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

RandomCurve

jakethepeguk wrote: »

Here here 50T, the amount of time RC has invested for us all deserves all the praise in the world.
I know RC, will say he just wants to bring justice to the unscrupulous ways of the mobile networks, but thanks costs nothing.
Get Clicking People!

Got it in one - an email to Ofcom/the press, a Facebook/twitter mention and alerting all of your contacts to the potential cancellation opportunity on the price rise forum is what I really need.


Cheers Guys & Girls.

Sunnyhaze

RandomCurve wrote: »

Sorry guys but CISAS will only award what has been asked for (maximum) so you have missed out.


EE will defend the case and continue to end the same emails to everyone who has yet to reach the CISAS stage. They know they have lost, but will do everything to try and put you off continuing with the case. That is the beast you are dealing with.

In their application pack it says the adjudicator can award more compensation than what you asked for if the company has been unreasonable and not treated you well.

Would there be any harm in asking EE for compensation after accepting the CISAS decision? Would probably get told to F off lol

andrewmp

Once you get the PAC code, how long do you have to use it and when do they refund the contract cost since February?

diamonds

Well done peeps!


The breach of EU legislation is enough to take Ofcom to court fpr not enforcing a EU Directive since 2002 on its telecom licence holders. Directives are not optional legislation for Europe's Member States.


A ADR actually should refuse such cases where law is already defined, thus you lot with with outcomes could sue Ofcom and ADR/CISAS for not following or making excuses around EU LAW.

Bimmermad

Sorry if this question sounds a bit ignorant but just wondering what does CISAS gain from this?? Dont mean to sound cynical but Could our cases possibly give them some sort of recognition or market advantage??? Extra funding???

BananaPilot

!!!!!!! Received last night at 23.37. Must be a Sunderland fan.




In light of General Condition 9.6, I find that the customer will be entitled to terminate the contract without penalty should it be established on a balance of probabilities that the replacement of the Old Term with the New Term is likely to be of material detriment to the customer.


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.


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 his ability to cancel his 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.


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 he is likely to suffer will be ‘material’ in order to justify the cancellation of the contract without penalty under General Condition 9.6. 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. The customer has not provided any substantive evidence to show that restricting the threshold for terminating the contract without penalty to the rate of RPI will cause a substantial, or material, detriment as opposed to using any other statistical measure of inflation. Indeed, no evidence comparing the rates of RPI and other statistical measures of inflation have been provided in order that they can be compared and contrasted. The burden in this adjudication process rests with the customer to prove his submissions in evidence. In the absence of any substantive evidence to prove that the detriment caused by the modification to the Old Term is actual and substantial, I am unable to conclude that the customer is likely to suffer material detriment as a result of the modification.


In light of my findings above, I take the view that the customer has not established that the replacement of the Old Term with the New Term is likely to be of material detriment to him. Therefore, I find that the customer is not entitled to cancel his contract without penalty, either under the terms and conditions of his contract with the company or under General Condition 9.6. I therefore find that the company did not breach its contract or fail in its duty of care by refusing the request to cancel the contract without penalty.

50Twuncle

Is this "ruling" by CISAS going to have any effect on the rest of EE's customers - ie Is it going to be a "Class / Mass" action ?
I believe that it should - in order to make EE responsible.......

baldyj

Banana pilot did you include the comparison of RPI against CPI in your claim? Because the ruling you posted seems to indicate you didn't?!

Also who was your adjudicator?

andrewmp

baldyj wrote: »

Banana pilot did you include the comparison of RPI against CPI in your claim? Because the ruling you posted seems to indicate you didn't?!

Also who was your adjudicator?

Can you enter it again if you didn't submit it properly as mind wasn't completed very well.

I'm a Sunderland fan though so maybe that'll help?

Nodding_Donkey

I think it would be really handy if people would say what contract they were on when posting their findings