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

hammersfaniow

Got an email this morning saying that my adjudicator is Emma Knight, who took a week to award tateman the win with full compensation and back payment. Fingers crossed the same happens with my case....

Wullie32

God I'm getting really frustrated now. No matter how many times I send the T and Vs email, they say they've already responded and resend the stock response to the price rise complaint. I have also sent a price rise email a couple of weeks ago but wanted to run with T and Cs first. Without the typical response though, it is impossible to use any templates. Argh!

jon1555

Wullie32 wrote: »

God I'm getting really frustrated now. No matter how many times I send the T and Vs email, they say they've already responded and resend the stock response to the price rise complaint. I have also sent a price rise email a couple of weeks ago but wanted to run with T and Cs first. Without the typical response though, it is impossible to use any templates. Argh!

When did you first email about the t and c? If it's been 8 weeks then go straight to cisas.

Otherwise if they're adamant they won't speak with you anymore surely that could be deadlock?

sunshinerise111

jon1555 wrote: »

Have you already emailed rejecting the change in terms and conditions?

Or have you emailed rejecting the price rise?

Hello Jon, sent two emails off to EE using Random Curve template.

This is the Forum for attempting to obtain a PENALTY FREE cancellation from EE/Orange/T-Mobile if you received a letter from these companies advising you that they are applying an RPI price increase of 2.7% effective May 2014.

1. You will find some background information at Post #98 and #99
2. The first email to send is at post #165
3. If you do not receive a response to your first email then send the second email at post #166 and also copy in [EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
4. When you receive a response from EE if it is the same as the one at post #168 then the response is at post #175.

1st email fromm EE

Thank you for your email.

A response has been sent to you. I apologise if you have not received this as yet. Please find below a copy of this for your reference:



Account Number:

Thank you for your recent correspondence, received in the Executive Office, I have been asked to respond on behalf of EE.

I am sorry you are unhappy with the recent Price Increase. As a company we are committed to offering the best value for service which is why we have kept the increase to a minimum. The increase is a result of the rising costs to our business and is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation.

We are obliged, as are all UK operators, to abide by General Condition 9.6 of the Ofcom. This condition sets out what we must do if a change is of material detriment to a customer, which is to provide 30 days' notice and allow a customer to end their agreement free of charge. When the changes are not of material detriment, the customer does not have the right to end their agreement. In the case of this price increase, the change is not of material detriment to customers.

The increase is in line with the Terms and Conditions of your contract specifically clause 7.1.4. As the increase is less than RPI should you wish to close the account early in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3 you would be subject to an early termination fee.

Whilst I understand this is not the outcome you were looking for, I trust I have clarified EE's position regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely



Graham Gargett
Executive Office, EE

2nd email from EE

Thank you for your email response.

We do not feel that this change is of material detriment to you as it is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation. I acknowledge you do not agree with this decision therefore the next step would be to seek independent adjudication via CISAS.

You may refer your complaint to CISAS. CISAS will determine whether the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of its ADR Scheme. We may argue that it does not. If CISAS agrees its Scheme applies, it will adjudicate on the complaint in line with the Scheme rules. CISAS's details are as follows:-

CISAS
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street,
London,
EC4Y 1EU

Email: info@cisas.org.uk
Tel: 020 7520 3827
Fax: 020 7520 3829

I trust the above information is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Victoria Hunt
Executive Office, EE

Thank You Jon

jon1555

sunshinerise111 wrote: »

Hello Jon, sent two emails off to EE using Random Curve template.

This is the Forum for attempting to obtain a PENALTY FREE cancellation from EE/Orange/T-Mobile if you received a letter from these companies advising you that they are applying an RPI price increase of 2.7% effective May 2014.

You need to post on this thread ;

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

You'll get better answers there as that's the thread for the price rises and also the thread where you got the templates etc.

This thread is for the change in terms and conditions that happened on the 26th March and not the price increase.

[Deleted User]

#1601- email received from EE.

