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

baldyj

Alonso33 wrote: »

thanks for the reply baldyj, thought I had used the right template but cant find the original email I sent so maybe I did send the wrong one?
My defence to EE did include the following from the template:


However as EE have raised the question (albeit irrelevant to determining what the term Material Detriment means) it should be borne in mind that under my interpretation of the old and new clause based on February 2014 inflation statistics the new clause allows EE to impose an increase 58.8% higher than was the case before – clearly of material detriment (RPI 2.7%, CPI 1.7% difference 1%, 1% as a percentage of 1.7 % is 58.8%) This is clearly of Material Detriment.


Either way, its disgusting that they can reject a claim on this basis when they have already ruled in favour of the customer in other cases, it shouldn't matter what my application says other than I wish to exercise my right to cancel due to the new terms and conditions.


The average customer can not be expected to compile a case of the complexity of RC's fantastic template just to be able to exercise their rights.


I don't know if its worth bothering but I will be making an official complaint about Alison Dablin to CISAS.


thanks for your reply.

Totally agree that the whole thing is wrong. Unfortunately CISAS deal with each case individually, and unless you have jumped through all of the hoops they ask you to (and even then it's not enough on occasion) they screw you over.

See if you can find the initial template you sent to CISAS, as it'd be good to know if you did or didn't include the RPI vs CPI comparison.

Even though you included it in your response to the defence they have deemed it to be new evidence. Completely wrong in my opinion but this is the beast we deal with.

antgraham6190

I got a phone from ee 2 months ago and got a text message saying my usage charges have gone up so will I be eligible to cancel or not

Thanks

RandomCurve

antgraham6190 wrote: »

I got a phone from ee 2 months ago and got a text message saying my usage charges have gone up so will I be eligible to cancel or not

Thanks

Hopefully, but you need to use the price rise forum - send the template at #165 on the forum linked below:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818999

RandomCurve

baldyj wrote: »

Totally agree that the whole thing is wrong. Unfortunately CISAS deal with each case individually, and unless you have jumped through all of the hoops they ask you to (and even then it's not enough on occasion) they screw you over.

See if you can find the initial template you sent to CISAS, as it'd be good to know if you did or didn't include the RPI vs CPI comparison.

Even though you included it in your response to the defence they have deemed it to be new evidence. Completely wrong in my opinion but this is the beast we deal with.

As I have said before the whole thing is judged on how well you put a case together, and not the actual wrong doing of EE - it is ridiculous. these are case that just need to be judged on facts:
Did EE change the T&Cs - Yes

1. Did the change weaken you position and strengthen EEs - yes (all of the adjudicators agree this point)
2. Is it Material detriment - Yes (because under 9.6 if it is not to your benefit of neutral - all of the adjudicators agree it is neither - than under GC it is Material Detriment - i.e GC 9.6 definition of Material Detriment is DETRIMENT! AND
3. under UTCCRs if a term is unclear the meaning most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

The above is why I am sure you can win this case at SCC

RandomCurve

Dave92en wrote: »

Defence received..



This is way over my head guys, am I OK to use RC's template with this defence?

No I think I need a quick review - I don't like the bit below - I can counter it, but I don't think we have seen it before,



33.6 Accordingly, applied to a typical monthly bill of £30, the average
difference between the maximum price rise under the New Term (i.e. a
price rise which does not trigger a right to termination) and the
maximum price rise under the Old Term, calculated by reference to CPI
would be 0.5% x £30 per month = 15 pence per month. Even taken over
the longest possible period of 24 months
2
, the total detriment would
amount to only £3.60 compared to total bills of £720 over the period. It
is likely that the detriment would be less than this. It is submitted that
such a small difference is not capableof being material. Further, it is
difficult to envisage any detriment which could be less material and if
this change were found to be material, it would deprive the materiality
condition of any meaning whatsoever.

dazz7400

Sorry RandomCurve,

I was meant to add in to my last post : Does this affect my claim?

Thank You

RandomCurve

dazz7400 wrote: »

Sorry RandomCurve,

I was meant to add in to my last post : Does this affect my claim?

Thank You

No problem - this should not have damaged your chances - just go over to the price rise forum (post #165)


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65355693#Comment_65355693

Dave92en

Shall I wait for a revised version of your magic reply RC?

RandomCurve

Dave92en wrote: »

Shall I wait for a revised version of your magic reply RC?

Yes - but I can't promise magic
Working on it now.

Dave92en

They've proved to be magical so far haha!