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

andrewmp

baldyj wrote: »

Check out #744 for a guide of where to fond what

Cheers! It's all getting a bit cluttered, I've replied now, hopefully it works, if not, it's no big deal, my two contracts only cost £30 per month, used to be £31 until they put it down to £30 per month, maybe that'll work in their favour too!!

Nodding_Donkey

Guys you need to read the thread, the response to the EE defence mentions specific paragraphs and you need to make sure that those paragraph numbers are relevant, change the numbers if need be. If you just cut and paste and the para numbers don't make sense then don't be surprised if your complaint fails.

andrewmp

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Guys you need to read the thread, the response to the EE defence mentions specific paragraphs and you need to make sure that those paragraph numbers are relevant, change the numbers if need be. If you just cut and paste and the para numbers don't make sense then don't be surprised if your complaint fails.

Whoops.

They did seem to match up, as I say, I'm not too bothered anyway, won't be the end of the world if it fails, I feel good it'll cost them £300 for being a bunch of beeps.

[Deleted User]

Received the defence from EE/Tmobile Today.
By comparing it with posts 617 & 618 I've noticed quite a lot of differences.
I do not want to bombard you all with the lengthy document, So I've only abstracted the differences here.

---

99% "Contracts" replaced with the word "Agreement"

99% "Clauses" replaced with the word "point"

Both "He/his" and "She/her" are used

No.4 and No.5 in the Defence I received
"4. The Claimant has been a customer of the Respondent since **** 2011, when she connected via the Respondent’s telephone sales department.
The Claimant is registered with the Respondent as a consumer and was allocated account number ****** upon connection. The Respondent submits that the Claimant has one active mobile telephone number on the above account, being ******* (“the Mobile Number”)."
"5. On **** 2013 the Claimant entered into a Service Upgrade Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent via its telephone sales department. The Claimant was made aware that the Agreement was subject to terms and conditions, which were offered to the Claimant prior to entering into the Agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. A copy of the terms and conditions were subsequently provided to the Claimant. "

No.7 and 8 in the defence - Condition Version numbers differ
"7. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the Terms and Conditions for Telephone Service and Equipment – Conditions Version 59. The Respondent submits that such terms and conditions relate to the original terms and conditions to the Agreement. "
"8. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of the amended terms and conditions – Conditions Version 59 A, to be subject to the Agreement and take effect as of the 26th March 2014. "

"9. The Respondent submits that this dispute, as per the Claimant’s application, arises from the Respondent’s amendment of the terms of the Agreement between the Claimant and Respondent. The amendment changed the circumstances in which a price rise gives the Claimant an automatic right to terminate the Agreement, without paying a cancellation charge. "
NO "The amendment was introduced in light of comments expressed by Ofcom regarding the Respondent’s terms and conditions - Condition Version 59 (at Schedule 1) with the intention of increasing certainty for consumers and is to the Claimant’s benefit." compared to #617.

NEW
"14. The Respondent confirms that between the 29 January 2014 and 14 February 2014 the Claimant was notified by SMS as to the amendment of the original terms and conditions (at Schedule 1) to the amended terms and conditions (at Schedule 2). Following the 14 February 2014 the SMS delivery data was then analysed by the Respondent and letters confirming the amendments were then sent out to the registered addresses of any customers whose notification SMS had either failed or not been delivered. The Respondent confirms that the sending of the above said notification letters to the remaining un-notified customers was completed by the 21 February 2014. The Respondent submits that this entire process was of course in compliance with the relevant notice requirement as per the original terms and conditions. "

Under the subtitle "The Respondent’s right to change the terms of the Agreement"
"2.11. [Should be 2.11.1 as per #617] We will make a copy of Our current version of these term and conditions available on Our website. We can change these terms and conditions for any good reason, for instance, if We want all customer on the same conditions. We will tell You about the change
beforehand, as explained here.

2.11.1 We will make a copy of Our current version of these terms and conditions available on Our website. We can change these terms and conditions for any good reason, for instance, if We want all customers on the same conditions. We will tell You about the change beforehand, as explained here:

---

Repeated, no 2.11.2."

Under the subtitle "The Claimant has a right to terminate only if the change is of material detriment"
"27. The Agreement further provides that where a change notified under point 2.11.1 (not 2.11.3 #617 ) is of material detriment to.........."

