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

trayscragg

I've just emailed the template through , hopefully i am not too late.Currently on 4GEE since October last year so i'm guessing this applies to me since there are cheaper alternatives out there than what EE are providing me with.

RandomCurve

Below is a CISAS case template for those on
T-MOBILE PRE 30th OCTOBER 2012 CONTRACTS.

As before you need to change the RED "X"s as appropriate to your own dates.


I must admit I think this is the hardest case to win, but I think I've made a decent argument, but as always feel free to amend and change as you think fit.


Good Luck!

Summary

My claim is not in regards to T-Mobile (referred to as EE throughout the remainder of this claim) business decision to change its T&Cs, as a business EE is free to make whatever business decisions it chooses. My claim is that the change in T&Cs notified to me on X is such that it triggers my right to a penalty free cancellation as per our contract – clause 7.2.3.2 - and I should be allowed to exit my contract penalty free, back dated to X which is 14 days after I first contacted EE.

Further I request that I be awarded £100 compensation (£25 for each) for the following:

• EEs breach of GC 9.6 – not informed of my rights to cancel the contract, (£25)
• EEs Breach of UTCCRs Schedule 2, paragraph 1, – EE taking exclusive right to interpret what likely to be of MD means, (£25)
• EEs Breach of the duty of care owed to me by ignoring my legitimate requests for information. (£25)
• EEs Breach of the requirement to act in Good faith in the way that the change in T&Cs was presented to me (£25)

Details are at appendix 1
Correspondence is at Appendix 2 to X

Appendix 1

Details
My claim is not in regards to EEs business decision to change its T&Cs, as a business EE is free to make whatever business decisions it chooses. My claim is that EE have breached the terms of our contract by refusing my request to a penalty free cancelation following notification of a change in terms and conditions notified to me by text on X that I consider to be to my material detriment as provided for under our contract.

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 an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect. 7.2.4. If You are terminating this Agreement and a Cancellation

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);





I entered into my contract on DATE, 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.



Without prejudice
Under both my contract and GC9.6, I am entitled to a penalty free cancelation if a change in T&Cs is of material detriment to me, further GC9.6 which would override my contract term in this case states “is likely to be of Material detriment” (the term “likely” means I only have to prove that it might be of MD and not that it is of MD – a much lower threshold to cross).

My current clause does purport to allow EE to increase prices by RPI and it is generally considered that an RPI increase is not of material Detriment (notwithstanding that the current clause may well be unenforceable as it does not comply with UTCCRs (as it is ambiguous and allow EE to rely on an RPI rate to be published)

However the reason RPI has been generally accepted as not being of Material Detriment is that RPI was the official measure of inflation within the UK, and it was thought that if the increase was not a REAL TERMS increase then the price rise would not be considered likely to be of a Material Detriment to me.

In March 2013 (10 months BEFORE EE notified me of the change its T&Cs) the Office of National Statistics ONS (which EE are fully aware of as they refer to it on their website in regards to their change in T&Cs) announced that RPI lost its designation as a National statistic as the calculation methodology does not meet with international calculation standards and has been replaced with CPI which is now THE National Statistical by which UK inflation is measured and is used by the UK Government. As CPI is the true measure of inflation recognised by the ONS and the UK Government then any increase over CPI would be a REAL TERMS increase and so would be considered likely to be of Material Detriment under GC9.6. If EE had not updated their T&Cs I would have used this argument in a court of law and would have been likely to have escaped my contract if EE increased prices above CPI. If I were to accept the change to the T&Cs that EE have notified me of I will have lost that potential right to a penalty free cancellation on this basis, and will be accepting that EE can apply a REAL TERMS increase to my contract. This has to be considered as likely to be to my MD (GC9.6 only requiring that the change is LIKELY to be of Material; Detriment)

CPI v RPI rates over recent months are detailed below 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. It is clear that the internationally recognised method of calculating inflation utilised by the CPI consistently provides a LOWER figure than the RPI which is no longer designated as a National Statistic.

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 2014 CPI 1.9%; RPI 2.8%
Feb 2014 CPI 1.7%; RPI 2.7% (58.8%higher)

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-



Between EE updating their T&Cs and this case coming to CISAS EE have advised me that they will be increasing prices by RPI - which reinforces my argument that the change in T&Cs is to allow EE to use the Higher the rate - which is to my material detriment.

