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

Samarkand

Major thanks to everyone that has contributed a wealth of information. I have just sent my CICAS form off with attachments of all emails and hopefully will be able to cancel both of my contracts. Fingers crossed.
Does anyone know how long before i get to know if i have won.
Thanks again

matty538

Dils47 wrote: »

Got another E-Mail from CISAS



Get the feeling one adjudicator is getting all the work, to copy and paste decision fingers crossed

Just received exactly the same email, so fingers crossed from me aswell.

sshariff

Just received a response from cisas that I won. Am on holiday for the next two weeks so will hopefully use my pay code when I get there. Was on prior Oct 2012 contract.


Thanks RandomCurve for your help with it. It even paid off that I took a different route so very happy:-)

Also got the full £100 compensation

rachx21

Great news to hear of CISAS claims being won! Well done guys

RandomCurve

sshariff wrote: »

Just received a response from cisas that I won. Am on holiday for the next two weeks so will hopefully use my pay code when I get there. Was on prior Oct 2012 contract.


Thanks RandomCurve for your help with it. It even paid off that I took a different route so very happy:-)

Also got the full £100 compensation

If you are abroad - use your calls and data for FREE!!!!! It is not your fault your stuck on their network, they should have cancelled when you first requested!


Congratulations

rachx21

How long did it take from when you sent off the cisas claim to hear back that you had won the case? I sent my claim yesterday

Sunnyhaze

I sent mine a week ago, still haven't heard anything back and I forgot to ask for compensation

Tried ringing them at 5pm exactly for an update. But they were closed. Typical.

SimonD316

In response to the questions about CISAS timescale...

Application Sent on Tuesday 25th February
Sent to EE on Tuesday 4th March
Extension granted to EE on Tuesday 18th March
Defence Received on Wednesday 26th March
Comments submitted on Friday 28th March
Adjudicator Appointed on Monday 31st March
Decision Received on Monday 7th April

RandomCurve

I have now seen a full adjudication and there are some words of caution for us all in there.


The adjudicator accepts that GC 9.6 material detriment means not beneficial or not neutral to the customer:


d. There is no definitive definition of what ‘material detriment’ constitutes. Therefore, I will have regard to all of the evidence and submissions made by the parties in assessing whether the replacement of the Old Term with the New Term would be likely to cause a material detriment to the customer.


e. I am satisfied on a plain reading of General Condition 9.6 that not just any modification to a contract will meet the threshold for allowing a consumer to terminate the contract without penalty. It must first be established that the modification is likely to be detrimental to the consumer, that is, neither of beneficial nor neutral effect to the consumer. Upon comparing the Old Term with the New Term, I am satisfied that the Old Term allowed the customer to terminate the contract without penalty where a price increase that the company sought to implement exceeded either the increase in RPI or any other statistical measure of inflation. However, the New Term restricts the customer’s right to terminate the contract without penalty only to those scenarios in which a price increase exceeds the most recently published RPI figure. While I note the company’s position that the modification enhances certainty for the parties, I accept on a balance of probabilities that the modification puts the customer in a more restricted position as regards their ability to cancel their contract without penalty in response to an inflationary price increase. I therefore find that the customer is likely to suffer a detriment as a result of the modification.


So that should be game over - the adjudicator has recognised the change in neither neutral and is of not of benefit, but they then go on to asses the "scale of the detriment" which is a nonsense given they have already argued the case that the definition is not of benefit or neutral! Fortunately they also agreed the change was Material:


f. Although it has been established that the customer is likely to suffer a detriment as a result of the modification, the customer must show that the detriment they are likely to suffer will be ‘material’ in order to justify the cancellation of the contract without penalty under General Condition 9.6 [utter nonsense given the summary they made at e above as to the meaning of Material Detriment]. In the absence of any specific guidance as to the definition of ‘material’, I shall give it its ordinary meaning, that is, actual and substantial, or conversely not immaterial. I am mindful that the customer has provided evidence comparing the difference between the increase in RPI and the increase in CPI (being another measure of statistical inflation) for the six-month period from August 2013 to January 2014. I note that the company has not rebutted or otherwise challenged this data in its defence. The data shows that the increase in RPI has consistently exceeded the increase in CPI for this six-month period, and that the difference between these two rates is not insignificant. Further, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the increase in RPI is more likely than not to continue at a higher rate than the increase in CPI in future. As the New Term restricts the customer’s right to terminate the contract without penalty only where a price increase exceeds RPI, where previously this right could have been triggered if the price increase had exceeded the consistently lower rate of CPI, I am satisfied that the detriment that is likely to be caused to the customer as a result of the modification is material.


So the right result, but some very dodgy reasoning! Good to see they agree that the old clause meant EE had to use the LOWER of RPI or any other inflation statistic!!!

jakethepeguk

Brilliant news, hopefully I will hear in the morning

And to be honest serves the greedy lot right, lets hope more people have had the sense to take this as far as we have.