No 28 in the defence
"7.2.1. You can give Us notice to terminate this Agreement, to take effect on or after the end of the Minimum Term. However (except as set out in point 7.2.3 and 7.2.4) if, in our total discretion, We accept notice from You to terminate this Agreement within the Minimum Term, You will have to pay Us a Cancellation Charge and, if applicable, the Additional Commitment Service Cancellation Charge. (No “You can terminate this Agreement without having to pay Us a Cancellation Charge after the Minimum Term has ended. [as per #617])"
"7.2.3.2. You are a Consumer and the change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 2.11.2 (2.11.3 stated at #617) or 7.1.4 above is of material detriment to You and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this
Agreement before the change takes effect; or"

Something NEW again
"33.3. The clause specifically refers to RPI and not Consumer Price Index (‘CPI’). CPI and RPI are measured in different ways and takes into account different factors in determining the figure for the relevant month. CPI figures can indeed be higher than the RPI figures. The Respondent has historically relied only upon the RPI figure and not CPI. The Respondent’s business decision to rely solely upon the RPI as a measure creates certainty to the Claimant as to which measure will be used. In any event, the Respondent submits that even if the CPI figure had been used as a measure that an increase by a CPI measure would not be regarded as an increase which would constitute a material detriment to the Claimant.. (Instead of “The Claimant has not identified such an alternative measure of inflation.”. #617 )"

No 37 in defence at #618 is now omitted
"37. In any event and notwithstanding the above, the Respondent submits that both the Old Term and New Term allowed the Respondent to increase its prices, and the Old Term allowed the Respondent to increase its prices by an amount equal
to or less than RPI. The Claimant accepted those terms upon entering into the Agreement and the Claimant would have been subject to the Old Term had the Respondent increased its prices. The New Term, as set out above, purely restricts the Respondent’s ability to increase its prices and is therefore of a benefit to the Claimant and not to the Respondent."

No 38 in the defence I received
"38. ...........any dissatisfaction on the part of the Claimant simply stems from the fact that the matter was not resolved as she had hoped, which in any event related to a proposed remedy that she was not entitled to."

No 40 in the defence I received
"40. The Respondent submits that it will provide the Claimant with a Port Authorisation Code (“PAC”) should such be requested, however it remains the Respondent’s position that the Claimant will remain liable for a cancellation charge (currently the sum of *** reducing on a daily basis) in accordance with the terms of the Agreement."

Then from No 40 jumps to No 13?...
No 13 also is newly added to the defence compared to #618.
"13. The Claimant claims the sum of £100 in compensation. The Respondent denies that the Claimant is entitled to compensation in the sum of £100 as pleaded or at all. If the Claimant had suffered actual loss she would have pleaded that damage as a quantified sum and furthermore provided evidence to support such a claim. The Claimant has not done so and as a consequence is not entitled to any compensation. The Claimant is hereby put to strict proof as to her purported loss. "

Something NEW again compared with #618.
"41. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded, or at all."

---

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

Keverso

Hi all,

I have a deadlock letter and am ready to apply to CISAS. Can someone please point me to the post that details the best way to do this and the RC template to use?

This thread is getting so long it's starting to get hard to find thins 20 or 30 pages back.

Thanks for all the help so far and fingers crossed for the claim.

Keverso.

Samarkand

Just received my reply stating T-Mobile have till 01/05/2014 to submit there defence. Fingers crossed.

We acknowledge receipt of an application for adjudication by the customer, a copy of which is attached for the attention of the company. Please note that any further documents submitted after this date may lead to your application being restarted in order to give the company time to consider them. In accordance with the rules of the scheme, the company is now required to submit two copies of their response to the claim, which should be returned to us within 10 working days of receipt of this letter, that is, on or before 01/05/2014. The company should list all papers being submitted, and where possible submit their response by email. A copy of any defence to your case received from the company will be sent to you and you will be given the opportunity to make any comments about it which you wish to make. Please be advised that the company may contact you in order to negotiate a settlement of your claim. If they do that but no agreed settlement is reached they must still submit their defence to your claim by the due date above. The company may decidee to settle your claim in full, ie to give you everything you are claiming in your application. Under these circumstances the company will notify us and we will write to tell you. We will close our file at that time because the adjudicator has no power to award any more than is claimed.

ryan92

Received my response from EE today and they really are trying to complicate matters. In November, I took out a second line with them as it was a glitch and was advertised as £0 per month when it should have been £8 p/m.

All through my response they make mention of this second agreement ; I did not once mention this in my claim ; no idea why it's being brought to the forefront. Also, they are trying to make my claim look unreasonable by insinuating that I want to cancel both lines - £0 * the remainder to me would be £0 yeah? Wrong! ;

The Respondent submits that it will issue a PAC code to the Claimant in respect of the Agreements, however it is the Respondent’s position that the Claimant remains liable for the applicable cancellation charges which will be applied to his
account upon cancellation. The cancellation fee in respect of the First

Agreement is currently the sum of £224.68 and the cancellation fee in respect of the Second Agreement is currently the sum of £48.03, reducing on a daily basis.

