EE/Orange/T-Mobile - Reclaim ALL price rises AND cancel contract re T&C change

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

Page 7 of 8
Details

Right to a Penalty Free Cancellation under the UTCCRs
My claim is that the change of T&Cs is unfair under Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (K) of the UTCCRS and as such triggers my right to a penalty free cancellation.

The change in T&Cs allows EE to apply a higher price rise than was previously the case, and reduces the scope that I have to cancel my contract penalty free should EE increase the contract price.

The Change T&Cs is as follows:

TM and EE
7.2.3.2. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is: (i) an increase in Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retail price index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice;

Orange
4.3.1 we give you written notice to increase the Charges (as a percentage) by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which we send you written notice;

Whereas the new clause is
EE & T-Mobile
7.2.3.3. We have given You Written Notice of an increase in a Price Plan Charge under point 7.1.4 and (i) the increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) is higher than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 7.1.4);

ORANGE
4.3.1 the increase in the Charges (as a percentage) is equal to or lower than the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics (calculated using the most recently published RPI figure before we give you Written Notice under 4.3).

It is clear from the above that the maximum amount that EE can reference to increase my contract by has increased from the lowest inflation rate published to the published RPI. Therefore the absolute amount of the increase can now be higher than was previously the case which is not allowed under the UTCCRs. Indeed EE demonstrated this in May 2014 when they applied an RPI increase to my account at the rate of 2.7% when under the old contract clause they would have only been able to apply an increase of 1.7% - a difference of 58.8%.

Any change in the contract that allows EE to apply a higher price rise than was previously the case would, under UTCCRS Schedule 2 Paragraph1 (K), give rise to my right to a penalty free cancellation:

10.1 A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract after it has been agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under strong suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced only if both parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.

10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs or penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely to be considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that way. A variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract even though it was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments, if its wording means it could be used to impose more substantial changes. This applies to terms giving the supplier the right to make corrections to contracts at its discretion and without liability.

10.3 (c) there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation, and a right for the consumer to cancel before being affected by it, without penalty or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract

Further or in the Alternative

Right to a Penalty Free Cancellation under GC 9.6. – Higher price rise allowed

My claim is that the change of T&Cs is likely to be of Material Detriment to me under GC 9.6 and therefore triggers my right to a penalty free cancellation.

The change in T&Cs is to my Material Detriment as it both allows EE to apply a higher price rise than was previously the case, and reduces the scope that I have to cancel my contract penalty free should EE increase the contract price.

The phrase "likely to be of Material Detriment" (note it only has to be "likely" - not definite) was introduced in GC 9.6 which itself does not explicitly define Material Detriment, however the meaning can be deduced by considering:

• The intention behind Ofcom (and OFTEL before them) introducing the term "likely to be of material detriment" into GC9.6 and
• By reference to the source documentation for GC 9.6 which is the USD 20/(22).
  1 - OFTEL/Ofcom intentions of introducing the phrase “likely to be of Material Detriment”:

In the Ofcom publication "Price rises in fixed term contracts” published on 23rd October 2013 at Paragraph 3.6 Ofcom explain the reasons for including a Material detriment test:

3.6 Our intention was to reflect our general duties and principles of good administration and proportionality in particular. We sought, in light of these, not to rule out contract variations altogether. For example, those beneficial to, or having a neutral impact on, a subscriber.

As Ofcom's reasoning for introducing the term was to protect me - the consumer - from changes in the T&Cs which are not to my benefit or at the very least neutral, then any other change is LIKELY to be of Material Detriment. As the updated T&C allows EE to apply a higher price variation to my account then it clearly cannot be either to my benefit or neutral in its impact. Therefore under GC 9.6 I have a right to a penalty free cancellation, and EE ought to have known this (had they applied the expected level of Professional Diligence) at the time of the notification and should have informed me of my right to a penalty free cancellation, and therefore have breached the CPRs with regards to both Processional diligence, and misleading me by omission (CPR regulations 2,3 5-7)

Test 1: Professional diligence
10.4 Professional diligence is defined (in Regulation 2) as:

‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either — (a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.

