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

littlestar1974

Not sure I can tell you anything, but I just won.

Thank you RandomCurve and the rest of you who've shared your stories :T:T:T

However, as I didn't agree to confidentiality

and I don't see that MSE needs to abide by anything CISAS asks

I guess I can

Post-October 2012
Orange / EE
Cancel contract, backdated to 14 days after initial notification, PAC code, full compensation

I accept that confidentiality of the adjudicators, who I think are freelancers, makes some sort of sense but it was someone who has supported all the cases he's adjudicated so there's nothing groundbreaking to report there.

My case failed to get the phone unlock code but I wasn't aware I'd asked for one. And that only failed because it had been sold to me separate to the contract apparently.

I contacted Orange just to have a little dig and to say I don't actually want to use my PAC code as I already have another contract so can I just cancel it now? Got a snotty email back telling me that if I asked for a PAC then that is what I'll get, in effect, and that is how I'll have to proceed.

They've learned nothing, the charmers

walio

One more success story. Two claims submitted, one on my gf's behalf, one on mine, mine succeeded, awaiting to hear about her one as different adjudicator appointed to her.
My adjudicator was JT.

Decision

1. The claim succeeds in part.
2. I direct that the company cancels the customer’s contract as of 12 February 2014 without applying a penalty for doing so, provides the customer with a PAC, and pays the customer the sum of £100.00 in compensation.


Conclusion

10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:
a. The company has failed in its duty of care to the customer.
b. The reasons given by the customer are sufficient to justify the cancellation of the contract without penalty backdated to 12 February 2014, the provision of a PAC, and compensation of £100.00.
6
11. I therefore direct the company to cancel the customer’s contract as of 12 February 2014 without applying a penalty for doing so, to provide the customer with a PAC, and to pay the customer the sum of £100.00 in compensation.


So I will keep using T-mobile and accept CISAS decision just a few days before it expires and then use t-mobile until last few days of PAC expiry. Great, as I am going to Thailand in two weeks and that means free roaming calls and free mobile internet. I am a fair man, however EE being a*holes deserve this. Although not planing to rack thousands, maybe just less than a hundred pounds.
Thanks Random Curve, you deserve a keg a of beer!

tiddles1

Case won - £100 compo with backdated cancellation. Adjudicator AJ. :j:j:j Thanks Randomcurve (and others ) for all the time and effort spent helping others with this .

ryan92

PAC code recieved the other day and £100 cheque received in the post today!

Just need to wait on the backdated payments now?

nsabournemouth

Thanks EE, cheque for £100 arrived today.. Now all I've got to wait for is the £84.60 in back payments which they reckon I'm due. I should only be getting £21.60. I'll get them to confirm in writing what they are paying me and that this is money due to me.

When I told them I didn't agree to the change when they announced it I made it clear that I'd be stopping my direct debit after the next payment. They did mark it as having missed payments. When the ruling was in my favour it took a couple of calls to get my credit file showing as it should.

I told them that I was right and carrying out my legal right to cancel the contract back in February and if you don't sort it within 5 working days I'll be after you again. Within three my credit file was updated and shows account settled.

A big thanks to RC for some amazing work. Well done to you all who stuck with it and got the result you were looking for.

RandomCurve

g6jns wrote: »

Surely the time for dealing with OFCOM direct has passed. It is time the Parliamentary Ombudsman was involved. AIUI complainants can now make a case direct and don't have to do this via an MP. However from a tactical point of view I am unsure which route is best. OFCOM do not, AIUI, have the right to blame lack of resources because they have a statutory duty to carry out proper and timely scrutiny of phone companies. Keep up the good work Random curve.

The real reason I'm keen for people to pester Ofcom and to copy in the media, is that in the past when I have contacted Newspapers they have said they would be more interested in a story on Ofcom than they would be on EE (I assume because Ofcom are a softer target as they can't sue for liable/slander).
If we can get the media to run a story on Ofcoms failing it will highlight EE and the industries practices, and is probably more likely to prod Ofcom into action than the Parliamentary Ombudsman.