Without prejudice
The UTCCRs are clear that the price is the most important term in a contract and therefore any change to a clause which is in relation to a price variation clause in a fixed term contract should need to be set at a very high threshold to prove that it was not likely to be of Material detriment to me.

With the above in mind I claim 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 Under the UTCCRs Regulation 7 which 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.

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 that is a change "that is not of benefit to me" and this position is supported, by regulation and the regulatory context of Material detriment as follows.

The phrase "likely to be of Material Detriment" (note it only has to be "likely" - not definite) was introduced in GC 9.6 which itself does not explicitly define Material Detriment, however the meaning can be deduced by considering the intention behind Ofcom (and OFTEL before them) introducing the term "likely to be of material detriment" into GC9.6 and by reference to the source documentation for GC 9.6 which is the USD 20/(22). 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.

USD 2002/22/EC
Chapter IV – End User Agreements
Article 20 – Contracts
Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.

Further Ofcom GC 9.6 support the USD implementation as the term "likely to be of material detriment" was introduced because:

"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.

As Ofcom's reasoning for introducing the term was to protect me - the consumer - from changes in the T&Cs which are not to my benefit or at the very least neutral the any other change is LIKELY to be of Material Detriment. As EE have updated the T&Cs to make the price variation more easily enforceable the change is clearly not to my benefit, nor neutral in its impact.

Further the EE Board has a legal duty to act in the best interests of the Company, it therefore follows that the change in T&Cs has to be to the benefit of EE (as the EE Board would be derelict in its obligations to EE if the change was to my benefit and EEs detriment), and if it is of benefit to EE then by definition it must be to my detriment, and as it allows a REAL TERMS increase it must also be considered as likely be of Material Detriment to me.


Without Prejudice
Under both my contract and GC9.6, I am entitled to a penalty free cancelation if a change in T&Cs is of material detriment to me, further GC9.6 which would override my contract term in this case states “is likely to be of Material detriment” (the term “likely” means I only have to prove that it might be of MD and not that it is of MD – a much lower threshold to cross).
I believe EE made the change to T&Cs (they have refused to communicate on this point) 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 likely to be unenforceable to likely to be enforceable. Clearly any change in T&Cs that moves me from a position whereby EE have a clause which is likely to be unenforceable (I am aware that EE have both lost and conceded cases on the enforceability of their current price variation clause) to a position where EE are now likely to be able to enforce the clause is likely to be to my material detriment. This position is supported by the language used by EE 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”)
1 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. . 2
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.

The current clause in the T&Cs is likely to be unenforceable as the contract does not contain the phrase “Published”, and is therefore so ambiguous that T-Mobile applied the wrong RPI rate to approximately 50% of its customers in May 2102, and in May 2013 had to try and rely on a strict interpretation that the clause actually allows T-Mobile to use a rate yet to be published, which is clearly unfair and likely to be unenforceable under the UTCCRs (indeed I am aware that many customers did indeed escape their contracts in May 2013)

Further EE have tried to tell me that this change in T&Cs is for my benefit as it makes my contract clearer. If EEs motive is truly to make the contract clearer then they would have taken the opportunity to remove the phrase "material detriment" from their contract terms as this is the most ambiguous part of the whole contract. By not rectifying this, but only seeking to ensure that the price variation clause is clear (and therefore more likely to be enforceable) I believe highlights the real motive for the change to T&Cs which is not to make the contract clearer for my benefit, but rather to give EE a price variation clause which is more likely to be enforceable, and therefore the change is clearly to my Material Detriment.


Redress Sought
For not allowing the penalty free cancellation contained at clause 7.2.3.2 I request that CISAS direct EE to comply with the clause and that the penalty free termination is back dated to 14 days after the original request and any sums taken since termination are

EE have breached GC 9.6 B and C in that they did not inform me of my cancellation rights when writing to me when they knew (or should have known) that the change to T&Cs was likely to strengthen EEs position in enforcing the price rise clause and therefore is likely to be of material detriment to me. £25

The EE legal department would 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 of 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 was or was not of Material Detriment to me, and under what regulation changes they are referring to. £25

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.

sauceychoco

I dont seem to be getting any response from the emails I've sent. I sent the first "notice to terminate my contract" email on the 13th Feb and then a second "I have not yet had a response" email on the 3rd March.