Hi, I am thinking to submit my first ever Money Claim (N1) online (maybe via post as my POC is quite long) against Tmobile and wondering if anyone could please help to check whether I have got everything right? Thank you.

Defendant (for service):
EE (For legal queries)
1 Trident Place
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9BW

Email: executive.office@ee.co.uk ???

---

Brief details of the claim:

I am seeking a penalty free cancellation of my Pay Monthly contract with Tmobile (Account number:******, Phone number:*****) back dated to ** February 2014 under EE/Tmboile's Terms & Conditions and Ofcom regulation General Condition 9.6 (GC 9.6).

---

Value???
Request any sums taken by the company since termination, court fees to be refunded and compensation .

---

Particulars of claim: (overdetailed??)
I am claiming a penalty free cancellation of my Pay Monthly contract (Account number:******, Phone number:*****) with Tmobile/ Everything Everywhere (referred to as EE in the remainder of this claim) back dated to ** February 2014, which is when I first contacted the company due the change in the company’s terms and conditions notified to me on ** February 2014, and any sums taken since termination are refunded, as per clause 7.2.3.2 in T&Cs and under Ofcom regulation General Condition 9.6 (GC 9.6).

7.2.3.2 You are a Consumer and the change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 2.11.3 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 .

I entered into my contract on ******, at that time EE never made it clear that the contract contained a price variation clause; despite this I have abided by the Contract Terms and Conditions and relevant Ofcom regulation. In early February 2014 EE advised me of a change in T&Cs which I believe is LIKELY to be to my Material Detriment.

Under the T&Cs and Ofcom Regulation 9.6 the ONLY options for me now are to either accept the change or request a penalty free cancellation. I have decided that - for the reasons stated - the change is LIKELY to be of material detriment, and I wish EE to abide by the contract terms and Ofcom regulations (as I have) and grant a penalty free cancellation. This case revolves solely around if the change in T&Cs is LIKELY to be of Material Detriment.

I have set out my reasons below for your consideration.

My current clause is as follows:
7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is: (i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retail price index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice;

Whereas the new clause is
7.2.3.3. We have given You Written Notice of an increase in a Price Plan Charge under point 7.1.4 and (i) the increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) is higher than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 7.1.4);

It is clear from the above that the maximum amount that EE can reference to increase my contract by has increased from the lowest inflation rate published to the published RPI. Therefore as the absolute amount of the increase can now be higher the change must be to my Material Detriment.

RPI lost its designation as a National statistic in March 2013 as the calculation methodology does not meet with international calculation standards and has been replaced with CPI which is the statistical measure of inflation now used by Government. As CPI is the true measure of inflation any increase over CPI is a real terms increase and that is of material detriment to me.

CPI and RPI rates over the last six months are as follows and can be verified from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) website, the change in designation of RPI can also be verified on the ONS website

Aug 2013 CPI 2.7%; RPI 3.3%
Sep 2013 CPI 2.7%; RPI 3.2%
Oct 2013 CPI 2.2%; RPI 2.6%
Nov 2013 CPI 2.1%; RPI 2.6%
Dec 2013 CPI 2.0%; RPI 2.7%
Jan 2019 CPI 1.9%; RPI 2.8%

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

It is moreover generally considered that difference between the RPI and CPI is likely to increase.
“Working Paper No2 - The Long-run difference between RPI and CPI inflation published in November 2011 by Ruth Miller in the Budget of Office responsibility's publication:

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%).

Without prejudice to the above
I contend that regardless of the quantum of the price increase that the change in T&Cs allows, the use of the phrase “Material Detriment” is ambiguous in relation to a change in T&Cs.

I contend that the only meaning Material Detriment can have in relation to a change in T&Cs is what I, the consumer, determines to be of Material detriment to me and this position is supported, by regulation as follows.

