Court Action Against Tmobile - I need advice

Anoneemoose

Presido wrote: »

I provided full details on my case on the hyperlink above. If you browse downward to pages 26-29 of the linked document you would see the basis of the previous contract. There was no Unlimited Landline Calls in the previous contract.

I accepted the new permanent one month rolling contract on 24 August 2011 and the application appeared made to the account on 25 August 2011 at 00:01 hours. So I made a screen short of it to show the adjustment.

The old contract was supposed to expire on 26 August 2011. So on 27 August 2011 when the new cycle ought to begin I took another screen shot to demonstrate the allowance included in the deal.

I was not able to download the first few months bill on the TM website at the time with my account details as they said they were resolving a technical problem. I was however reassured with the message received on my phone that I had a fantastic permanent deal comparable to the extremely old "1-2-1" tariff of unlimited calls.

I see that now! Sorry - brain fog! No legal advice, just 'good luck'.

brianposter

I cannot manage to download any of the original submissions so cannot comment on their content.
The principal advice would be to keep the main claim very simple and put all the complicated stuff in appendices.

One part which needs to be as clear as possible is the explanation as to why the adjudicator is wrong so I have had a go at that.

"The ruling of the adjudicator is inconsistent with paragraph 11.1 of Ofcoms General Conditions which places the responsibility for correct billing on the telephone operator.

Furthermore, in this particular case there is no loss to be mitigated because neither party to the contract has incurred extra expense as a result of the delay in correcting the billing error. “Mitigating a loss”” normally requires that there is an expense incurred outside the contract which could have been reduced.
This is simply a case of incorrect billing.


The ruling also sets an undesirable precedent in that there are many people who cannot check all their bills regularly – eg people who are ill, people working abroad or pensioners who go away for the winter. These people would be unable to rely on their contracts should the philosophy endorsed by the adjudicator be generally adopted."

boatman

Reading through this it all looks very familiar. What was agreed on the phone did not materialise, I noticed straight away but still took 9 months before it was sorted out. Month after month the figures get adjusted by them, still wrong, more promises of 'we'll get it worked out'. You know that you could go to CISAS but continue to go along with their promises because it is such hassle to try and get out of the contract. The fact that you go to the effort of coming on a forum like this and go through CISAS in my opinion must count for something, you would not go to all that effort if you did not feel you were in the right. With regard to whats included in the contract, in my contract description on my online account it never mentioned 'internet' but it was included in the contract, despite asking numerous times for them to change it.

Presido

brianposter wrote: »

I cannot manage to download any of the original submissions so cannot comment on their content.
The principal advice would be to keep the main claim very simple and put all the complicated stuff in appendices.

One part which needs to be as clear as possible is the explanation as to why the adjudicator is wrong so I have had a go at that.

"The ruling of the adjudicator is inconsistent with paragraph 11.1 of Ofcoms General Conditions which places the responsibility for correct billing on the telephone operator.

Furthermore, in this particular case there is no loss to be mitigated because neither party to the contract has incurred extra expense as a result of the delay in correcting the billing error. “Mitigating a loss”” normally requires that there is an expense incurred outside the contract which could have been reduced.
This is simply a case of incorrect billing.


The ruling also sets an undesirable precedent in that there are many people who cannot check all their bills regularly – eg people who are ill, people working abroad or pensioners who go away for the winter. These people would be unable to rely on their contracts should the philosophy endorsed by the adjudicator be generally adopted."

I do not know why you cannot view the hyperlinks like others here have been able to do so. Perhaps you may wish to have another go so that you can have comprehensive view of my case.

Also where would you suggest I put the highlighted above on the Claim Form? I have asked for your suggestion because there are practically only two areas within the Claim Form where the comments could go: either on the limited space Brief details of Claim (on page 1 of the Claim Form) or Particulars of Claim (on page 2 of the Claim Form).

brianposter

For brief details something like


“I wish to reclaim monies overcharged during the course of a mobile telephone contract. The amounts overcharged were...........
I would also like to claim some compensation for the time and effort spent in rectifying matters....”




Leave the rest for particulars of claim where I would be inclined to have separate sheets with the following headings:


Outline history of events


Proof of specific contract


Adjudicators decision




For some reason I can download the adjudicators decision but not your original submission.