I've had nothing back. Have I sent the emails to an incorrect account? executive.office@ee.co.uk and Olaf.Swantee@ee.co.uk

Shall I send another email or shall I send to different email addresses?

RandomCurve

Below is a CISAS template for customers on an
ORANGE CONTRACT TAKEN OUT PRE OCTOBER 2012

As always amend as you see fit and don't forget to change the Red Xs to suit your dates.


The great thing about this contract is that there is no Material detriment threshold to prove, only that the change is to your detriment.


It may be worth moving the first argument regarding the use of RPI instead of CPI to the end (just before "Redress Sought"), as on this contract it is probably the weakest of the 3 arguments and it will help to distinguish it from the other cases the adjudicators will read and so may just assume "Material detriment" applies.


Good Luck!




Summary


My claim is not in regards to the Orange(referred to as EE throughout the remainder of this claim) business decision to change its T&Cs, as a business EE is free to make whatever business decisions it chooses. My claim is that the change in T&Cs notified to me on X is such that it triggers my right to a penalty free cancellation as per our contract – 4.3 - and I should be allowed to exit my contract penalty free, back dated to X which is 14 days after I first contacted EE.





Further I request that I be awarded £100 compensation (£25 for each) for the following:

• EEs breach of GC 9.6 – not informed of my rights to cancel the contract, (£25)
• EEs Breach of UTCCRs Schedule 2, paragraph 1 – EE taking exclusive right to interpret what Deteriment means, (£25)
• EEs Breach of the duty of care owed to me by ignoring my legitimate requests for information. (£25)
• EEs Breach of the requirement to act in Good faith in the way that the change in T&Cs was presented to me (£25)

Details are at appendix 1
Correspondence is at Appendix 2 to X

Appendix 1

Details
My claim is not in regards to EEs business decision to change its T&Cs, as a business EE is free to make whatever business decisions it chooses. My claim is that EE have breached the terms of our contract by refusing my request to a penalty free cancelation following notification of a change in terms and conditions notified to me by text on X that I consider to be to of detriment as provided for under our contract at point 4.3. Please note that the contract is clear that the change only has to be to my detriment, not my Martial detriment.

My current clause is as follows:
4.3 You may also terminate your Contract if we vary its terms, resulting in an excessive increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us telling you about the changes).

4.3.1 we have increased the Charges by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices published by the Central Statistical Office in the Monthly Digest of Statistics in any 12 month period

Whereas the new clause is
4.3.1 the increase in the Charges (as a percentage) is equal to or lower 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 4.3).


Without prejudice
Under my contract (clause 4.3), I am entitled to a penalty free cancelation if a change in T&Cs is to my detriment (Clause does NOT require Material detriment only Detriment).
My current clause does purport to allow EE to increase prices by RPI and it is generally considered that an RPI increase is not of Material Detriment (notwithstanding that the current clause may well be unenforceable as it does not comply with UTCCRs (Refers to a defunct publishing body and a defunct index).

However the reason RPI has been generally accepted as not being of Material Detriment is that RPI was the official measure of inflation within the UK, and it was thought that if the increase was not a REAL TERMS increase then the price rise would not be considered likely to be of a material Detriment to me.

In March 2013 (10 months BEFORE EE notified me of the change its T&Cs) the Office of National Statistics ONS (which EE are fully aware of as they refer to it on their website in regards to their change in T&Cs) announced that RPI lost its designation as a National statistic as the calculation methodology does not meet with international calculation standards and has been replaced with CPI which is now THE National Statistical by which UK inflation is measured and is used by the UK Government. As CPI is the true measure of inflation recognised by the ONS and the UK Government then any increase over CPI would be a REAL TERMS increase and so would be considered to be of Material Detriment under GC9.6. If EE had not updated their T&Cs I would have used this argument in a court of law and would have been likely to have escaped my contract if EE increased prices above CPI. If I were to accept the change to the T&Cs that EE have notified me of I will have lost that potential right to a penalty free cancellation on this basis, and will be accepting that EE can apply a REAL TERMS increase to my contract. This has to be considered as to be to my Detriment (clause 4.3 only requiring a threshold of “detriment”).

