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

ed_209_2

CISAS case reference received today... EE's refusal to issue deadlock references is immaterial if you received the "refusal to enter into any further correspondence" on the matter. Seems they lurch from catastrophe to catastrophe.

baldyj

baldyj wrote: »

Well I submitted my claim to CISAS on 3rd March - I was expecting some sort of response today (now they have had 5 working days), but I've had nothing so far.


Perhaps they're so busy with claims that response times have slowed down somewhat!

Have just received conformation that my case has been accepted. T-Mobile/EE have until 26/03/14 to submit a defence.

[Deleted User]

Finally just received a reply from the company for my first email #44. I am going to send them the 2nd one #68 now.

Liam-1987

Still haven't received a single email from ee sent it to cisas got a reply back today EE have till 26th march to respond

glasgowm148

RandomCurve wrote: »

As you know they are just fobbing you off. Send another email requesting a deadlock reference and copy in Lynn Parker at Ofcom.

I just got this email (probably after I made a fuss on the phone)

Case Reference: xxxx
Account Number: xxxxx

Please respond to executive.office@ee.co.uk


Dear Mr Glasgow,

Thank you for your email regarding the change of terms.

Your comments are acknowledged. The Universal Service Directive2003/22/EC you refer to is implemented in the UK through the Telecommunications Act 2003 and via Ofcom's General Conditions. Under General Condition GC9.6 a customer has the right to cancel its contract without paying a cancellation charge but only where the change is likely to be to the customer's material detriment. The notice we have issued to our customers is not a notice whereby the change is of material detriment, as such there is no entitlement for customers to cancel their contract without charge.

The text message sent was not to notify you of a price increase but to advise you of a change in our network terms and conditions which will be made from 26 March 2014.

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. 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.

In addition to the above, we have signed up to the government's Telecoms Consumer Action Plan which aims to improve the customer experience in a number of areas, including bill transparency and certainty over the lifetime of a contract, in line with the principles of Ofcom's guidance.

I trust the above explains more clearly why the text message was sent to you.

Yours sincerely



Dawne Hauxwell
Executive Office, EE
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.

We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you.

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW

Is there a template for a response I should send, or should I just request a deadlock reference?

edit: I found it by going through randomcurves history. You should link to that post pointing to all the templates in your signature. Thanks again!

Also, looks like Olaf has had enough, his email's are bouncing and there's a new executive officer responding.

sshariff

glasgowm148 wrote: »

I just got this email (probably after I made a fuss on the phone)



Is there a template for a response I should send, or should I just request a deadlock reference?

edit: I found it by going through randomcurves history. You should link to that post pointing to all the templates in your signature. Thanks again!

Also, looks like Olaf has had enough, his email's are bouncing and there's a new executive officer responding.

EE are now basically combining their 1st and 2nd email responses into a single email! You can now respond with randonCurves response to their second email, the first paragraph which is as below:

"I notice that you now accept that “Under General Condition GC9.6 a customer has the right to cancel its contract without paying a cancellation charge but only where the change is likely to be to the customer's material detriment.” That is exactly the basis on which I originally requested a penalty free cancellation (quote from my original email) “I find the change unacceptable and consider it to be of Material Detriment”."

The response you got is also sufficient to start a CISAS case, but I would suggest replying back with your response first and then waiting a week before filing a CISAS claim due to lack of response!

glasgowm148

sshariff wrote: »

EE are now basically combining their 1st and 2nd email responses into a single email! You can now respond with randonCurves response to their second email, the first paragraph which is as below:

"I notice that you now accept that “Under General Condition GC9.6 a customer has the right to cancel its contract without paying a cancellation charge but only where the change is likely to be to the customer's material detriment.” That is exactly the basis on which I originally requested a penalty free cancellation (quote from my original email) “I find the change unacceptable and consider it to be of Material Detriment”."

The response you got is also sufficient to start a CISAS case, but I would suggest replying back with your response first and then waiting a week before filing a CISAS claim due to lack of response!

Thanks, will do. I also had to get broadband installed because the 3G has been cutting out for hours at a time at my house (I've always used my personal hotspot before). I've rang EE several times for support, tried a new SIM, nothing has worked. Not sure if this would help my CISAS claim or should I not mention it? How do they decide who 'wins' and 'loses' ?

But I've basically had to take out a £37/mo FiOS line because of their inadequate support & coverage - although it doesn't really relate to the change in T&S so not sure if it's relevant.

RandomCurve

Finally had a response from Ofcom.


In regards to heading of EE from "leaning" on CISAS not to accept cases (after CISAS has already accepted cases) Ofcom have responded as below which should mean that EE will not be able top pressure CISAS into rejecting taking cases on. Ofcom have declined (by omission) to answer my question on what sanctions they will take against EE for refusing deadlock letters - so PLEASE do copy in [EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL] if you have an email from EE refusing to issue a deadlock reference, especially as CISAS have now told EE that they should be issuing deadlock references - I would add another £25 to the compensation for the refusal!!!



“….., it appears to Ofcom that your dispute with EE is about the application of General Condition 9.6 (“GC 9.6”). That is, whether it has made a materially detrimental modification to its terms and conditions and properly applied that Condition. You say it has made such a change but not complied with the Condition. It disputes that.