What does material detriment mean – Regulatory Context ?
In the regulatory context regardless of what is in EEs T&Cs under GC 9.6 I have a right to terminate my contract penalty free as follows:

GC9.6:
“The Communications Provider shall:
(a) give its Subscribers adequate notice not shorter than one month of any modifications likely to be of material detriment to that Subscriber;
(b) allow its Subscribers to withdraw from their contract without penalty upon such notice; and
(c) at the same time as giving the notice in condition 9.6(a) above, shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber.”

In the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in November 2013 Ofcom explain the rationale for including the term ““likely to be of Material Detriment”at paragraph 3.6 as follows:
“…..Ofcom and, before us, OFTEL has included a material detriment requirement in the relevant part of GC9. Our intention was to reflect our general duties and principles of good administration and proportionality in particular. We sought, in light of these, not to rule out contract variations altogether. For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.”

GC9.6 is included pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Act and is intended to give effect to Article 20(2) of the Universal Services Directive (“USD”) (Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC)31 which requires that:

“Member states shall ensure that subscribers have a right to withdraw from their contract without penalty upon notice of modification to the contractual conditions proposed by the undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, of any such modification, and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from their contract if they do not accept the new conditions.”

It is clear that the intention of USD 20(22) was to give the CONSUMER the choice to cancel their contract during a fixed period for ANY modification that is made which they do not accept, and this interpretation coincides with my interpretation of Material Detriment in relation to a change in T&Cs. I therefore request this definition should be inferred in this instance, as it complies with the approach to be taken under the UTCCRs Regulation 7, the spirit of GC 9.6, and the full meaning of USD 20(22) for which GC 9.6 is the UK enactment.

What does material detriment mean – Contractual Context?
The UTCCRs are clear that in a standard form contract between a business and a consumer where a term is not written in plain and intelligible language the meaning most advantageous to the consumer should be used:

Under the UTCCRs Group 19 Regulation 7 states that:

(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under Regulation 12.

Without Prejudice to the above
I believe EE made the change to T&Cs with reference to Ofcom guidance in which CPs were asked to ensure that any price variation clauses were written in such a way as to ensure that they comply with the UTCCRs and therefore move from being unenforceable to enforceable, Clearly any change in T&Cs that moves me from a position whereby EE have an unenforceable price variation clause to a position where EE can now enforce the clause has to be to my Material Detriment. This position is supported by the very language that EE have used when explaining how this change “benefits me” i.e. “..certainty and transparency..” which is the language of the UTCCRs.

The relevant Ofcom regulations are below with a link to the full document, but note that this is not a change that is a legal requirement and EE were not, and are not legally obliged to change T&Cs in existing fixed term contracts by this guidance. It is Paragraph 4 which I have highlighted which is most relevant.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/addcharges/statement/Guidance.pdf
This is industry guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services. It focuses principally on additional charges in consumer contracts, also referring to the obligation for communications providers to comply with General Condition 9 (contract terms)

Guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services

Introduction

1. Standard form terms in contracts for the supply of goods and services in the UK, between sellers or suppliers and consumers, must comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”). The OFT, together with a number of other bodies including Ofcom, share the task of enforcement. As a qualifying body, Ofcom has certain duties to consider complaints about terms in contracts used by communications providers (“CPs”)
2. The OFT has published general unfair contract terms guidance, based on its experience of enforcing the Regulations, which addresses a wide range of terms in consumer contracts. .
3. Ofcom believes that sector-specific guidance (this “Guidance”) on a limited range of such issues will benefit CPs and consumers. This Guidance focuses principally on contract terms which provide for the payment by the consumer of additional charges, default charges, minimum contract periods and notice periods, and contract terms which may lead to additional charges being incurred.
While in many cases this is helpful in considering terms in consumer contracts within communications markets, it does not directly address some of the common terms in contracts for communications services.
4. Ofcom expects CPs to review their terms in light of the Guidance and to amend or remove any that are unfair. Unfair terms are not legally enforceable against consumers (see Regulation 8(1)), so it is in CPs’ interests, as well as consumers,’ to ensure that terms are fair.