Recent CPI v RPI rates over the last six months are detailed below 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. It is clear that the internationally recognised method of calculating inflation utilised by the CPI consistently provides a LOWER figure than the RPI which is no longer designated as a National Statistic.

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-



Without prejudice
The UTCCRs are clear that the price is the most important term in a contract and therefore any change to a clause which is in relation to a price variation clause in a fixed term contract should need to be set at a very high threshold to prove that it was not likely to be of detriment (per clause 4.3 -Clause does NOT require Material detriment only Detriment) to me.

With the above in mind I claim that regardless of the quantum of the price increase that the change in T&Cs allows the use of the phrase “Detriment” is clear in its meaning and allows me to cancel my contract penalty free if there is ANY shift in the balance away from me and towards EE.

As the EE Board has a legal duty to act in the best interests of the Company, it therefore follows that the change in T&Cs has to be to the benefit of EE (as the EE Board would be derelict in its obligations to EE if the change was to my benefit and EEs detriment), and if it is of benefit to EE then by definition it must be to my detriment, and as it allows a REAL TERMS increase it is not only to my detriment (per clause 4.3 of my contract) it must also be to my Material Detriment per GC 9.6.


Without Prejudice
Under Clause 4.3 of my contract, I am entitled to a penalty free cancelation if a change in T&Cs is of detriment to me (Clause does NOT require Material detriment only Detriment). I believe EE made the change to T&Cs (they have refused to communicate on this point) 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 likely to be unenforceable to likely to be enforceable. Clearly any change in T&Cs that moves me from a position whereby EE have a clause which is likely to be unenforceable (I am aware that EE have both lost and conceded cases on the enforceability of their current price variation clause) to a position where EE are now likely to be able to enforce the clause can only be to my detriment. This position is supported 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”)
1 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. . 2
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.

The current clause in the T&Cs is likely to be unenforceable as the clause refers to a defunct Publishing Body and a Defunct Statistic, therefore it is “likely” that a case could be won against such a clause if EE tried to rely upon it (I am aware of cases that have been fought and won on this basis). The new clause would not afford me the opportunity to challenge EE on this basis and is therefore clearly to my detriment as per clause 4.3 (Clause does NOT require Material detriment only Detriment) of our contract.

Without Prejudice
In addition to updating clause 4.3.1 EE have also amended clause 4.3. Under the original clause 4.3 I am entitiled to cancel my contract where a change of price or T&Cs is to my detriment, however under the revised clause that right has been restricted to "Material Dertiment", obviously any change that places a restriction on my right to challenge EE is clearly to my detriment and therefore under the current contract term 4.3 I am entitled to a penalty free cancellation.
It should also be noted that the introduction of the word "Material" in this clause moves the clause from being clear to being ambiguous, as EE have been at pains to point out that the change to clause 4.3.1 is to my benefit as it makes the term clearer, it must follow by using EEs own definition of clarity = benefit, that introducing ambiguity must = detriment. I therefore suggest that this change is to my detriment (which is all I am required to demonstrate) and gives rise to a penalty free cancellation as requested.

Redress Sought
For not allowing the penalty free cancellation contained at clause 4.3I request that CISAS direct EE to comply with the clause and that the penalty free termination is back dated to 14 days after the original request and any sums taken since termination are refunded.
EE have breached GC 9.6 B and C in that they did not inform me of my cancellation rights when writing to me when they knew (or should have known) that the change to T&Cs was likely to strengthen EEs position in enforcing the price rise clause and therefore is likely to be of detriment to me. £25

The EE legal department would have known that under the UTCCRs section Schedule 2, paragraph 1 EE cannot have the exclusive right to determine what determent means, by assuming this right they have tried to pass this change of T&Cs of 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 was or was not of Detriment to me, and under what regulation changes they are referring to. £25

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.

