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

RandomCurve

50Twuncle wrote: »

I think that the whole of EE executive office must have perished in a plague, fire or similar......



?

It wasn't me - honest:whistle:

RandomCurve

** CISAS CLAIMS UPDATED TO REFLECT EEs INITIAL RESPONSES **

Another update to help you find your way around
For anybody who has yet to send the email at #44 you may still be able to send as the contracts contain the following clause:

"If either party delays or does not take action to enforce their rights under this Contract this does not prevent either party from taking action later" - so go for it!!!

Email 1 - Original cancellation request is at post #44
All Orange and T-Mobile clauses are at post #57
EEs response to email 1 is at post #65
Email 2 - response to EE is at post #68
EE response to email 2 is at #73 OR #98
Email 3 - response to EE is at post #110 or #111 for post #73
Email 3 - response to EE is at post #116 for post #98
Post #402 if you want to "force" a deadlock notice from EE - only to be used when you have an email saying that EE will no longer communicate with you.



A CISAS guide to read BEFORE sending ANY of the CISAS templates #266
CISAS Template #267 and #269 for POST 30th October contract holders for Orange, T-Mobile, and EE - Updated 02-04-14
CISAS Template #383 for T-Mobile PRE 30th October 2012 contract holders - Updated 02-04-14
CISAS Template #385 for ORANGE PRE 30th October 2012 contract holders - Updated 02-04-14


Response to EE/Orange/T-Mobile defence document post 30th October 2012 page 35 #688 and #689
Response to Orange pre 30th October 2012 if your contract only states detriment in clause 4.3 (LEG300v14A) page 36 post #703 to #704

RandomCurve

Has anybody had a price rise letter yet? I have not seen any press releases. If they want to apply a rise on 9th May they are running out of time - I wonder if our claims are making them hold fire???

RandomCurve

Thought you might like to see the below which is from a CISAS ruling on a different EE related matter.

• As always EE put in the normal garbage about not being within CISAS remit, and being complex.
• I advised the person to put in basically what we have here - it is in remit, it is not complex and EE have a duty not to make it complex.
• The adjudicator agreed (they normally do, but don't normally express it so clearly).

Adjudicator’s findings and reasons
8. I find that:


a. The claim relates to the application of the company’s terms and conditions under which the customer is provided with his communication services. I am therefore satisfied that the claim relates to a communication service and I do not consider this to be a complicated issue of law.


b. Further, it is a requirement of consumer regulations that contractual provisions should be clear. The company risks being in breach of such regulations if it argues that the interpretation of the clauses within the service agreement is complex and complicated.


The important thing is that this is a legally trained person recognising that if this is so complex that it has to go to court then EE are likely to lose just on the fact that it is complex!!!:)


Unfortunately on the substantive point being argued the adjudicator ruled in EEs favour

dg-25

Might just be missing this one, but is there anything yet for a response to ee defence for t mobile pre October 2012 ? I upgraded in September 2012 .

Could be that an example response from ee hasn't been seen yet? Mine is due by the 11th April

RandomCurve

dg-25 wrote: »

Might just be missing this one, but is there anything yet for a response to ee defence for t mobile pre October 2012 ? I upgraded in September 2012 .

Could be that an example response from ee hasn't been seen yet? Mine is due by the 11th April

I've not seen one yet - you might be first!!!