So basically they want to charge me more to cancel the contract than it would be to keep it going. Absolute chancers :mad::mad::mad::mad:

RandomCurve

[quote=[Deleted User];65256332]Received the defence from EE/Tmobile Today.
By comparing it with posts 617 & 618 I've noticed quite a lot of differences.
I do not want to bombard you all with the lengthy document, So I've only abstracted the differences here.

---

99% "Contracts" replaced with the word "Agreement"

99% "Clauses" replaced with the word "point"

Both "He/his" and "She/her" are used

---

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!![/QUOTE]


Okay a little difficult to follow, but here goes:


The changes of "contracts" to "Agreements" and "Clauses" to "Points" I don't think you need to worry about,


Some of the bits you say are missing in #618 are there, but the main points to note as far as I can tell are:
Para 33.3 and Para 38.


For Para 33.3 - I have come across this arguments from EE before on another matter - I can bat this "out of the park", but it is a little long winded (but I think you'll like it).
Para 38 - Does "remedies" relate to the penalty free cancellation or the compensation? I will assume it relates to the penalty free cancellation - which means either EE have read M. Coombes Davies's carefully, or they have helped to write it!!


Add the following into the standard response:
Para 33.3


EE assert - without providing evidence - that CPI can be higher than RPI, and this assertion is not supported by either an historical analysis over 22 years of RPI and CPI (1989 to 2011 – see below for evidence); nor the longer term prospect of both indices as provided for by the Budget of Office responsibility in their publication “Working Paper No2 - The Long-run difference between RPI and CPI inflation published in November 2011 by Ruth Miller (http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/Working-paper-No2-The-long-run-difference-between-RPI-and-CPI-inflation.pdf)


where it is generally considered that the difference between the two indices is likely to increase. This must be something that EE economists and price setters would be aware of and it begs the question why the legal team are not up to date on this other than to try and mislead the adjudicator.

Ruth Miller

Office for Budget Responsibility

Abstract

Between 1989 and 2011 Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation tended to be around 0.7 percentage points higher than Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation on average. Recent developments suggest that the long-run difference between these measures may be significantly higher in the future. This paper decomposes the differences in RPI and CPI inflation and looks at the prospects for the evolution of the wedge between the two measures over the long term. Possible methodological developments to the CPI and RPI could have a substantial impact on the difference between RPI and CPI inflation, and constitute one of the main uncertainties surrounding the long-term difference between the two measures.


1.5 For a number of years a widely held view was that the long-run difference between RPIX and CPI inflation rates was around ¾ percentage points.2 Indeed, since around 1989, RPI and RPIX inflation have tended to be around 0.7 percentage points higher than CPI inflation, on average.


1.6 However more recent developments suggest that the long-run difference is likely to be significantly wider in the future. The March 2011 Economic and fiscal outlook (EFO) stated that the long-run difference is expected to be around 1.2 percentage points between RPI and CPI inflation. This was based on the assumption that recent rises in the ‘formula effect’, one of the components of the wedge between the RPI and CPI, will begin to stabilise and the larger contribution from the formula effect in 2010 will persist.


So according to the Independent Office of Budget Responsibility the Material Detriment to me of using RPI rather than CPI is likely to INCREASE over time (current difference is 1% point or 58.8%).


Para 38
I am unclear as to why EE believe a penalty free cancellation is not a remedy that is available to me. As both a long term player in the mobile market that has been subject to Ofcom/OFTEL regulation for over 20 years, and as the sole author of our contract then EE will know that under out contract and regulation GC 9.6 if a change in T&Cs is likely to be of Material Detriment then a penalty free cancellation is the ONLY remedy that is available to me.


You may also want to add the following re para 5 (but I don't think it is totally necessary).
Whilst EE did make me aware that the contract was subject to T&C they never - as required under the UTCCRs - clearly and adequately drew my attention to the fact the contract contained a price variation clause, it is conspicuous by its absence that EE "gloss over" this detail.

hammersfaniow

rachx21 wrote: »

Just had a response from CISAS the adjudicator is Monica Aguiar, EE have 10 days to submit there defence. Has anyone had the same adjudicator?

I had a reply today, from the same person. I think she is the case administrator though, going by the experiences people on here have had, once EE file their response/defense it then gets forwarded to an adjudicator for a ruling.

Alonso33

Just wanted to say a massive thanks to RandomCurve (and all other posters) for all of the templates and help, I wouldn't have got this far without all your time and effort:beer:
Im on a post October EE contract and have just had the standard Defence reply from EE in my CISAS case.
Have sent the templates at post 688 and 689 (I think) and am awaiting a reply