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

Nodding_Donkey

How about a simple version.

Dear CISAS,

EE seem to be saying that your adjudicators aren't bright enough to sort this out as it is too complicated.

If trained legal bods can't understand it then it is clearly in breach of the UTCCR's

Therefore I win.

I am quite happy for any increase as long as it is linked to the RPI published by the Central Statistical Office, as the Central Statistical Office doesn't exist anymore then the price rise clause in unenforcable. Any attempt to move the goal posts by changing the terms and conditions to include any other body must be to my detriment.

I win

If EE, as they are suggesting, are only imposing this change for my benefit then what possible harm can it cause to leave it well alone. I am happy to take that chance.

I win

Thank you for your time.

PS Universal Services Directive (“USD”) (Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC)31 says that any change to the terms and conditions means that I can cancel

I win again

(This was of course TIC )

jakethepeguk

Interesting that on my version of their responses, they appear to have realised their error -

We acknowledge that if we give you written notice to
increase the Charges, or introduce new mandatory
Charges, and such a change is to your material detriment
you may terminate your Contract in accordance with
Condition 4.3. If you do not give notice within one month
of our notifying you of any change(s), you will be taken to
have accepted the change(s).

sshariff

jakethepeguk wrote: »

Interesting that on my version of their responses, they appear to have realised their error -

The thing is that as I have already mentioned earlier, Orange had two terms and conditions floating about towards the Sep 2012 and Oct 2012 periods. On their website they had the version with "material detriment" and the "other statistical measure" term included, while they still had the older version looping around as well. So it all depends on which version they think you are on!

Sunnyhaze

I have gone through the points in your post RandomCurve, and with a few edits, mainly the compensation part. I have sent my response.


Thank you very much for this, you've honestly been awesome.

wild_tiger

hi, do i now no longer get 30 free orange texts from the pc, if i still get these can someone please put up the link, thanks

Nodding_Donkey

wild_tiger wrote: »

hi, do i now no longer get 30 free orange texts from the pc, if i still get these can someone please put up the link, thanks

Random Post of the Week?

wild_tiger

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Random Post of the Week?

do you think i should have posted my question elsewhere?

baldyj

wild_tiger wrote: »

do you think i should have posted my question elsewhere?

Read the title of this thread. Does your question relate to it??

If no, you should have started a new thread.

If yes, you need to re-write your post as it makes no sense in this thread.

50Twuncle

wild_tiger wrote: »

do you think i should have posted my question elsewhere?

I think that you know the answer to that already ?

RandomCurve

SimonD316 wrote: »

I think Paragraph 30 is the key, and I'm thinking along the lines of : "EE appear to admit that this change is to the detriment of the customer, but are at pains to point out it is not sufficient to be material detriment. This is clearly a ploy to make the whole claim seem more complex than it actually is, and more importantly is an admission that some detriment to me has taken place. Given that Schedule 1 refers to detriment and not material detriment this clearly shows that a penalty free cancellation should be allowed."

I may be getting paranoid, but I think EE are trying to set a little trap for us here! They don't say that there is "Marginal Detriment" they actual say:
"30. Alternatively, if and to the extent that the Claimant has suffered any marginal detriment, such detriment is not material."


The trap they are setting - and I fell into myself until I started writing the defence - is that there is a much more obvious Material Detriment happening to those on version LEF300v14A
than a change of statistic and publishing body (incidentally CISAS ruled in my case last year that the change in publishing body and the statistic used was irrelevant (I could not believe that either) and I could not escape my contract - I won in the SCC the right to have the price rise set aside, but that was a deliberate choice of mine not to fight the publishing body change in the SCC because I wanted to prove a more general point about the unenforceability of price rises in fixed term contracts - which I did).


Why do you think they have quoted the clauses the way have at paragraphs 16 and 25? And at 17 and 20?


It is to try and hide the fact that it is not only clause 4.3.1 that has changed!!!
Clause 4.3 and 15.1 (b) have also changed so that you have to now prove Material Detriment, rather than just Detriment. EE have obviously spotted that we have not spotted that and so have not defended the point and have tried to be clever in the wording of the defence so as to try their best not to highlight it - and it thy nearly got away with it!!!


I am writing the defence to counter this by not actually claiming the change is of detriment until I have clearly shown the adjudicator that the tactic was employed by EE to mislead the him/her.If the adjudicator does not rule on it s/he is effectively owning up to being mislead - not good for a professional legal bod, but understandable for us amateurs.