RandomCurve

Another update to help you find your way around


Email 1 - Original cancellation request is at post #44
All Orange and T-Mobile clauses are at post #57
EEs response to email 1 is at post #65
Email 2 - response to EE is at post #68
EE response to email 2 is at #73 OR #98
Email 3 - response to EE is at post #110 or #111 for post #73
Email 3 - response to EE is at post #116 for post #98
A CISAS guide to read BEFORE sending ANY of the CISAS templates #266
CISAS Template #267 and #269 for POST 30th October contract holders for Orange, T-Mobile, and EE
CISAS Template #383 for T-Mobile PRE 30th October 2012 contract holders
CISAS Template #385 for ORANGE PRE 30th October 2012 contract holders

RandomCurve

Keverso wrote: »

As recommended earlier in this thread I sent two e-mails (one for me, one for my wife) via outlook requesting read receipts. We received them yesterday afternoon stating that the mighty Olaf himself had read. So I am assuming (hoping) this will count as proof we did sent e-mails.

I have been following this thread and read the whole thing (quite the saga) and am wondering with all the backwards and forwards how it is looking for an end game? Would I be right in assuming that once the first person get a ruling be that form some organisation EE will listen to, small claims court or what ever, that the rest of us have a reasonable expectation to get the same deal after that? Looking forward to seeing how this one plays out

Kevin

A very reasonable assumption, but NO!


Each adjudicator will have a different approach and even if all the cases were 100% identical there will still be variations in the outcomes! Even at the Small Claims Court (SCC) this can happen, but is more likely to be consistent.


As for EE the really do "love" their customers and so will do ANYTHING to keep them (which does not cost them money)likely to

RandomCurve

SimonD316 wrote: »

So I think we can argue we accepted those changes to move to the post October 2012 terms and conditions, but we do not accept the latest change.

I strongly recommend that you do not go down this route. EE will simply let you put your claim into CISAS based on the fact that they changed the T&Cs back in 2012 (so all of your case will be built around that) the EE defence will then simply be " we did not change the T&Cs and we put SimonD316 to strict proof that we notified him of a change". You won't have that proof as they NEVER changed your T&Cs (despite what it says on the website) and as in your response to EEs defence to your claim you can not introduce any new evidence (i.e. try to bring in the T&C clauses that you are actually on) your case fails right there and then.


I've seen it happen see the below which I have copied in from another forum (the claim was lost):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4517039


I have received a reply from Orange and, even after all my dealings with them, I’ was frankly surprised by it’s brazen opportunism.

Their defence can be summarised as follows:
• They did indeed not send any specific notification about their changes in the pre-October 2012 Ts&Cs.
• I am therefore still covered by the original Febrary 2011 Ts&Cs. i.e. The ones with the long-defunct government agency and the non-existent publication.
• As my CISAS complaint was on the basis that my Ts&Cs had changed, there were no grouns upon which I can make a claim for a detrimental change.

RandomCurve

patel1977 wrote: »

Hi

I have 3 times last week to EE executive office but no reply as yet.

I am on the Flex 30 plan, contract is ending in April 2014.


Any advise would be appreciated .

Please recommend what to do!!

With a contract end date so soon I would not bother to do anything.

RandomCurve

andrewmp wrote: »

Just received

Thank you for your enquiry to use the CISAS scheme. Unfortunately, however, we are unable to
process your application at this time as you have not provided a copy of a deadlock letter from the
company or clear evidence that you have been in dispute for more than 8 weeks.

If you have a deadlock letter from the Company or other evidence showing your dispute is more
than 8 weeks old please re-submit your application attaching the documents that you have.

You need to show that you have been through the company’s formal complaints procedure or that
you have been attempting to do so for more than 8 weeks.

In your case you should be corresponding with:-

Everything Everywhere LTD (EE) Complaints& Investigations, 6 Camberwell Way, Doxford
International Business Park, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR3 3XN

We hope that you are able to resolve your complaint directly with the company. However, should
that not be possible, please re-submit your application when you have a deadlock letter or your
dispute is more than 8 weeks but has not exceeded a 12 month period.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us

I did say in a (much) earlier post that CISAS seem to change their minds on what does and does not constitute deadlock! unfortunately their decisions on the outcome of cases are just as random!


I can only assume that they were in a "quite period" at first and so relaxed the deadlock reference/8 week limit, but I guess by now they are getting busy so are trying to stagger the workload by playing hardball with the Deadlock/8 week thing.