EE claim that the change is to my benefit as they have made the T&C's clearer, however if EE were really concerned with making their terms clearer for my benefit then at the same time as making this change they would have removed the phrase "Material Detriment" which is clearly an unclear term (as EE are aware as per their defence document). This omission by EE must bring into question the real motive behind only making the price rise clause clearer and I suspect the change has more to do with giving EE a greater security of enforcement than it does to offering a benefit to me.

Also I would like to claim £100.00 in compensation for the following:

The EE legal department would have known (or ought to have known) that under the UTCCRs section Schedule 2, paragraph 1 EE cannot have the exclusive right to determine what Material determent means, by assuming this right they have tried to pass this change of T&Cs off as being of no consequence when in fact it is. (£25)

The EE legal department would have known (or ought to have known) that under the UTCCRs section Schedule 2, paragraph 1 EE cannot have the exclusive right to determine what Material determent means, by assuming this right they have tried to pass this change of T&Cs off as being of no consequence when in fact it is. (£25)

EE breached their duty of care by refusing to respond to my emails where I have legitimately requested to know on what basis EE have decided what Material Detriment means in relation to a change in T&Cs, and under what regulation changes they are referring to. (£25)

EE have breached the requirements of Good Faith in that they have deliberately presented this change to me as being of benefit to me, without explaining how the change strengthens their position against any challenge to future price increases under the UTCCRs, and would allow them to use a higher index than the contract currently allows.(£25)

The total costs claimed include: a refund of any sums taken since termination, court fees and compensation.

---

On the form it asks "Amount claimed": Is this referring to my cancellation charge given in the EE's defence to my CISAS case??
Or Can I simply write I expect to recover not more than £1,000?

---

Do I need to send my conversations (Emails) with the company and Cisas case details together with the claim?

Any help will be greatly appreciated!!!

Wullie32

jon1555 wrote: »

When did you first email about the t and c? If it's been 8 weeks then go straight to cisas.

Otherwise if they're adamant they won't speak with you anymore surely that could be deadlock?

Nah it's not been 8 weeks yet, it's not that they won't reply, it's that they don't even seem to read the email and just assume it's a price rise query.

I get:

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email dated 2 and 8 May 2014. A response was sent to you on 25 April and 02 May, I apologise if both emails have not been received, please check your spam inbox for responses. Please see below a copy of the response for your reference:


Case Reference:
Account Number:

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email dated 22 April 2014, received in the Executive Office, I have been asked to respond on behalf of EE.

I am sorry you are unhappy with the recent increase to our prices and some of our services. As a company we are committed to investing significantly in our network and work hard to give the best value for our service, we have in this instance tried to keep these increases to a minimum. However due to rising business costs linked to inflation we have had to revaluate our pricing structure.

In this instance, the increase to price plans is in line with RPI at 2.7% and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of your contract. Our Terms and Conditions give us the right to increase the cost of our services and this change does not give you a right to terminate your contract. Please refer to clause 3.7 in your Terms and Conditions.

Whilst I understand this is not the outcome you were looking for, I trust I have clarified EE's position regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely




Driving me mad!

rachx21

Adjudicator has been assigned miss vidette ogden

dazz7400

jon1555 wrote: »

Have you already emailed rejecting the change in terms and conditions?

Or have you emailed rejecting the price rise?

The reply you got looks like you rejected the price change

you'll want this thread instead ;

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

Hi Jon


I have already emailed them about the change of T&C's.


(They advised me to contact CISAS. Which I have yet to do. Is this the next step?)


I then followed up with the email template about
the RPI change (which RC advised me to do) and that was the response I received. (Post #1554)

Not sure what to do now? Email CISAS?


Thanks

jon1555

dazz7400 wrote: »

Hi Jon


I have already emailed them about the change of T&C's.


(They advised me to contact CISAS. Which I have yet to do. Is this the next step?)


I then followed up with the email template about
the RPI change (which RC advised me to do) and that was the response I received. (Post #1554)

Not sure what to do now? Email CISAS?


Thanks

When they advised you to contact cisas was that from the terms and conditions email?

Don't want to send you to the wrong cisas templates!