I was not aware that a complaint to the PO can now be made without an MPs signature - I will investigate.

RandomCurve

Please can you send this email to Ofcom if you have received a replay to the first email (and send the first one if you have not already).
http://fightmobileincreases.com/pressure-ofcom/
Cheers.




[EMAIL="Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
Graham.Howell[EMAIL="Graham.Howell@Ofcom.org.uk"]@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk"]OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

And CC.
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk"]Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="news@the-sun.co.uk"]news@the-sun.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your response to my email, however you appeared to have not addressed the concerns raised. For clarity and ease of response there are 13 questions below (marked Q 1 to Q 13).

Firstly can you please confirm that you have formally recorded my email as an official compliant against both EE for failure to comply with GC 9.6, and Ofcom for failure to act? (Q 1)

Concentrating on EEs change in T&Cs you have said:
“.. Ofcom has taken the view, based on the information we have, that the change does not appear to us to be one likely to give rise to the right to cancel the contract under GC9.6. ….
Can you clarify what information you have? (Q 2)It does not appear that you have reviewed both an OLD and NEW version of the contracts can you confirm that you have reviewed them (copied below for your reference)? (Q 3)
The reasons are as follows:
1. “The revised terms are likely to put consumers in a better, or at least no worse, position than the previous terms. They do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case,”
This seems to plainly incorrect – the old clause allowed an increase no higher than RPI OR ANY OTHER measure of inflation (e.g. lower rates such as CPI/RPI(J)), the new clause allows an increase up to RPI – can you explain how Ofcom reached the conclusion that the change does not “… purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case”? (Q 4) (For your reference the February 2014 rates were: RPI 2.7%; CPI 1.7% (RPI 58.8% HIGHER); over the last 24 months RPI has been 18.8% higher).
“… and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used in such increases.”
By giving more clarity it reduces the scope for challenge, whilst this is good for EE it is not good for the consumer as there is less scope to exercise cancellation rights, Can Ofcom explain –with its consumer protection remit – why it considers giving consumers less scope to leave their contracts is beneficial? (Q 5)
“…We note in this context that EE and its brands always previously used RPI rather than CPI.”
Effectively you are saying that in all past increases EE have put in place an increase that triggers a consumer’s right to a penalty free cancellation, and Ofcom has done nothing to compel EE to write to consumers FULLY EXPLAINING their right to a penalty free cancellation. Can you explain why Ofcom considers this to be acceptable? (Q 6)


2. The new term sets out a position that, if or when applied, is unlikely in our view to cause material detriment to relevant consumers. Consumers to whom the new term applies (who will be consumers who entered into their contracts before 23 January 2014, and in respect of whom, therefore, our recent guidance does not apply) will be able to exit the contract without penalty for price increases that exceed the relevant published RPI figure.
Can you explain why RPI is not considered to be of Material Detriment to consumers? (Q 7). Your previous definition of Material Detriment taken from the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in November 2013 Ofcom explains the rationale for including the term 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.”

Please explain how a REAL TERMS increase (CPI and RPI(J) being the OFFICIAL UK measures of inflation – RPI is not even a designated as a National Statistic), is to the consumers benefit or neutral to the consumer? (Q 8)


3. Accordingly, the new term is unlikely to be a change that itself is likely to cause material detriment. On that basis, it would not require providers to notify and provide subscribers with the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty under GC9.6.
On reflection of the above points is this still Ofcoms view? (Q 9)
Why in 93% (more cases have been won since I last contacted you) are the legal experts at CISAS finding that this change IS of Material Detriment? What does it take for Ofcom to acknowledge that it got this wrong and to take respective action? (Q 10)

Ofcom appear to be mixing two separate points for their reason for inactivity:

• Ofcom does not consider the change to be of Material Detriment; and
• That Ofcom will not take action due to its administrative priorities and/or only on behalf of consumers as a whole

