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

RandomCurve

[quote=[Deleted User];65926439]Yes they are. I've just received their defence and the document has 70 pages in total :eek:
I am working at the moment. I did not really have time to read the defence properly. I will read it again tonight when I got home.
But I think I might need some advice to prepare my defence and I would like know if this thread is CISAS related mainly? Can I post information relating to Small money claim here?[/QUOTE]
I would like to see that defence, but 70 pages. Is it possible to send it as an email attachment to me at: [EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases,com"]info@fightmobileincreases,com[/EMAIL]
I would also need to see the details of your claim. And to know what correspondence etc you submitted.

[Deleted User]

RandomCurve wrote: »

I would like to see that defence, but 70 pages. Is it possible to send it as an email attachment to me at: [EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases,com"]info@fightmobileincreases,com[/EMAIL]
I would also need to see the details of your claim. And to know what correspondence etc you submitted.

Hi,

Sorry for the late reply.
I've just sent you (info@fightmobileincreases.com)

EE's defence (70 pages) Money claim details POC

With Subject: MSE #2013.
Thank you in advance for your help. :T :T :T

sauceychoco

Just had confirmation of the refund and PAC - seems they may have got their sums wrong. Their calculation is £190 while mine is £260. Not sure what they are excluding so have emailed and asked for a breakdown.

sauceychoco

Just had a near instant response back confirming they agree with my calculation! Not even sure they checked - I should have asked for more!

RandomCurve

[quote=[Deleted User];65931430]Hi,

Sorry for the late reply.
I've just sent you (info@fightmobileincreases.com)

• EE's defence (70 pages)
  Money claim details
  POC

With Subject: MSE #2013.
Thank you in advance for your help. :T :T :T[/QUOTE]


Effectively a re-run of the CISAS case.
From reading your claim document I don't think I need to write anything for you, but will point you in the right direction (happy to review what you come up with).
* In the main repeat the points made in the original defence response and relate tem to subsequent events (the price rise).
* Add the fact that a price rise has now taken place (RPI 2.7% were as on old contract CPI 1.7%a change of 58.8%)
* See the UTCCRS group 10 (10.3 c in particular) and Group 12 (the bit about be narrowly defined) - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/
* re clause 2.11 - who defines "good" see UTCCRs Group 10
* Para 27 - ask what is EEs definition of Material Detriment - they do not give one
* Para 30 - the same RPI/CPI arguments as used before
* UTCCRs (10.3) has no material detriment requirement!
* 33.5 - use the actual price rise as an example
* 37.6 if not Material then why EE not using CPI rather than RPI?



NEW DEFENCE:
* 1 - UTCCRS group 12
* 1a - Yes it does!
* 1b - link to the ONS and quote
"Further RPI only continues to be published for long-term indexation, and index-linked gilts." see the price rise CISAS template from the fight mobile increase site and copy and paste all of the ONS stuff - http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/
* 1c - predictions, but due to calculation methodology RPI will always be higher
* 2 what does Material detriment man in the contract in relation to a change in T&Cs (quote EEs own defence that tis complex and so shoots to pieces their point about the contract being in clear and intelligible language



Original CISAS decision:
* para 3 not just contract but GC 99.6 and UTCCRS
* 13b - now have actual evidence following the price rise
* 13c The items mentioned are not remedies available under GC 9.6, the Contract, nor UTCCRs
* 13c - questions motive-but what has that to do as to if it is of material detriment or not?

Generally concentrate on:

• the old Ofcom clarification of Material Detriment
• The subsequent price rise (58.8% difference)
• The fact that MD is not defined in the contract (group 12)
• The vagueness of the old clause (group 12 - means it was UNENFORCABLE)
• How you have been left in a materially detrimental position - re the nonsense about only being a few pence is countered by saying that if they had use RPI in the old contract you would not have suffered any price rise as could have cancelled the contact therefore the true detriment is the cost of the remainder of your contract!

[Deleted User]

RandomCurve wrote: »

Effectively a re-run of the CISAS case.
From reading your claim document I don't think I need to write anything for you, but will point you in the right direction (happy to review what you come up with).
* In the main repeat the points made in the original defence response and relate tem to subsequent events (the price rise).
* Add the fact that a price rise has now taken place (RPI 2.7% were as on old contract CPI 1.7%a change of 58.8%)
* See the UTCCRS group 10 (10.3 c in particular) and Group 12 (the bit about be narrowly defined) - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/
* re clause 2.11 - who defines "good" see UTCCRs Group 10
* Para 27 - ask what is EEs definition of Material Detriment - they do not give one
* Para 30 - the same RPI/CPI arguments as used before
* UTCCRs (10.3) has no material detriment requirement!
* 33.5 - use the actual price rise as an example
* 37.6 if not Material then why EE not using CPI rather than RPI?



