Court Action Against Tmobile - I need advice

Presido

RandomCurve wrote: »

You need to send a "Letter Before Action" - if you need some help putting that together then please post the full CISAS decision (it has been done on lots of other forum) but do remove any personal info (name/number) first.

I had written "Letter Before Action" before Tmobile suggested CISAS. You can find the letter on pages 9 to 13 of the linked document containing my submission to the Adjudicator.

You have asked me to present CISAS decision here. But can you please suggest to me how I can surmount this warning at the top of the Adjudicator's decision which Tm's lawyer insisted over the phone to me before the Bank holidays that I cannot disclose the content to any other person not directly involved?

This document is private and confidential. It must not be disclosed to any person or organisation not directly involved in the adjudication unless this is necessary in order to enforce the decision.

This was the letter I wrote TM following the Adjudicator's decision.

Dear XXXXXX,

1. For ease of reference please find attached the decision reached by CISAS Adjudicator in my case against T-Mobile.

2. I have been advised by CISAS that I am allowed to communicate with your office before making a final decision whether to accept the decision of the Adjudicator (in which case the decision would be binding) or to reject the decision
(in which case I would have the right to take the case to the Court of Law).

3. As you would see from the attachment the Adjudicator arrived at the following conclusions:
"10. My conclusion on the main issues is that:
a. The company has failed in its duty of care to the customer.
b. The reasons given by the customer are sufficient to justify a refund of £XXX.XX
plus £XXX.XX in compensation.
11. Therefore, my decision is for the company to send a written apology to the customer and pay the customer the sum of £XXX.XX."

4. Whilst the Adjudicator found in my favour that there was evidence of unlimited landphone call which your staff had refused to accept despite evidence, I expected the Adjudicator to have accepted my version of event on the basis of the facts and evidence. Rather the Adjudicator has decided to find a middle ground following Ms XXXXXXXXXXXX written submission on behalf of your company, whereas I was the one defrauded.

5. I believe I was defrauded and wanted to give you the opportunity to correct it so that all my money can be refunded. I was given a monthly rolling contract of £15.31. Blackberry Booster was part of the deal at no extra charge to me. It would
be grossly unfair to me that I was sold something else and now being punished for error that was not mine.

6. I therefore wish to know from you whether you are willing to pay me all my money in addition to the decision made by the Adjudicator in my favour? If you are willing to accept this it would help me greatly and be able to reach a decision to the Adjudicator's decision of an "ACCEPT", otherwise, the serious pain that I was defrauded would lead me to a REJECT to seek redress in the Court of Law.

7. I would be pleased if you can provide me an expedited response.

Yours sincerely,

This was the response received from TM's lawyer:

We cannot accept your request to repay you all your money in addition to the award made by the adjudicator, as requested. We will also not be making any additional offers in this matter. Our position has been clearly set out within our Defence and the adjudicator has made a decision based on all evidence provided by both parties. Of course, if the decision is accepted, we will be obliged to comply with it, however, no actions will be applied to your account until such a time as we receive confirmation from CISAS that the decision has been accepted.

brianposter

Forget the word fraud. This is what happens when things are sold over the telephone, particularly if you depart from the script. Even the salesman may not know what he has agreed to.

Could you explain again about the 01,2,3 numbers on your bill ?

I get the impression that you are saying that the error on the bill is not obvious.

mobilejunkie

Without spending an hour or two reading the documents, I couldn't see any reference to an original order stating unlimited landline minutes - whether full stop or for a limited period. I wouldn't go to court if that is the case.

RandomCurve

You should be okay posting the adjudication result - we do it all the time on the T&C change forum and on the old T-Mobile price rise forum.


One question though - the SCC will not award compensation (only costs), so only take this to the SCC IF the additional costs of calling 01,02, and 03 is more than the compensation awarded.


Also I agree with the other posts here - don't use the word fraud, just use - "an error in the billing cycle which needs to rectified for EE to compliant with the contract".

grumbler

It was the allowances, not the billing cycle.

grumbler

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Without spending an hour or two reading the documents, I couldn't see any reference to an original order stating unlimited landline minutes - whether full stop or for a limited period. I wouldn't go to court if that is the case.

The fact that the calls were not charged during the first months proves that these numbers were originally included into the allowances. I don't understand though how this proves that the number of included minutes to landlines was unlimited , but certainly first month's billing can prove that it was some very big allowance at least.

I think it's T-mobile that have to prove that it was some temporarily arrangement agreed with the customer, that they obviously cannot as they failed to keep the recording and even denied that these numbers were ever included.

mobilejunkie

It would be open to the judge to decide who's account and evidence is most believable. I've always felt this would be a 50:50 case and all the references to "fraud" might show the plaintiff to misunderstand basic principles and therefore to have misunderstood the original offer. It's quite possible an offer can include an extra allowance for a limited period - I had unlimited data for the first three months on a recent Vodafone contract, for example. Really, it seems to me that the OP hasn't followed basic groundrules for any on-line purchase i.e. printed out the offer they signed up to at the point of sale.

Personally, with only the evidence given I wouldn't take it to court despite the limited costs involved. However, the OP is on a crusade (evidenced by the vast amount of time they've already spent on this before even coming on here with the issue), so they may be willing to gamble.

When I go to court, it has to be a sure thing - and that is only the case when I have a clear and undeniable case (which is why most parties avoid getting that far when I use a LBA).

Presido

brianposter wrote: »

Forget the word fraud. This is what happens when things are sold over the telephone, particularly if you depart from the script. Even the salesman may not know what he has agreed to.

Could you explain again about the 01,2,3 numbers on your bill ?

I get the impression that you are saying that the error on the bill is not obvious.

You can see the Screen Shot of the unlimited landline calls on page 15 of the linked document on post#32.

Unlimited Landline calls allow me to call any telephone numbers beginning with 01, 02 and 03. For example to have a BT Broadband you may need to have a landline number.

Presido

RandomCurve wrote: »

You should be okay posting the adjudication result - we do it all the time on the T&C change forum and on the old T-Mobile price rise forum.


One question though - the SCC will not award compensation (only costs), so only take this to the SCC IF the additional costs of calling 01,02, and 03 is more than the compensation awarded.


Also I agree with the other posts here - don't use the word fraud, just use - "an error in the billing cycle which needs to rectified for EE to compliant with the contract".

I rejected the Adjudicator's decision already.

I was given two offers:
1) Full price but on a permanent monthly deal.
2) 50% of the full price in item one but with 12 months deal.

The Adjudicator's decision appeared contradictory. Since his findings included Unlimited Landline Calls operational in first three months, then he ought to have declared that the bill statement for the first month was inaccurate.

You can still read my total submission here.

Presido

grumbler wrote: »

The fact that the calls were not charged during the first months proves that these numbers were originally included into the allowances. I don't understand though how this proves that the number of included minutes to landlines was unlimited , but certainly first month's billing can prove that it was some very big allowance at least.

I think it's T-mobile that have to prove that it was some temporarily arrangement agreed with the customer, that they obviously cannot as they failed to keep the recording and even denied that these numbers were ever included.

Thank you.
Please click on the second hyperlink (there are two hyperlinks there) on post#40 and go to page 15 to see the evidence that there was unlimited landline calls in the permanent monthly deal offered me.

It is extremely painful to swallow that having accepted to pay full premium for a permanent monthly SIM ONLY deal then down the road TM changed their mind with no courtesy whatsoever to inform me.