Test 2: Material distortion

10.8 Material distortion is defined (in Regulation 2) as:

‘appreciably to impair the average consumer’s ability to make an informed decision thereby causing him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise’. It applies either when a practice distorts or is likely to distort the average consumer’s behaviour.

The second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought, or would not exercise cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.

Misleading and aggressive practices
3.5 Regulations 5-7 of the CPRs prohibit commercial practices which are misleading (whether by action or omission) or aggressive, and which cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.

2- Reference to the Source Documentation (USD 20/22)
It is clear that the intention of USD 20(22) was to give the CONSUMER the choice to cancel their contract during a fixed period for ANY modification that is made which they do not accept. It therefore follows that the threshold for “material detriment” must be a low threshold, and that view is supported by the Ofcom statement (above) in regards to the intention behind including the phrase “likely to be of material Detriment” i.e. not to my benefit or neutral in its impact.

This is the definition that should be applied as it complies with the approach to be taken under the UTCCRs Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (K), and the full meaning of USD 20(22) for which GC 9.6 is the UK enactment.

USD 2002/22/EC

Chapter IV – End User Agreements

Article 20 – Contracts

Paragraph 4

4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.

CPI and RPI rates over the six month period Aug 2013 to Feb 2014 are as follows and can be verified from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) website, the change in designation of RPI can also be verified on the ONS website

Aug 2013 CPI 2.7%; RPI 3.3%
Sep 2013 CPI 2.7%; RPI 3.2%
Oct 2013 CPI 2.2%; RPI 2.6%
Nov 2013 CPI 2.1%; RPI 2.6%
Dec 2013 CPI 2.0%; RPI 2.7%
Jan 2014 CPI 1.9%; RPI 2.8%
Feb 2014 CPI 1.7%; RPI 2.7% (58.8% higher)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/february-2013/stb---consumer-price-indices---february-2013.html#tab-Retail-Prices-Index--RPI--and-RPIJ-

RandomCurve

Page 6 of 8

Appendix 2 – Penalty Free cancellation following a change in T&Cs

NOTICE period:

Please note that my claim is under GC 9.6, the UTCCRs and the contract terms therefore any time limit for action is not determined by the contract but by GC9.6, and the UTCCRs Under GC 9.6 there is no claim time limit imposed on me. GC 9.6 only places a minimum time restriction on EE to provide me notice there is no time limit expressed or implied on when I need to take action. As GC 9.6 is a rule for the industry to follow - not the consumer - it is akin to the UTCCRs and other legal guidance where the time limit for action is six years and not 30 days. Should EE argue that this claim is “out of time” then I put EE to strict evidence to prove where GC 9.6 places a 30 day time restriction upon me.

In any case the notification sent of the change in T&Cs breached the CPRs in that EE had not applied the necessary Professional Diligence by failing to realise that under GC 9.6 they should have advised me of my right to a penalty free cancelation AND the wording of the text was such that it was misleading causing material distortion preventing me (at the time “an average consumer”) from making an informed decision. The notification was deficient in two respects and cannot be construed as adequate notice as required under GC 9.6 nor under the principle of acting in Good Faith as required by the UTCCRs and I believe also breaches the CPRs (misleading – material distortion). Therefore I request that any time limit for taking action is set aside due to these deficiencies, otherwise EE may be allowed to circumvent its liabilities to me simply by employing a misleading approach giving rise to a material distortion or failing to apply the required standard of duty of care (professional diligence) to the change notification.

Notification Deficiency 1 – Notice was not as prescribed under GC 9.6, and Breaches CPR Regulation 2 and 3

Under GC 9.6 (c) a notification of a change which is LIKELY to be of material detriment to me must be accompanied with an explanation that I may be able to cancel my contract without penalty:

Ofcom GC 9.6 c) “at the same time as giving the notice in condition 9.6(a) above, shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber.”

As I intend to prove below the change was likely to be of Material Detriment to me as:

• It allows EE to impose a higher price increase than was previously the case, and
• It narrows the grounds on which I can seek a penalty free cancellation when the price variation clause is used.

