EE.T-Mob.Orange. Change T&C From 26th March 2014

RandomCurve

23six wrote: »

@RandomCurve I have a question regarding which payments will be refunded.

My bill period begins/ends every 9th of the month. T-Mobile generally take payments on the 19th-22nd of pretty much all months.

Now, my CISAS settlement says I'm due to be refunded from (or in their words; backlogged to) February 18.

Jan9-Feb8 bill payment was taken on Feb 19 according to My EE. Will this payment be included in the refund?

You pay in advance, but as the termination date is the day before the next payment I think you'll get everything refunded from 19th February until you use the PAC code, and possibly about 10 days or so worth of the payment you made in January.

RandomCurve

baldyj wrote: »

I think it is probably best to wait for RC to comment. I'm not sure whether it would be wise to pursue two lines of action at the same time.

I would go with the rejection of the T&C's as per RC's advice in #744, but at the same time follow RC's advice in #800. This way if you fail with the T&Cs argument you can go back to the price rise issue without having been deemed to have accepted the rise due to time lapsed.

That is what I would have recommended too.

RandomCurve

baldyj wrote: »

I WON!!

T Mobile/Post Oct '12/Used RC's Templates/Mark McGeoch adjudicated


Thanks once again to the mighty Random Curve!

You're welcome - and thank you for your efforts and support on this forum especially the "scoreboard". I hope you will stick with us for the next couple of months whilst the results come in and the SCC cases start.


I was really upset at the MAddy2K11 result, not just because of the way the case was lost, but I was going to rather cheekily ask if you could take on responding to most of the queries on this forum whilst I concentrated more on the price rise forum, but that plan has a changed a little now.

Just so there is no doubt - I will be posting up how to take this to the SCC, but in the meantime anybody who has lost should start the price rise cancelation email saga as a back up.

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

Post 97& 98(which you will recognise from this forum, and post 99 which is the first email template.

RandomCurve

lynus2004 wrote: »

New here and wanted to say thank you to everybody and in particular Random Curve for the effort put into creating the templates etc.

I won my claim and was awarded £100 on my Orange contract. The adjudicator was Andrew Walker.

No problem - and a big thank you to you for letting us know
:beer:

dg-25

Well I never got the defence from ee today. . Guess will have to wait till early next week. I did however receive my price rise notification. . Oh the irony!!

Bit concerned to read the issues about submitting supporting information via the online cisas form. Mine definitely were uploaded on my computer screen just Hope they got the full set of information and appendices. What would happen if the documents weren't uploaded successfully??

baldyj

Dils47 wrote: »

congrats

i got assigned Andrew Walker, but adjucitator got reassigned to another one due to unforeseen circumstances

would like to know what these unforeseen circumstances were

That's who I was assigned originally before it was given to Mark McGeoch.

RandomCurve

Maddy2k11 wrote: »

Just had my decision, I lost using RC's templates, although I feel that maybe my documents did not get uploaded..although I did contact them to check and they confirmed they had received it. Posted the reply below:

Decision
1. The claim does not succeed.

......

Adjudicator’s findings and reasons
18. I find that:

a. The dispute the customer states with the company is about the application of General
Condition 9.6, that is, whether the company has made a materially detrimental
modification to its terms and conditions and properly applied that condition. The
customer says that the company has made such a change but has not complied with the
condition. The company disputes this. The customer accepts the company can change
the conditions of the contract but argues that all changes to the contract cannot be
neutral as if they were the changes need not be made and that by definition the changes
must benefit the company otherwise the directors would be failing in their duty, effectively
any change cannot be to the customer’s benefit and is likely to be of material detriment
to the customer. Whilst I note the customer’s argument that he may at some point in the
future find himself not in a position to challenge a future price rise, however having
carefully considered all the circumstances I find that the customer has not presented
sufficient evidence to clearly prove this element of his claim.

