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

50Twuncle

My wife - who has an ancient (PAYG) Nokia on Orange - tells me that she received a txt at the same time as the rest of us - but since it can't go "on-line" - the link was irrelevant - and she did not receive a letter either !!
So - as far as EE are concerned - she is unaware of any changes to T&C
OK Her monthly bill, averages 20pence - but I wonder how this would stand up in court ?

trayscragg

Has anyone had any luck with this so far ?

sshariff

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

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

Actually the clause is not ambiguous at all - RandomCurve (and everyone else) is correct in the meaning of the clause.

The simple mathematical/boolean condition...

A > (B or C)

will always imply that the condition will be true whenever A > B or whenever A > C. There is absolutely no second interpretation for the condition! Basic algebra you see

This means that they cannot increase the prices beyond any one of the conditions specified in the clause and HAVE to use the lowest value!

Liam-1987

Well I've sent templates off copied people in and still nothing back. Proper annoying

ed_209_2

Interesting - even with Ofcom cc'd in they are point blank refusing to issue me with a deadlock letter. They are now going back to square one and saying that its not a change per se in terms and conditions, merely restating... I've gone back quoting RPI, UTCCR and how they do not have the right to define material detriment.

But interesting that they refuse to issue a letter

50Twuncle

ed_209 wrote: »

Interesting - even with Ofcom cc'd in they are point blank refusing to issue me with a deadlock letter. They are now going back to square one and saying that its not a change per se in terms and conditions, merely restating... I've gone back quoting RPI, UTCCR and how they do not have the right to define material detriment.

But interesting that they refuse to issue a letter

You may have no option other than court summons (make if for Olaf himself please)

Lifes_Grand_Plan

sshariff wrote: »

Actually the clause is not ambiguous at all - RandomCurve (and everyone else) is correct in the meaning of the clause.

The simple mathematical/boolean condition...

A > (B or C)

will always imply that the condition will be true whenever A > B or whenever A > C. There is absolutely no second interpretation for the condition! Basic algebra you see

This means that they cannot increase the prices beyond any one of the conditions specified in the clause and HAVE to use the lowest value!

Wow, i'm impressed that you managed to find that from the clause:

"However this (the right to cancel) does not apply if:

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;"

So its not a case of "you can cancel when A > (B or C)"

Its a case of "you can't cancel is A < (B or C)"

Now under the new terms its just "you can't cancel if A < B" but if A < B then it must also be less (B or C).

50Twuncle

Is this DEADLOCK ?

from Executive Office
"I feel there is no further benefit to be gained by either party from continued correspondence. As a result of this I feel the matter is now closed and we will not reply to further correspondence from you in relation to this matter. "

sshariff

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

Wow, i'm impressed that you managed to find that from the clause:

"However this (the right to cancel) does not apply if:

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;"

So its not a case of "you can cancel when A > (B or C)"

Its a case of "you can't cancel is A < (B or C)"

Now under the new terms its just "you can't cancel if A < B" but if A < B then it must also be less (B or C).

My bad! You are correct - I didn't read the clause properly!!! I guess our arguments may not be correct after all as it actually gives EE the right to increase the prices by the highest price index published by any government body!

I believe the argument that we need to use is the RPI losing its value as a national statistic!

Ed13P

sshariff wrote: »

My bad! You are correct - I didn't read the clause properly!!! I guess our arguments may not be correct after all as it actually gives EE the right to increase the prices by the highest price index published by any government body!

I believe the argument that we need to use is the RPI losing its value as a national statistic!

Who is your contract with? I am with EE and the clause you quote is not the same as for my contract. Mine says you can cancel if they raise the price higher than the RPI or any other statistical measure of inflation. So the change they want to make is worse for me as it will limit it to RPI.