Wallace231

Hi, just received this from cisas:
COMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET SERVICES ADJUDICATION SCHEME
REFERENCE: 212141455
BETWEEN
MR ***** ******
Claimant
and
EE LIMITED t/as T-MOBILE
Respondent
DEFENCE
1. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as pleaded or at all.
2. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications network operator that enters into Service Agreements with its customers to enable its customers to access its network. The Claimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
3. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customer by way of the issuance to the customer of a SIM card which is issued subject to the Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.
4. The Claimant has been a customer of the Respondent since 10 July 2013, when joined the network via the third party retailer, Dial-A-Phone Limited. The Claimant was registered as a consumer and allocated the T-Mobile account number ******* (“the Account”). The Respondent submits that the Claimant has one active mobile
telephone number registered on the Account, namely **** ****** (“the Mobile Number”).
5. On 10 July 2013 the Claimant entered into a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent. The Claimant was made aware that the Agreement was subject to terms and conditions, which were offered to the Claimant prior to entering into the Agreement and were available for viewing on the Respondent’s website. A copy of the terms and conditions were subsequently provided to the Claimant.
6. The Respondent maintains a paperless environment with regards to Service Agreements entered into with its customers but does not retain a copy. However, the Respondent maintains a record of the applicable terms and conditions that govern each Service Agreement entered into.
7. At Schedule 1 attached hereto is a copy of the Terms and Conditions for Telephone Service and Equipment – Conditions Version 59. The Respondent submits that such terms and conditions relate to the original terms and conditions to the Agreement.
8. At Schedule 2 attached hereto is a copy of the amended terms and conditions – Conditions Version 59 A, to be subject to the Agreement and took effect on 26 March 2014.
9. The Respondent submits that this dispute, as per the Claimant’s application, arises from the Respondent’s amendment of the terms of the Agreement between the Claimant and Respondent. The amendment changed the circumstances in which a price rise gives the Claimant an automatic right to terminate the Agreement, without paying a cancellation charge. The amendment was introduced in light of comments expressed by Ofcom regarding the Respondent’s terms and conditions - Condition
Version 59 (at Schedule 1) with the intention of increasing certainty for consumers and is to the Claimant’s benefit.
10. As to the substance of this complaint, the Respondent’s position is that it has a general right to change the terms of the Agreement, as per the terms and conditions exhibited at Schedule 1. That right is subject to the right of the Claimant under the terms of the Agreement and the regulatory scheme to terminate the Agreement if the change is of material detriment to the Claimant. However, in the present case, the change is not of detriment to the Claimant at all, alternatively any detriment is marginal and not material. On the contrary, it is to the Claimant’s benefit, and accordingly there is no right of termination.
11. The Respondent submits that they also consider that this dispute falls outside CISAS’ remit on the grounds that (i) it does not fall within CISAS rule 2a; and/or (ii) it falls within CISAS rule 2b.
12. This response addresses below:
a) The change to the Agreement;
b) The Respondent’s right to change the terms of the Agreement;
c) The Claimant’s right to terminate following a change if the change is of material detriment;
d) Why the change is not of material detriment to the Claimant;
e) Why the dispute falls outside CISAS’ remit and/or is not appropriately resolved by CISAS.
THE CHANGE TO THE AGREEMENT
13. The Agreement provides for a specific right for the Respondent to vary its charges for services provided under the Agreement. The change about which complaint is made
concerns the terms which provide for when increases to the Claimant’s £37.00 price plan (the main recurring monthly charge) gives a right to terminate without paying a cancellation charge.
14. The Respondent confirms that between the 29 January 2014 and 14 February 2014 the Claimant was notified by SMS as to the amendment of the original terms and conditions (at Schedule 1) to the amended terms and conditions (at Schedule 2). Following the 14 February 2014 the SMS delivery data was then analysed by the Respondent and letters confirming the amendments were then sent out to the registered addresses of any customers whose notification SMS had either failed or not been delivered. The Respondent confirms that the sending of the above said notification letters to the remaining un-notified customers was completed by the 21 February 2014. The Respondent submits that this entire process was of course in compliance with the relevant notice requirement as per the original terms and conditions.
The Agreement prior to the Change
15. The Respondent is referred to the terms and conditions at schedule 1.
16. Prior to the changes in question, point 7.1.4 of the Agreement provided:
7.1.4. We can increase any Price Plan Charge. We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will then apply to You once that notice has run out.
17. The Agreement further provided that the Claimant has a right to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge where a price increase notified under point 7.1.4 was of material detriment to the Claimant (point 7.2.3.2) or exceeded the rate of inflation (point 7.2.3.3).
7.2.3. A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
…
7.2.3.2. You are a Consumer and the change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 2.11.3 or 7.1.4 above is of material detriment to You and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect; or
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
(ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
18. Point 7.2 is referred to below as “the Old Term”.
19. The effect of point 7.2.3.3 was that the Claimant would only have a right to terminate the Agreement if the price increase was higher than the retail price index (“RPI”) or another statistical measure of inflation selected by the Respondent. The purpose of including reference to another measure of inflation was that, at the time of the drafting of this term, it was understood that the Office for National Statistics was intending to cease publication of RPI.