NEW DEFENCE:
* 1 - UTCCRS group 12
* 1a - Yes it does!
* 1b - link to the ONS and quote
"Further RPI only continues to be published for long-term indexation, and index-linked gilts." see the price rise CISAS template from the fight mobile increase site and copy and paste all of the ONS stuff - http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/
* 1c - predictions, but due to calculation methodology RPI will always be higher
* 2 what does Material detriment man in the contract in relation to a change in T&Cs (quote EEs own defence that tis complex and so shoots to pieces their point about the contract being in clear and intelligible language



Original CISAS decision:
* para 3 not just contract but GC 99.6 and UTCCRS
* 13b - now have actual evidence following the price rise
* 13c The items mentioned are not remedies available under GC 9.6, the Contract, nor UTCCRs
* 13c - questions motive-but what has that to do as to if it is of material detriment or not?

Generally concentrate on:

• the old Ofcom clarification of Material Detriment
• The subsequent price rise (58.8% difference)
• The fact that MD is not defined in the contract (group 12)
• The vagueness of the old clause (group 12 - means it was UNENFORCABLE)
• How you have been left in a materially detrimental position - re the nonsense about only being a few pence is countered by saying that if they had use RPI in the old contract you would not have suffered any price rise as could have cancelled the contact therefore the true detriment is the cost of the remainder of your contract!

I truly appreciate your time and effort!! Thank you!!

k3caz

Cheers for all your help RC.

Decision

1. The claim succeeds.

2. The company shall terminate the customer’s contract immediately, refunding all charges imposed since 12th Feb 2014.

3. The customer is awarded compensation in the amount of £100.00

Orange provided a defense, however it was the generic document everyone else got and thanks to all the information on this forum, we where able to tear it apart.

Funniest thing was the constant reference to Him as the claimant, and the contract was in the wifes name :rotfl:

Which of course we highlighted

[Deleted User]

RandomCurve wrote: »

Effectively a re-run of the CISAS case.
From reading your claim document I don't think I need to write anything for you, but will point you in the right direction (happy to review what you come up with).
* In the main repeat the points made in the original defence response and relate tem to subsequent events (the price rise).
* Add the fact that a price rise has now taken place (RPI 2.7% were as on old contract CPI 1.7%a change of 58.8%)
* See the UTCCRS group 10 (10.3 c in particular) and Group 12 (the bit about be narrowly defined) - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/
* re clause 2.11 - who defines "good" see UTCCRs Group 10
* Para 27 - ask what is EEs definition of Material Detriment - they do not give one
* Para 30 - the same RPI/CPI arguments as used before
* UTCCRs (10.3) has no material detriment requirement!
* 33.5 - use the actual price rise as an example
* 37.6 if not Material then why EE not using CPI rather than RPI?



NEW DEFENCE:
* 1 - UTCCRS group 12
* 1a - Yes it does!
* 1b - link to the ONS and quote
"Further RPI only continues to be published for long-term indexation, and index-linked gilts." see the price rise CISAS template from the fight mobile increase site and copy and paste all of the ONS stuff - http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/
* 1c - predictions, but due to calculation methodology RPI will always be higher
* 2 what does Material detriment man in the contract in relation to a change in T&Cs (quote EEs own defence that tis complex and so shoots to pieces their point about the contract being in clear and intelligible language



Original CISAS decision:
* para 3 not just contract but GC 99.6 and UTCCRS
* 13b - now have actual evidence following the price rise
* 13c The items mentioned are not remedies available under GC 9.6, the Contract, nor UTCCRs
* 13c - questions motive-but what has that to do as to if it is of material detriment or not?

Generally concentrate on:

• the old Ofcom clarification of Material Detriment
• The subsequent price rise (58.8% difference)
• The fact that MD is not defined in the contract (group 12)
• The vagueness of the old clause (group 12 - means it was UNENFORCABLE)
• How you have been left in a materially detrimental position - re the nonsense about only being a few pence is countered by saying that if they had use RPI in the old contract you would not have suffered any price rise as could have cancelled the contact therefore the true detriment is the cost of the remainder of your contract!

Hi RC,

I've just sent you a copy of my draft reply to ee's defence and I would be very gratefully if you could review it for me please.
Subject of the email sent: Reply to EEs defence (MSE)

Thank you!

Wullie32

RandomCurve wrote: »

Can you email the decision to me please:
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]
It will help in formulating the new case.

Just sent that over to you mate, thanks.

andrewmp

EE really aren't fast with providing the MAC codes, the way it's going I'm going to be getting 6 months free service out of them.