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

RandomCurve

Persi33,


If your contract is post 30thOctober 2012 then send the email at #116, but remove the bottom part "what does refers mean" (did anybody get an answer to the question????).


alternatively you can see if "you are free to seek alternative advice" can be used as a notification of deadlock with CISAS.

andrewmp

RandomCurve wrote: »

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!

Thanks, so if I just submit the same thing again once the 8 weeks is up they can proceed then? I'm in no hury to be honest anyway, an elephant never forgets either ;-)

SimonD316

RandomCurve wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the reply. I have based my claim around the 2011 terms, which I sent a copy of to CISAS when I made my application.

patel1977

RandomCurve wrote: »

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

Thanks

Can anyone recommend which network I should go to – planning a 4G deal.

Been T –mobile customer for last 10 years

esmith1234

Following the email I received detailing the content of our phone call I sent the following reply:

After reviewing the change in wording in the contract, I do believe that this is of material detriment to customers. Previously, you could only increase by an "amount equal to or less than the percentage in the all Index of Retail Prices or any other statistical measure of inflation published by the government body authorised to publish measures of inflation". This means if another statistical measure of inflation (such as the CPI) turned out to be lower than the RPI, this is the maximum amount by which you could increase our bills.

By removing this reference to "any other statistical measure of inflation", you are now entitled to increase by the RPI only. As RPI has in recent year been on average 0.6% higher than CPI, this means you can now increase our bills by a greater amount than before, therefore the change is clearly of material detriment to your customers.

Additionally, 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.

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 2014 CPI 1.9%; RPI 2.8%

I trust that you can see why this all of this means that this rewording of the terms and conditions constitutes material detriment to Orange / EE customers and therefore why I wish to terminate my contract free of charge.

Many thanks,


I have now received the below reply and am wondering how to proceed:

Thank you for your response to my email received in the Executive Office.

As a company we wish to provide clarity on the terms to ensure customers are provided with more certainty and transparency in the event of us making any changes to your Price Plan. The update in the terms and conditions supports the guidance Ofcom recently issued around fairness in contracts around several issues, including price increase in contract. The change in the terms provides greater clarity on price increase notification, which includes the instances when you as a customer have the right to cancel a contract without charge.

As we are not increasing our plan charges currently, unfortunately you will not be able to end your agreement until you have completed the minimum term without paying an Early Termination Fee. Should we increase the prices in the future, you would only be able to end the agreement provided the price increase is great than 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).

Whenever we have increased the Service Plan charges historically this has always been based on Retail Price Index. Therefore the change does not impose any material detriment to you. This is the companies final position and it refers the right not to enter into any further discussion with regard to this matter.

Although this may not be the response you had hoped for I trust this clarifies Orange's position on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Any advice would be most welcome!

sr56

Hi everyone, hope you don't mind me barging in here - I'm not actually involved in this issue, but I learned something about the issuing of deadlock letters in a previous skirmish with EE. For those to whom CISAS has indicated they won't proceed without one, I think I would suggest asking EE outright for a deadlock letter, and if they refuse asking for their grounds for refusal. According to OFCOM guidelines, the only permissible reasons for refusing deadlock are:


‘genuine and reasonable grounds’: when refusing to issue a Deadlock Letter to a Complainant, the CP must not only have genuinely believed that the Complaint would be resolved in a timely manner, but this belief must itself be reasonable;

• ‘takes active steps to resolve the Complaint’: if a CP refuses to issue a Deadlock Letter it has an obligation to take active steps to resolve the Complaint – i.e. it cannot ignore the Complaint or assume that the Complainant will accept a resolution that they have previously rejected; and

• vexatious complaints: a CP could consider a Complaint to be vexatious where it is readily apparent that the Complainant is pursuing a Complaint that is totally without merit and is made with the intention of harassing or creating an unnecessary burden for the CP

1 and 2 are clearly not applicable here, and it seems to my (admittedly untrained) eye that 3 is precluded by the fact that CISAS has indicated that this is the sort of complaint it is willing to take on, therefore it can't be 'without merit'. If they do refuse, unfortunately you'll still have to wait for the eight weeks, but their refusal, in breach of OFCOM guidelines, might add some weight to your case - I think it did with mine!

sauceychoco

sauceychoco wrote: »

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?

Think my post may have been stuck between two much more important posts.

What should I do if Orange just don't get back to me? shall I call them or is there another email address I can forward this onto?

shafeeq

Hi RC


Thanks for your help as always. I filled in the ONLINE form and emailed the appendix today.


Shafeeq

RandomCurve wrote: »

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.
  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) 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 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. 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 of our contract.
  
  
  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.

ed_209_2

EE refusing to give a deadlock letter... complaint without merit yada yada yada...

I will reply when I have some time... this will require a little finesse

Thank you for your responses dated 28 February and 04 March 2014 requesting a deadlock reference.

I write to confirm the following:

As a company, EE is of the understanding the change of Terms and Conditions falls outside of the scope of CISAS' arbitration scheme. As such your request for a deadlock reference is denied. It is noted from your 04 March 2014 email, that you intend to approach CISAS in regard to this matter, this is of course, entirely your prerogative.

I reiterate the notification we have provided you was one advising of a change in the Terms and Conditions to provide you with better clarity under which conditions you can end your agreement without penalty. None of these conditions have been met so your complaint is without merit and your request to end your agreement without penalty is also denied.

I trust this response clarifies our final position and why no further emails relating to this matter will be responded to.
Yours sincerely

50Twuncle

ed_209 wrote: »

no further emails relating to this matter will be responded to.

ie) DEADLOCK ??
These people think that we have just crawled out of the swamp....