b. The customer’s arguments are undermined in that he is does not seek to maintain the
existing terms of the contract so that he would not be disadvantaged in the future (which
he in any cases argues are unenforceable). This raises the question as to why the
customer entered the contract freely and willingly in the first place. Instead he seeks
financial compensation and wishes to leave his contract without early termination
charges being applied by the company. I find the claims of the customer to be based on
theoretical arguments of circumstances that may or may not happen in the future rather
than on any real dispute whereby the customer has suffered or lost through real
circumstances.

c. Overall I consider that the arguments presented by the customer are little more than
opinions which are insufficiently supported by evidence. On that basis I find the claim
fails


M. Coombes Davies B.Sc., B.Arch., Ph.D., RIBA, C.Arb.
Adjudicator

Well I did say these things are not guaranteed, but I have never seen a response like this one. If M. Coombes had considered the arguments and made a logical reasoned judgement in favour of EE, then all well and good, but what they have done is argued a case that was never at issue - it is if they are preparing a defence for EE - utter rubbish!


Stating that the argument is undermined because you have not asked for the old term to remain in force is ludicrous, the contract and GC 9.6 does not offer that as a remedy, it is either leave the contract or stay with the contract - If EE had offered you that as an alternative and you refused it then there is possibly an argument, but even that is weak as you don't have to accept an offer that weakens your actual contractual/regulatory rights! And why did they not use that argument against EE - i.e. why did EE not offer you the option to stay on the old terms if it is neutral to them either way - simply biased!
And why are they questioning why you entered the contract in the first place? You may have been happy to enter a contract which you thought you could escape should you need to, and your not happy having a term that restricts that right - your reasoning is none of M. Coombes business! You might have started the case because you had nothing better to do and wanted to cause trouble - it does not matter - if it is Material detriment it is material detriment motive is not an issue -EE wrote the contract and changed the contract and Ofcom made the regulations - not you!

And talking of Material detriment - did the esteemed M. Coombes ever rule on the actual issue?

Still we can rant and rave all we like and it won't change things as we used to say "Don't get mad, get EEven".


I will post some guides on how to take this to the SCC (basically a very simple 2 page form, plus copies of the correspondence), Before you start the claim you need to send EE a "Letter Before Action" - which basically sets out what your case is and what remedy you want (i.e a repeat of the case you submitted to CISAS) so all of the hard work is already done.


Some guys on the O2 forum are at the SCC stage and have posted up page 1 of the form - have a look it is really straight forward (ignore their second page - that is O2 saying they will defend the case).


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4876358

baldyj

RandomCurve wrote: »

You're welcome - and thank you for your efforts and support on this forum especially the "scoreboard". I hope you will stick with us for the next couple of months whilst the results come in and the SCC cases start.


I was really upset at the MAddy2K11 result, not just because of the way the case was lost, but I was going to rather cheekily ask if you could take on responding to most of the queries on this forum whilst I concentrated more on the price rise forum, but that plan has a changed a little now.

Just so there is no doubt - I will be posting up how to take this to the SCC, but in the meantime anybody who has lost should start the price rise cancelation email saga as a back up.

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

Post 97& 98(which you will recognise from this forum, and post 99 which is the first email template.

Yeah I'll stick around and help where I can.

I can't believe MAddy2K11's result either, and the verdict came from the head of the adjudicators! She seemed to have no grasp of the argument at all! Maybe EE have gotten to her.

snakeyface

Hi all,
I just received a letter from EE stating that they will increase the cost of my contract by 2.7%. I'm not happy!

I have sent the email in post #44, but my question to you lovely people is if I am now too late, or of I still have a chance to cancel my contract with this?

Thank you!

Nodding_Donkey

Had you sent the previous email rejecting the change in terms and conditions within 30 days of receiving the text? If not I think you need to take a different approach.

RandomCurve wrote: »

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

Post 97& 98(which you will recognise from this forum, and post 99 which is the first email template.