This is another reason why EE won't give out deadlock references as they hope by the time 8 weeks has been and gone you would have forgotten all about this.


You could phone CISAS and tell them that EE have refused to enter into any further dialogue on this matter with you so waiting for 8 weeks to expire is clearly not going to resolve the issue, so why can' they take the case on? issue


Stick with it!

RandomCurve

persil33 wrote: »

I sent a letter and this is the reply I got.


Thank you for your letter received on 27th February 2014. I am responding via email as you have requested. Your letter states you would like to end your agreement without charge with T-Mobile due to recent changes to the Terms and Conditions.
As a company EE does not accept there has been any material detriment due to the recent proposed change in its terms and conditions. Under these circumstances any request from its customers to be released from contract without penalty will be declined. Any customer wishing to cancel their contract may do so by providing the relevant 30 days notice period required but they will be held liable for any early termination fee.
The company, EE, have fully complied with the General Conditions set out under Ofcom regulations and as the previous emails and this one sets out fully the final position EE has taken in the matter no further discussion will be entered into with regard to this matter.
Yours Sincerely
Victoria Hindle

so I emailed them and got this reply
Thank you for your email dated 01 March 2014. 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 condition 9.6 of the Ofcom/EU Framework for EU Regulations. This conditions 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 terminate their contract free of charge. When the changes are not of material detriment the customer does not have the right to terminate their contract. 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.
Please be assured our customer?s views are important to us and your comments are fully acknowledged.
Yours Sincerely
Victoria Hindle


strange how they mention a prise rise even though I had only mentioned the change in t&c.


so sent them the 2nd email template that you have done and this is the response I got.


With regards to your email received 03 March 2014. I do apologise for any previous confusion caused regarding this matter. I understand you are unhappy with the recent notification of changes to your account and wish to cancel free of charge.
The notification regarding updating our terms and conditions from 26 March 2014 is to offer customers more certainty in the event of us making any changes to their monthly price plan charge. The terms mean that if we increase phone plan charges above the latest rate of inflation (measured by the latest published RPI figure) customers can cancel their plan without charge. It is not a notification of a price increase.
These changes will make sure you have more clarity around notification of price changes and ensure we meet Ofcom regulations. The specific change relates to clause 4.3.1, which will change from the 26th March 2014 to the below:
"4.3.1 the increase in the Charges (as a percentage) is equal to or lower 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 4.3)."




Ofcom's recent guidance was aimed at improving transparency and fairness in contracts for customers on several issues, including price increases in contract. The update to our T&Cs supports this aim and provides you with greater clarity about price increase notification, including the instances when you have a right to cancel your contract without charge. The cost of your price plan isn't changing so theres no reason for you to cancel your contract. Our aim is to make things clearer for all of our customers in the event of any future changes. If we raise prices beyond the rate of inflation then you would be able to cancel without penalty, if a price increase is in line with the rate of inflation then theres no right to cancel without charge.
Under Ofcom's GC9 rules, customers can only leave their contract if the change in the contract means they are materially worse off. Our recent update to T&Cs is a clarification of the existing price increase clause, and does not lead to customers being materially worse off. The change is to the customers benefit. Customers therefore can't leave their contract without penalty following this change.
Having now advised you correctly of the company policy. I am unable to respond any further regarding this matter. If you remain unhappy you have the right to seek independent advice.
Thank you for contacting EE
Victoria Hindle


any ideas what to do next ? thanks in advance

it depends WHEN you took out your contract If it was PRE 30th October 2012 then try the following:


Clause 4.3 of my contract gives me a right to a penalty free termination if the change in T&Cs is to my DETERIMENT, and has nothing to do with material detriment. You must be fully aware of what clause 4.3 says and means so please explain why you have referred to GC9.6 "material Detriment".


As you rightly point out EE have introduced greater clarity into the clause and it is that very clarity that gives rise to my detriment as you have moved from a clause that is potentially unenforceable under the UTCCRs to a clause that is likely to be enforceable. As the change is therefore clearly to EEs benefit it follows that it has to be to my detriment.


therefore once again I request a penalty free cancellation of my contract as originally requested.


should EE still believe that this change is not to my detriment then please issue a deadlock reference with you response.