If that is so, that appears to Ofcom a matter that, in principle, may be subject to ADR. We have corresponded with CISAS, which agrees, and, we understand, has told EE so (meaning it should issue letters enabling access to ADR).

RandomCurve

Ofcom have also responded on the point if this is material detriment or not
My initial question (blue) to Ofcom and their response was as follows:

Additionally something else has come to light this week which I am surprised that Ofcom have not acted upon.

EE (and brands) have informed a large number of their customers that they are changing the price variation clause of their contracts, however EE have not complied with GC 9.6 as they do not make reference to the consumers right to cancel their contract penalty free if they do not wish to accept the new T&Cs:

1. Will Ofcom be requiring EE to send the correct notification to their customers?

2. Will Ofcom be fining EE for not complying with GC 9.6 in the first instance?

3. Are EE obliged to give CISAS deadlock references to customers who ask to cancel and the EE refuse to? (and if not why not?)

An early response would be much appreciated.

We note that EE has informed existing customers (who entered into contracts before 23 January 2014) of a modification to the price variation clause in the relevant contracts. It does not appear to us, based on the information we have, to be a change that gives rise to the right to cancel the contract under GC9.6 for the following reasons:

1. The revised terms put consumers in a better, or at least no worse, position than the previous terms. They do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case, and provide more clarity to subscribers as to the published RPI figure that will be used.


So I followed up as per the below the main thing to contrast is that in the above they were clear that if the price rise allowed has not increased then it is NOT of Material detriment, but have used a much "softer" statement if it does allow for a higher price rise by saying "it might" -Double standards!!! But this is as clear as you are likely to get from Ofcom and I think it demonstrates that for all post October 2012 contract holders you SHOULD (no guarantees) win your case!! The pre October 2012 can still win too, but the arguments are different.

Can you confirm that if the change is considered not to be of Material detriment as “..they do not purport to create a right to increase prices more than was previously the case..” then if they do purport to allow a higher rise than was previously the case then the change WILL BE CONSIDERED to be of Material Detriment.


You ask whether the view we expressed in an email of 13 February, about changes EE is seeking to make to contracts with consumers entered into before 23 January 2014, applies to all EE, Orange and T-Mobile contracts entered into before that date. That would depend on the precise terms. We would be likely to take a similar view in respect of similar terms to which the provider sought to make similar modifications.

You also asked whether Ofcom would regard as materially detrimental the modification of a term so as to enable a higher price increase than was previously provided for. We might. Any case would depend on the specific circumstances and contract terms. But, in general, introducing a term allowing for a higher price increase is more likely to trigger a CP’s obligations under GC9.6.

RandomCurve

My latest Email to Ofcom.


If anybody else wants to write to Ofcom using from Point 1 onwards and asking for action (as per point that would be useful as we really need EE to have to write to ALL of their customers informing them of their potential cancellation rights as that is what is required under GC 9.6! -And copy in the BBC:
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@Ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.Lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.Lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]




Dear Lynn,


Thank you for your email of 12-03-14, and I note that Ofcom do not wish to engage further on this matter, however for your information you should be aware that the EE and T-Mobile post 30 October contract clause were as follows:


7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is: (i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any 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, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice;


And the Orange post 30th October clause reads:
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;

Whereas the new clause for EE and T-Mobile are as follows:
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);


And For Orange:
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).


So as you can plainly see previously they had to use the lowest inflation statistic published (CPI), but are now trying to give themselves a right to exclusively use RPI (which is always HIGHER than CPI). Therefore under GC 9.6 EE should have written to customers explaining their (potential) right to a penalty free cancellation.


Recent CPI v RPI rates:


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%



A - How do Ofcom police compliance with the GCs if you do not review the actions of CPs?


B - And what enforcement measure will you take to ensure that EE complies retrospectively with GC9.6 on this matter? i.e force EE to write to consumers informing them of their right to a penalty free cancellation if the customers thinks the change is likely to be of Material Detriment? – Which is what the Ofcom rules (GC 9.6) require them to do!


C - Additionally you never responded to my question on what sanctions Ofcom will impose on EE for not issuing Deadlock references (which it is still refusing to do even after customers have specifically stated that they have sought advice from Ofcom (I phoned your customer advisors) and that EE are REQUIRED to issue deadlock references).


Finally for information I do not have a contract with EE, but am representing a large group of consumers who are rightly outraged at EEs total disregard for the rules in that:


1 - They have not complied with GC 9.6 and informed customers of their (potential) cancellation rights


The Communications Provider shall:
(a) give its Subscribers adequate notice not shorter than one month of any modifications likely to be of material detriment to that Subscriber;
(b) allow its Subscribers to withdraw from their contract without penalty upon such notice; and
(c) at the same time as giving the notice in condition 9.6 (a) above, shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber.


2 - They have taken it upon themselves to determine if the change is likely to of material detriment in contravention of the UTCCRs


Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:
(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.


AND


3 - Have refused to issue CISAS deadlock references – again in breach of Ofcom regulations.


I would appreciate Ofcoms thoughts on this as your earlier response suggests that Ofcom was not in possession of the facts and I think (based on the above) Ofcom would want to be taking action against a CP that has so clearly flouted (and continues to do so) the regulations to the customer’s detriment.

Regards