increases associated with leases (contracts should have fixed review periods and O2 should reasonably be able to anticipate changes)
· Maintenance costs
· Call termination charges – which are fixed and agreed and published in advance by Ofcom and have decreased approximately 50% between December 2011 and May 2013.
· Cost of the “spectrum” was incurred in April 2000 and therefore not subject to any cost increase.
· Utility charges (increase could have been factored in)

So there should be no major cost components that O2 are unable to either anticipate or control in an 18 month contract given that O2 is:

· An experienced telecommunications company,
· Are operating in a mature UK market, and
· The UK market has been relatively stable over the past few years (no hyperinflation).

In deed O2 have a duty of care to factor in inflationary pressures into their initial contract price, and O2 have informed me that they have factored some cost increases in

“Like any business, we try to factor in anticipated costs associated with the operation of our business to the extent possible”

Therefore I have no way of knowing if O2 are now “double counting” cost increases to their advantage and my detriment, which is covered by 12.3 of the OFT guidance

12.3 A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because is not discretionary – for example, a right to increase prices to cover increased costs experienced by the supplier. Suppliers are much better able to anticipate and control changes in their own costs than consumers can possibly be. In any case, such a clause is particularly open to abuse, because consumers can have no reasonable certainty that the increases imposed on them actually match net cost increases

Given:
· the statements in O2s annual accounts,
· the ONS SPPI for telecoms,
· The fact that RPI is not a relevant statistic in this case, and
· O2s own admission that some inflationary impacts were factored into the initial contract price,
then O2 should be put to strict evidence that their costs in operating my contract have indeed increased by RPI over and above those costs already factored in.


5. O2 have not acted in Good Faith

O2 appear to be saying that as they are last communications provider to increases prices and as all the others have done this, then this must be perfectly alright. This in no way demonstrates how O2 costs have increased over and above inflation pressures already factored into my initial contract price. Additionally I am aware of consumers who have had price variation clauses declared unenforceable and have had the price rise refunded. Indeed Ofcom itself in its consultation on midterm price rises identified consumer harm caused by the lack of transparency of these clauses.

As O2 will be aware when they wrote to me as required under GC 9.6 and as a communications provider GC 9.6 is the UK enactment of USD 20/2 and that directive is clear that ANY modification to the contract gives rise to my right to cancellation. When O2 wrote to me they never made my cancellation rights clear and have relied on my (then) ignorance of the rules to apply this price increase. This goes against the principle of open and honest dealings with me. Additionally as it appears O2 costs have actually decreased then the cost increase reason for the increase is not accurate. It may be that O2s revenues have declined due to changes in call termination charges, but these decreases were know well in advance and could have been factored into my initial contract price, but of course a loss of revenue is NOT an increase in costs which is the pretext O2 are using for the increase, so again O2 are not acting in good faith. Indeed points 1 to 4 of my reasoning why this price increase is unenforceable shows that O2 have not acted in Good Faith.

RandomCurve

The remainder of the case to the Ombudsman.


Other points raised in O2s second email to me

A. O2 Statement
a. The term in our contract enables a price increase to occur and is not a modification to the contractual conditions.

b. O2 are arguing that because they have a price variation clause then they can apply it – the fact is that if the clause is not compliant with the UTCCRs then the clause is not enforceable. They are also claiming that they are not modifying the contract as the price variation clause is in the contract however both Ofcom and the UTTCRs suggest otherwise:

c. Ofcom addressed this point in its statement on mid-term price increases which was published on 23rd October at paragraph 3.31 which is as follows:

i. 3.31 We note Sky and Telefonica’s question as to whether a price increase in accordance with a price variation term can be considered to be a “modification to the contractual conditions” covered by Article 20(2). We consider that a price increase constitutes a change to the price agreed at the time the contract was concluded and is therefore a “modification to the contractual conditions”. The price variation term merely enables (or purports to enable) that change to occur

d. Additionally the OFT guidance to the UTCCRs at 10.2 clearly demonstrates that a “variation clause” is a modification to the contract:

i. 10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs or penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely to be considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that way. A variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract even though it was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments……………………”


B. O2s statement:
a. A price rise clause attempting to allocate a risk to customers in the OFT's guidance in paragraph 18 relates to passing the burden for things like loss or damage to goods or services to a customer. We are not pursuing you for damages or losses

b. OFT guidance at 18
i. 18.2.2 Particular suspicion falls on any term which makes the consumer bear a risk that the supplier could remove or at least reduce by taking reasonable care

c. The guidance at 18.2.2 is clear that it is a burden for ANY risk, whilst the example the OFT quote does not relate to price, it should be remembered that the example is just that – an example. O2 are clearly trying to pass the burden of increased cost onto me.

C. O2 Statement
a. The RPI figure is nationally recognised and according to the Office of National Statistics, an accurate and fair reflection of cost increases incurred by consumers and businesses alike.

b. This is factually incorrect. RPI has been recognised by ONS as a “flawed statistic” in that its calculation does not meet current international standards:

c. From the ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/march-2013/stb---consumer-price-indices---march-2013.html#tab-Retail-Prices-Index--RPI--and-RPIJ-

i. Retail Prices Index (RPI) and RPIJ

ii. In accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the Retail Prices Index and its derivatives have been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics. The full assessment report can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website.