20. It was considered that the term was insufficiently clear in two respects in that it allowed the Respondent to select both the measure of inflation to be used and to select
any measure of inflation within a reasonable period prior to the notification of the price increase.
21. It is not clear whether the Claimant contends that the Old Term allowed the Customer to cancel if the price increase notified was less than RPI but higher than some other statistical measure of inflation. If and to the extent that the Customer does make such a contention, the Respondent’s position is that, on its proper construction, point 7.2.3.2 allowed them to select the measure of inflation which was to be used. Moreover, it would now be for the Claimant to identify the statistical measure of inflation which it is said should apply under point 7.2.3.2.
The Agreement after the Change
22. The Respondent refers to the terms and conditions as at Schedule 2.
23. The revised agreement provides 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 (ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.
24. The effect of this term (“the New Term”) is that the Customer has a right to terminate the Agreement if the price increase is higher than RPI, calculated using the most recently published RPI figures.
25. This change increases certainty for customers and reduces the scope for disputes regarding whether a price change gives rise to a right to cancellation.
The Respondent’s right to change the terms of the Agreement
26. The Respondent is entitled to revise its contract terms pursuant to point 2.11 of the Agreement, which provides as follows:
2.11. We will make a copy of Our current version of these term and conditions available on Our website. We can change these terms and conditions for any good reason, for instance, if We want all customer on the same conditions. We will tell You about the change beforehand, as explained here.
2.11.1 We will make a copy of Our current version of these terms and conditions available on Our website. We can change these terms and conditions for any good reason, for instance, if We want all customers on the same conditions. We will tell You about the change beforehand, as explained here:
The Claimant has a right to terminate only if the change is of material detriment
27. The Agreement further provides that where a change notified under point 2.11.1 is of material detriment to the Claimant, the Claimant has a right to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge. However, if the change notified is not of material detriment and the Claimant is within their minimum term, the Claimant does not have such right of termination.
28. Points 2.11 and 7.2 provide (so far as material) as follows:
2.11.2. If You are a Consumer and the change of terms and conditions is not of material detriment to You or You are not a Consumer, We will send You Written Notice 30 days before the terms and conditions are due to
change. The new terms and conditions will automatically apply to You once that notice has run out.
2.11.3. If You are a Consumer and the change is of material detriment to You, We will send You Written Notice 30 days before the terms and conditions are due to change. The new terms and conditions will apply to You once that notice has run out, unless You terminate Your Agreement with Us within that notice period. If You do this You won’t have to pay any Cancellation Charge that would otherwise apply, see point 7.2.3.2.
…
7.2. Your termination rights
7.2.1. You can give Us notice to terminate this Agreement, to take effect on or after the end of the Minimum Term. However (except as set out in point 7.2.3 and 7.2.4) if, in our total discretion, We accept notice from You to terminate this Agreement within the Minimum Term, You will have to pay Us a Cancellation Charge and, if applicable, the Additional Commitment Service Cancellation Charge. …
…
7.2.3. A Cancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
…
7.2.3.2. You are a Consumer and the change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 2.11.2 or 7.1.4 above is of material detriment to You and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect; or
29. Point 2.11 implements General Condition 9.6, imposed by Ofcom on Communications Providers under s.45 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides for Communications Providers to give subscribers one month’s notice of “any
modifications likely to be of material detriment” and to allow subscribers to withdraw from the Agreement without penalty.
The Change is not of material Detriment
30. The Change is not of material detriment for the following reasons.
31. Under both the Old Term and the New Term, the Claimant may cancel, without incurring a cancellation charge, if the price increase notified by the Respondent exceeds the rate of inflation as measured by RPI. In substance, the Claimant’s rights of cancellation have therefore not been affected and the Claimant has suffered no detriment whatsoever.
32. On the contrary, the effect of the changes is to benefit the Claimant. The changes make clear and certain the specific published measure of inflation which may be used for the purposes of this comparison. Out of date and potentially confusing references to other statistical measures of inflation have been removed. The changes therefore will enable the Claimant to identify when a right of cancellation arises.
33. Alternatively, if and to the extent that the Claimant has suffered any marginal detriment, such detriment is not material.
33.1. The only circumstance in which it could be said that the Claimant has suffered detriment would be if it were established that the Old Term allowed the Claimant to terminate, without incurring a cancellation charge, in circumstances where the price rise notified was less than RPI, but higher than some other statistical measure of inflation.
33.2. In order to demonstrate that the change was of material detriment, the Claimant would need to (i) identify such other statistical measure of inflation which it is said would qualify under the Old Term; (ii) identify the difference over the period of the Claimant’s minimum term between price rises which
would be calculated according to RPI and price rises which would be calculated according to the alternative measure of inflation and (iii) establish that the difference between such price rises qualifies as material detriment under point 7.2.3.2.
