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

g6jns_2

RandomCurve wrote: »

There would be no harm -and no point either. You have seen from the responses to the letters what a nice bunch of people they are at EE - so your lol would be the response to expect!


You can also see (as per my warning after I read a whole adjudication) and subsequently Bannapilots ruling, CISAS are not there to help you, they are there to try and prevent things getting to the SCC. They will not award anything you have not asked for, as they won't even infer what is meant in your claim.

The function of the adjudicator to decide the case on the basis of the evidence put before them just as a court would. It is the claimant's responsibility to make sure their case is complete. It is not the adjudicator's job to make good any omissions by the claimant. This may seem harsh but it is the reality of the process. As for the suggestion that CISAS benefit in any way by not allowing a claim that is risible. They get paid their fee regardless. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong but is also defamatory.

RandomCurve

muse213 wrote: »

Have emailed as advised, will inform you guys when I get a reply (if I get one that is)

Great - can you please use the price rise forum - rather than this "change to T&Cs" forum - thanks


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...4818999&page=4

baldyj

g6jns wrote: »

The function of the adjudicator to decide the case on the basis of the evidence put before them just as a court would. It is the claimant's responsibility to make sure their case is complete. It is not the adjudicator's job to make good any omissions by the claimant. This may seem harsh but it is the reality of the process. As for the suggestion that CISAS benefit in any way by not allowing a claim that is risible. They get paid their fee regardless. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong but is also defamatory.

The problem is (as RandomCurve has made reference to before) even when the likes of CISAS have evidence put before them, they on occasion choose to ignore it / interpret it in a way that is not logical or correct!

As I see it there is no defamation going on, RC is calling a spade a spade based on his numerous dealings with CISAS.

RandomCurve

Carping_mad wrote: »

Hi everyone looking for some help??
Last year i started three new phone contracts with orange/ee one for myself,my wife and my daughter,and then another one in january 2014 for my son...am i affected in all this??Can i make a claim on these accounts as they are all in my name???

Hope you can answer questions
Many thanks CM.

Please use the form linked below - there is a template to use at post #80 - it won't apply if the January contract started after 23rd January 2014.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...4818999&page=4

RandomCurve

g6jns wrote: »

The function of the adjudicator to decide the case on the basis of the evidence put before them just as a court would. It is the claimant's responsibility to make sure their case is complete. It is not the adjudicator's job to make good any omissions by the claimant. This may seem harsh but it is the reality of the process. As for the suggestion that CISAS benefit in any way by not allowing a claim that is risible. They get paid their fee regardless. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong but is also defamatory.

Can you explain that in the context of post #925
"I know someone who LOST their case (a different matter) because the adjudicator judged the facts against the wrong version of EEs T&Cs even though EE and the person claiming had both sent the correct T&Cs - even in these circumstances CISAS refused to re judge the case."


and post #926


"The sickening thing (as highlighted I my posy #881) is that the adjudicators agree that under GC 9.6 Material Detriment means - "not off benefit or Neutral to you" and concede that there has been detriment - you should win right there! But they then go on to assess if the detriment is "Material" - which is irrelevant as they have already concluded the meaning of Material detriment."



That is the basis for my view. You are welcome to disagree, but please provide some evidence. I am not blaming the adjudicators per-se, but the system is definitely designed to be in the Companies favour:

1. Only the company can allow you to go to CISAS without waiting 8 weeks
2. Only the company can have an extension to submit evidence
3. If the adjudicator wants more info from the company they can ask for it (I don't think this is extended to the consumer, but I could be wrong)
4. CISAs will take the companies word at face value if they say it is normal procedure (I have seen it happen even when "normal procedure" is a complete fabrication)
5. There is a document somewhere (Ofcom website I believe) that goes through a whole host of issues identified by an independent audit of the ADRs - below

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/adr-review-12/statement


1.5 However, we identified that some aspects of decision making at the Schemes were leading to inconsistent outcomes for consumers in some circumstances, in particular in cases where evidence was lacking and where small awards of compensation might be considered appropriate for poor customer service.

Dils47

Anybody else had a decision from CISAS.

So far SimonD316 & Bimmermad won
BananaPilot lost

nsabournemouth

EE have until Friday this week to get their paper work in for my case. Going by the result for those who have won based on CPI v RPI I'm hoping EE will just contact me to agree with my request.

Sunnyhaze

Dils47 wrote: »

Anybody else had a decision from CISAS.

So far SimonD316 & Bimmermad won
BananaPilot lost

I called and a decision has not been made yet

jon1555

nsabournemouth wrote: »

EE have until Friday this week to get their paper work in for my case. Going by the result for those who have won based on CPI v RPI I'm hoping EE will just contact me to agree with my request.

Has yours been extended by 5 days?

Am due my response today, although seems everyone's has been extended by 5 days!

baldyj

jon1555 wrote: »

Has yours been extended by 5 days?

Am due my response today, although seems everyone's has been extended by 5 days!

Mine was never extended. I think it was just the first few that were, but now EE have their copy and paste defence I wouldn't expect anyone else to have to put up with an extension.

If EE do ask for extensions now, to me it would indicate that they are changing their defence in light of the settled cases.