D. O2 Statement
a. We cannot provide you with further evidence beyond a nationally recognised figure.

b. If O2 cannot produce evidence that their cost have increased by RPI (over and above those parts of its costs that O2 have already acknowledged have had inflationary pressures factored into my 18 month contract) then how can I be sure that O2 are not both double counting those factors already applied AND are merely attempting to benefit their profit line? A practice that the UTCCRs are designed to protect me from. The burden of proof that O2 are not double counting and that their costs have increased by RPI lies with O2 (Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (Q))


E. O2 Statement

a. The alternative would be to always price significantly higher than predicted inflation (e.g. 5%) in order to protect against it. This would be even less in the customer's favour given that it would result in a higher tariff over the entire course of the term. Increasing by actual inflation mid-contract means that customers benefit from the difference between a potentially inaccurate prediction and the actual rate.

b. I do not think that a discussion on competitive practices in the mobile phone industry is at all relevant to the fairness and enforceability of this clause, however as a counter argument to O2 assumptions above then O2 would have to price competitively and honestly when setting initial contract prices, as if it sets too high a factor for inflation then it will not be competitive, this coupled with the fact that O2 cannot pass on cost increases gives O2 a real incentive to control costs which is what drives a competitive market and prevents consumer harm from price variation clauses . O2 are free to pass on cost increases to new customers not already “trapped” in fixed term contracts and it is the very fact that O2 are trying to pass on costs to “trapped” customers that distorts the initial market price and competition.


F. O2 statement
a. This was the first time that 02 applied a price increase in line with RPI and we were the last mobile operator to do it.

b. O2 appear to be saying that as they are last communications provider to increases prices and as all the others have done this, then this must be perfectly alright. This in no way demonstrates how O2 costs have increased over and above inflationary pressures already factored into my initial contract price, nor proves that the O2 term is enforceable. Neither does it demonstrate that O2 have acted in Good faith. Additionally I am aware of consumers on contrast outside of O2 who have had price variation clauses declared unenforceable and have had the price rise refunded. Indeed Ofcom itself in its consultation on midterm price rises identified consumer harm caused by the lack of transparency of these clauses.

RandomCurve

The response from the Ombudsman was the same as everyone else has received, re "business decision".

RandomCurve

I then wrote to Ofcom to get their view of whether or not the Ombudsman should be taking on these cases (based on the arguments contained in the case sent to the ombudsman and Ofcom's response and my follow-up were as follows:




This was Ofcoms response to my request for them to explain if the scheme covers this situation (Q1 below):

2 February e mail

ADR Schemes – Ofcoms response:

The ADR schemes will take on a case if it falls within their own terms of reference. They determine whether a complaint falls within their remit on a case-by-case basis by considering, among other things, the nature of each individual complaint. You should therefore contact the relevant scheme provider directly.

I have responded with the below (On Monday 24th Feb - and await a reply):

The ADR schemes were set up by Ofcom and Ofcom has the contract with the ADR scheme therefore Ofcom must have terms of reference/Service Level Agreements which will included what is and is not covered. Therefore I fail to understand why you are asking the consumer to “negotiate” with the ADR scheme. Can you please clarify if the following two points are covered by the ADR – as a reminder the Ofcom website says:

If you believe any of the terms and conditions in your ‘phone or broadband contract are unfair, you should contact your provider.

If this doesn’t resolve your problem, ask your provider for a deadlock letter. This enables you to take your complaint to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme.

Q 1
Case 1: A challenge to a CP that their price rise is not enforceable under the UTCCRs as a price rise in a fixed term contract is unfair due to the reasons I have laid out in earlier emails (I don’t expect Ofcom to answer if it is fair or not, just if this does or does not fall within the ADR remit).


Q 2
Case 2: A CP changes its T&Cs claiming the change is not of material detriment, the consumer begs to differ

RandomCurve

So I don't know if the above posts are of help to anyone, but that is the stage we are at. I will post Ofcom's response to my email here once it is received.


Finally I made the points about a company not being allowed to have an inflation price rise in a fixed term contract, in connection with an Orange Contract. The arguments FAILED at CISAS (the EE Ombudsman), put I pursued it to the Small Claims Court and on 21st Jan the following result.....






My son started an action against EE in the Small Claims Court in December, his claim was based on all of the arguments presented in this forum, and today he RECEIVED A CHEQUE FROM EE REFUNDING THE PRICE RISE, plus interest, plus postage costs and the court fee!:j.

EE decided to settle "out of Court" and in the accompanying letter state that "settlement does not admit liability or the merits of the claim" (strange then that they decided to send a cheque!). So it seems EE at least are keen to stop a court making a ruling!

So if you are an EE/Orange/T-Mobile customer and are miffed at having a mid term price hike - then contact EE as per the template letters on this forum.:)


And regardless of who your contract is with - the arguments are still the same


I'll post the "summary" part of my sons claim - you will see it echo's what is in the earlier posts.


The summary is at post #55
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818999


The point being that if the ombudsman still refuses to acceptt the case, then go to the Small Claims Court!