33.3. The Claimant has not identified such an alternative measure of inflation.
33.4. Further or alternatively, it is submitted that the difference, over the course of the Claimant’s minimum term between any two measures of inflation which would qualify under point 7.2.3.2 is not sufficient to be material.
THE DISPUTE FALLS OUTSIDE CISAS’ REMIT
34. The dispute cannot be settled by CISAS under Rule 2 of the CISAS Rules insofar as it concerns whether the Claimant is entitled to cancel the Agreement by reason of the Respondent’s amendments to terms 7.1.4 and/or 7.2.3.3 terms and conditions on the grounds that those amendments are modifications likely to be of material detriment to the Claimant. The Material Detriment Issue does not relate to any of the matters set out in Rule 2a and/or involves a complicated issue of law.
35. The Material Detriment Issue does not relate to any of the matters set out in Rule 2a.
35.1. Bills: It does not relate to any bill issued by the Respondent to the Claimant.
35.2. Customer Service: It does not relate to the quality of customer service provided by the Respondent to the Claimant.
35.3. Communications Services: For the reasons further set out below, the reference in Rule 2a to “Communications services provided to customers” relates to the physical provision of electronic communications services and/or does not relate to regulatory issues such as the Material Detriment Issue. Rule 2a is intended to
implement General Condition 14.5 (“GC 14.5”) which requires the Respondent to “implement and comply with a Dispute Resolution Scheme, … for the resolution of disputes …in relation to the provision of Public Electronic Communications Services.” Electronic Communications Services are defined in s.32 of the Communications Act 2003 to mean “a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals”. That indicates that the focus of the dispute resolution scheme is on the service actually provided to customers.
36. Further or alternatively, the Material Detriment Issue constitutes a complicated issue of law.
36.1. A proper resolution of the case would require CISAS to consider (i) the proper construction of the Old Term, as a matter of contract; (ii) the proper construction of the New Term, as a matter of contract; (iii) the proper construction of the term “material detriment”; and (iv) whether, in light of those matters, the change from the Old Term to the New Term was of such material detriment. Each of points (i), (iii) and (iv) involves complicated issues of law.
36.2. As noted above the proper construction of the Old Term may not be easy to establish. It does not make clear which statistical measures of inflation may be used for the purposes of comparison.
36.3. Further, the meaning of material detriment needs to be established both as a matter of contractual construction and by reference to the regulatory context. The term is not defined explicitly in the Agreement or in GC9.6. The fact that Ofcom has recently published guidance on the issue of material detriment in respect of price change clauses indicates that absent such guidance, the issue of
material detriment is unclear; and that the considerations applicable to determining material detriment can be complicated.
36.4. The application of the material detriment test to the change of terms is doubly complex. It is not sufficient simply that it is theoretically possible that the change could be of some detriment to the customer. Rather it is necessary that the Claimant identify the degree to which the Old and New Terms would differ, if applied to him, and to establish that that difference is material.
37. For the reasons stated above the Respondent denies that the Claimant as at all entitled, whether contractually or otherwise, to terminate the Agreement without charge, either for the reasons as indicated within the application or any other such reason. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is subject to the standard contractual termination clauses as per the applicable terms and conditions.
38. The Respondent notes that the Claimant has made no complaint as to customer services, and in any event, the Respondent submits that the Claimant was provided with a good level of customer services at all times and that any dissatisfaction on the part of the Claimant simply stems from the fact that the matter was not resolved as he had hoped, which in any event related to a proposed remedy that he was not entitled to.
39. The Respondent submits that it will provide the Claimant with a Port Authorisation Code (“PAC”) to enable the Claimant to transfer the Mobile Number to another provider and to cancel the Agreement upon request, however it is the Respondent’s position that the Claimant will remain liable for a cancellation charge upon cancellation of the Agreement. As of today’s date, such a figure being £453.43, reducing on a daily basis.
40. The Respondent submits that they have acted well within the parameters of their terms and conditions and entirely in compliance with any obligations and therefore, any liability to the Claimant is entirely denied.
The Respondent believes that the facts stated in this form are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondent to sign this statement.
Dated the 01 April 2014

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

What can i do from here ??

Thank you.

50Twuncle

What's the difference between
Cancellation Charge &
Additional commitment service cancellation charge
(7.2.1 above)
http://ee.co.uk/content/dam/ee-help/Help-PDFs/EE%20PAYM%20T%26Cs%20v2.pdf
It appears that EE want their cake as well ??

baldyj

Wallace231 wrote: »

Hi, just received this from cisas:


What can i do from here ??

Thank you.

Are you for real!?

Here's a novel idea, how about read this thread! (more specifically read from page 31 onwards!)

If that sounds too much like hard work for you, why don't you visit post #744 on this very page!

Seriously, am i the only one who gets irritated by people who are too bone idle to read the information that has been provided in the thread before posting?

sshariff

baldyj wrote: »

Are you for real!?

Here's a novel idea, how about read this thread! (more specifically read from page 31 onwards!)

If that sounds too much like hard work for you, why don't you visit post #744 on this very page!

Seriously, am i the only one who gets irritated by people who are too bone idle to read the information that has been provided in the thread before posting?

May sound harsh but so true!