I have addressed point 1 above and look forward to receiving the explanations requested above,
As regards point 2 – EE are by far the largest CP in the UK and the change has affected every customer who joined EE before 23rd January 2014 – how can Ofcom possibly consider that this does not affect a “body of consumers as a whole”? (Q 11)
As regards to your administrative priorities are you saying that as Ofcom does not have the resource to take on EE then EE are effectively “above the law”? (Q 12)


Finally in connection with the EE price rise under the new T&C effective from 26th March 2014 Ofcom does not consider that EE are bound to the Ofcom rule on GC 9.6 dated 23rd January 2004?
Can you explain how this can be possible please? (Q 13)
It was disappointing that Ofcom sided with the industry and has allowed CPs to continue to apply price rises during the fixed period of the contract (especially as if CPs change T&Cs mid contract consumers are bound by the new term), but to go further and to say that changes to T&Cs that occur AFTER the new rules are implemented are also not subject to the new rules seems to defy all rules of natural justice and UK law.
.


Regards

A supporter of “FightMobileIncreases” – a pressure group dedicated to assisting consumers use the protection of the UTCCRs and GC 9.6, and to monitor and highlight Ofcoms actions (inaction) in relation to the Mobile Phone Market.

Old Clause (Orange EE and T-Mobile (Post 30 October 2012) – Clause number may vary
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 as follows:
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);

g6jns_2

RandomCurve wrote: »

Please can you send this email to Ofcom if you have received a replay to the first email (and send the first one if you have not already).
http://fightmobileincreases.com/pressure-ofcom/
Cheers.




[EMAIL="Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
Graham.Howell[EMAIL="Graham.Howell@Ofcom.org.uk"]@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk"]OCCtelecoms@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

And CC.
[EMAIL="Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk"]Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk"]Joel.Taylor@ukmetro.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="news@the-sun.co.uk"]news@the-sun.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your response to my email, however you appeared to have not addressed the concerns raised. For clarity and ease of response there are 13 questions below (marked Q 1 to Q 13).

Firstly can you please confirm that you have formally recorded my email as an official compliant against both EE for failure to comply with GC 9.6, and Ofcom for failure to act? (Q 1)

Concentrating on EEs change in T&Cs you have said:
“.. Ofcom has taken the view, based on the information we have, that the change does not appear to us to be one likely to give rise to the right to cancel the contract under GC9.6. ….
Can you clarify what information you have? (Q 2)It does not appear that you have reviewed both an OLD and NEW version of the contracts can you confirm that you have reviewed them (copied below for your reference)? (Q 3)
The reasons are as follows:
1. “The revised terms are likely to put consumers in a better, or at least no worse, position than the previous terms. They do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case,”
This seems to plainly incorrect – the old clause allowed an increase no higher than RPI OR ANY OTHER measure of inflation (e.g. lower rates such as CPI/RPI(J)), the new clause allows an increase up to RPI – can you explain how Ofcom reached the conclusion that the change does not “… purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case”? (Q 4) (For your reference the February 2014 rates were: RPI 2.7%; CPI 1.7% (RPI 58.8% HIGHER); over the last 24 months RPI has been 18.8% higher).
“… and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used in such increases.”
By giving more clarity it reduces the scope for challenge, whilst this is good for EE it is not good for the consumer as there is less scope to exercise cancellation rights, Can Ofcom explain –with its consumer protection remit – why it considers giving consumers less scope to leave their contracts is beneficial? (Q 5)
“…We note in this context that EE and its brands always previously used RPI rather than CPI.”
Effectively you are saying that in all past increases EE have put in place an increase that triggers a consumer’s right to a penalty free cancellation, and Ofcom has done nothing to compel EE to write to consumers FULLY EXPLAINING their right to a penalty free cancellation. Can you explain why Ofcom considers this to be acceptable? (Q 6)


2. The new term sets out a position that, if or when applied, is unlikely in our view to cause material detriment to relevant consumers. Consumers to whom the new term applies (who will be consumers who entered into their contracts before 23 January 2014, and in respect of whom, therefore, our recent guidance does not apply) will be able to exit the contract without penalty for price increases that exceed the relevant published RPI figure.
Can you explain why RPI is not considered to be of Material Detriment to consumers? (Q 7). Your previous definition of Material Detriment taken from the Ofcom publication “ Price rises in fixed term contracts - Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9.6”, Published in November 2013 Ofcom explains the rationale for including the term 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.”

