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

sr56

sshariff wrote: »

Btw CISAS have accepted my application and have given EE until the 19th to respond back with their defense.

Would I be right in thinking this fatally undermines EE's stated reason for refusing deadlock at post 400?

Ed13P

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

In addition to above, I have just readied my Appendix one to send to CISAS and am a little concerned with the content.

Paragraphy 4 (ish) states:

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


But the term on the contract pre-change says:


"
4.3.1 we give you written notice to increase the Charges (as a percentage) by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices 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;"


To me, that clause doesn;t say they MUST use the lowest measure, it simply says they can use any statistical measure (of their choice) and that the increase must be lower than than measure.


If thats the case then were is the material detriment because under the old or new terms they can use RPI as the measure so nothing has changed.


Its not that I don't think there is a case for material detriment and penalty free cancellation because of this, I just think the above isn't it.

I don't know who your contract is with.

I assume it is not with EE as the T&C (Version 1) 7.2.3.3 states:

"...(i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than the 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..."

I think the paragraph you are referring to is for EE customers, unless you have a different set of T&C.

RandomCurve

Keverso wrote: »

So would I be right in thinking that while I have a complaint in saying I do not want this change running and they put the price up would that help the case with an argument along the lines of "see - you put my monthly price up - that's MD"?

Keverso

If you were on the post 30 Oct 2012 then yes, as you can demonstrate that they are using the clause to apply a higher price rise than they would otherwise have been allowed! But as you know to use this argument you have to have already REJECTED the change in T&Cs

RandomCurve

tateman wrote: »

I've sent the email in post #44 3 times with the latest a week ago today, I've still heard nothing! Are they hoping I'm going to give up? Because I wont.:mad:

Send again quoting that this is the fourth attempt (add dates) - and copy in [EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]

RandomCurve

SimonD316 wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here a little, maybe RandomCurve can advise better...

You asked for your penalty free cancellation, which you need to give at least 14 days notice for. Do you have a read receipt for the email?

If they don't respond within 14 days are they deemed to have accepted the cancellation in the same way we only have 1 month to reject changes to the contract?

Legally I don't know the answer, but I don't see why not. Maybe the emails should start that EE will be deemed to have agreed to the rejection if they don't respond within 14 days!!!

RandomCurve

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

In addition to above, I have just readied my Appendix one to send to CISAS and am a little concerned with the content.

Paragraphy 4 (ish) states:

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


But the term on the contract pre-change says:


"
4.3.1 we give you written notice to increase the Charges (as a percentage) by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices 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;"


To me, that clause doesn;t say they MUST use the lowest measure, it simply says they can use any statistical measure (of their choice) and that the increase must be lower than than measure.


If thats the case then were is the material detriment because under the old or new terms they can use RPI as the measure so nothing has changed.


Its not that I don't think there is a case for material detriment and penalty free cancellation because of this, I just think the above isn't it.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

If a clause is ambiguous then under the UTCCRs the meaning MOST FAVOURABLE to the CONSUMER is used .


http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/Group19/


19.6 Ambiguity. Where a term is ambiguous, a court may be able to find at least one fair meaning in it, and enforce it on that basis, rather than declaring it unfair and void by reason of lack of clarity. However, the Directive makes clear that the 'most favourable interpretation' rule is intended to benefit consumers in private disputes, not to give suppliers a defence against regulatory action – see Regulation 7(2). If a term's ambiguity could cause detriment to consumers it may be challenged as unfair even if one of its possible meanings is fair.

tateman

For those people awaiting a response from letter #44 i addressed mine to Francoise.Clemes@ee.co.uk and got a response back within a couple of hours. A case handler is going to give me a call back.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

RandomCurve wrote: »

If a clause is ambiguous then under the UTCCRs the meaning MOST FAVOURABLE to the CONSUMER is used .


http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/Group19/


19.6 Ambiguity. Where a term is ambiguous, a court may be able to find at least one fair meaning in it, and enforce it on that basis, rather than declaring it unfair and void by reason of lack of clarity. However, the Directive makes clear that the 'most favourable interpretation' rule is intended to benefit consumers in private disputes, not to give suppliers a defence against regulatory action – see Regulation 7(2). If a term's ambiguity could cause detriment to consumers it may be challenged as unfair even if one of its possible meanings is fair.

But which bit is ambiguous? I don't think any of that bit is....

jakethepeguk

I have just received my response from Cicas, they are taking my case, (thanks for that RC).

Just for clarity -
I received the 3rd mail from ee, "will not discuss any further".
When completing the online CICAS application, I received the CICAS reference number by mail. I emailed and pasted everything I had sent to EE into word, naming each document, with an idea of what the content was ie, email sent Jake to EE and Date and attached those documents (Word 2003 - 2007 compatible).
I pasted every delivery and read receipt, again dating and naming them as this, to show EE are clearly ignoring me.
It might take you half an hour to do, but at least its giving something CICAS can hit the ground running with and should only speed up your application, (I sent mine 27th).

ryan92

EE are either really swamped with emails or are using the lack of response as a tactic to waste time!