Please explain how a REAL TERMS increase (CPI and RPI(J) being the OFFICIAL UK measures of inflation – RPI is not even a designated as a National Statistic), is to the consumers benefit or neutral to the consumer? (Q 8)


3. Accordingly, the new term is unlikely to be a change that itself is likely to cause material detriment. On that basis, it would not require providers to notify and provide subscribers with the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty under GC9.6.
On reflection of the above points is this still Ofcoms view? (Q 9)
Why in 93% (more cases have been won since I last contacted you) are the legal experts at CISAS finding that this change IS of Material Detriment? What does it take for Ofcom to acknowledge that it got this wrong and to take respective action? (Q 10)

Ofcom appear to be mixing two separate points for their reason for inactivity:

• Ofcom does not consider the change to be of Material Detriment; and
• That Ofcom will not take action due to its administrative priorities and/or only on behalf of consumers as a whole

I have addressed point 1 above and look forward to receiving the explanations requested above,
As regards point 2 – EE are by far the largest CP in the UK and the change has affected every customer who joined EE before 23rd January 2014 – how can Ofcom possibly consider that this does not affect a “body of consumers as a whole”? (Q 11)
As regards to your administrative priorities are you saying that as Ofcom does not have the resource to take on EE then EE are effectively “above the law”? (Q 12)


Finally in connection with the EE price rise under the new T&C effective from 26th March 2014 Ofcom does not consider that EE are bound to the Ofcom rule on GC 9.6 dated 23rd January 2004?
Can you explain how this can be possible please? (Q 13)
It was disappointing that Ofcom sided with the industry and has allowed CPs to continue to apply price rises during the fixed period of the contract (especially as if CPs change T&Cs mid contract consumers are bound by the new term), but to go further and to say that changes to T&Cs that occur AFTER the new rules are implemented are also not subject to the new rules seems to defy all rules of natural justice and UK law.
.


Regards

A supporter of “FightMobileIncreases” – a pressure group dedicated to assisting consumers use the protection of the UTCCRs and GC 9.6, and to monitor and highlight Ofcoms actions (inaction) in relation to the Mobile Phone Market.

Old Clause (Orange EE and T-Mobile (Post 30 October 2012) – Clause number may vary
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 as follows:
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);

What can I say but brilliant. Perhaps this should to the editor of The Sunday Times who do not seem to be well disposed towards OFCOM. Likewise BBC Watchdog. Keep up the good work.

mozza54

Hi, I got my defence details from EE today and was hoping that someone could give me some pointers on how best to respond?


I originally put my complaint in when the changes to the T&C's were announced and then added to that when the price increase notification came about.


If you need more details, please let me know, I really want to get this back off today

Lifes_Grand_Plan

RandomCurve wrote: »

The real reason I'm keen for people to pester Ofcom and to copy in the media, is that in the past when I have contacted Newspapers they have said they would be more interested in a story on Ofcom than they would be on EE (I assume because Ofcom are a softer target as they can't sue for liable/slander).
If we can get the media to run a story on Ofcoms failing it will highlight EE and the industries practices, and is probably more likely to prod Ofcom into action than the Parliamentary Ombudsman.


I was not aware that a complaint to the PO can now be made without an MPs signature - I will investigate.

The Parlimentary and Health Service Ombudsman website is available on the link below:

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/how-to-complain/what-can-we-help-with

As you say, any complaint about a government department has to be referred by an MP. Shouldn't be too hard to get a referral though.

You do have to satisfy the department's (OFCOM's) complaints process first though.