As a multinational company with over 20 years’ experience of operating under UK OFTEL/OFCOM regulation EEs legal department should have known that the effect of the change in contract terms was as stated above, and therefore was likely to be of Material Detriment to me. It is not sufficient for EE to plead that at the time of notification they believed that the change was not likely to have been of material detriment as had EE applied the Professional Diligence required EE would have known (CPR 10.2 and 10.4 (a) & (b)) that this was the effect and cannot be allowed to circumvent its obligation through ignorance/wilful negligence:
General prohibition
10.2 The general prohibition is made up of two tests. It prohibits practices that:
• contravene the requirements of professional diligence
and
• materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product (or are likely to).
10.3 The first test is concerned with the conduct itself – that is the standards of the trader’s practice. The second is concerned with the actual or likely effect the practice has on the average consumer’s economic behaviour.
Test 1: Professional diligence
10.4 Professional diligence is defined (in Regulation 2) as:
‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either — (a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.
Notification deficiency 2 – The text wording is misleading – breaching CPR regulations 3, and 5-7.

EE notified me of the change in T&Cs by Text as follows:



For T-Mobile and Orange
We're making some changes to the terms and conditions for your T-Mobile plan regarding the notification of price changes. The new terms will take effect from 26 March 2014.



For 4G EE
We're making some changes to the terms and conditions for your 4GEE plan to give you more clarity on the notification of price changes. For more details and to download a copy please see http://www.ee.co.uk/termsrefreshv1 The new terms will take effect from 26 March 2014.

and had a link to EEs website.



As can be seen there is no mention that the change allows EE to apply a higher price rise than was previously the case, but merely appears to be about the way in which changes are notified (format/timing) –“ ….regarding the notification of price changes…”
Had EE acted with the required standard of Good Faith, with transparency, and complied with the CPRs they would have clearly stated that they had modified which inflation rate will be referenced in the price variation clause. Modification of the inflation rate to be used is totally different to the modification of the “notification” of a price change. As far as I can tell the changes applied neither effects the timing or method of notification. The use of misleading wording in the text notification was a material distortion and changed my decision as I would have requested a penalty free cancellation had EE made the TRUE meaning of the change transparent in their text.
Under the CPRs
3 General prohibition
3.3 Regulation 3 contains a general prohibition of unfair commercial practices.
3.4 A commercial practice is unfair if:
• it is not professionally diligent, and
• it materially distorts, or is likely to materially distort, the economic behaviour of the average consumer. Essentially, for the general prohibition to apply, the trader’s practice must be unacceptable when measured against an objective standard and must also have (or be likely to have) an effect on the economic behaviour of the average consumer.
The second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought, or would not exercise cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.
Misleading and aggressive practices
3.5 Regulations 5-7 of the CPRs prohibit commercial practices which are misleading (whether by action or omission) or aggressive, and which cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.

As EE have not been professionally diligent in that they have not stated that the change in T&Cs gives them a right to apply a higher price increase than was previously the case, this has caused me (at the time an average consumer) not to exercise my cancellation rights at an earlier stage and so EE have breached the CPRs
I do not know if GC 23.2 applies to notifications of T&C changes:
: Mis-selling prohibition
23.2 When selling or marketing Mobile Telephony Services, the Mobile Service Provider must not:
(a) engage in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct;
But I believe the text notification would not pass a test under GC 23.2.

I am also not sure if UTCCRs Schedule 2 paragraph1 (L) relate to notifications in price variation clauses, but the difference between the two clauses was not clearly and adequately drawn to my attention:
12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways
•…….. provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.



Given the above EE should not be allowed to avoid its obligations to me by using misleading wording which completely ignores the true substance of the T&C change.



Additionally under the UTCCRs Schedule 2 paragraph 1 (K) and OFT guidance at 10.3 (c) I have a right to cancel my contract without penalty:



10.3 (c) there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation, and a right for the consumer to cancel before being affected by it, without penalty or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract


Further evidence of EEs misleading behaviour is that by following the link you are taken to the new price variation clause, there is no comparison with the old clause, nor even a link to the old clause. On a casual reading without the original price variation to reference the true implication that EE are allowing themselves to impose a higher price rise is not evident.

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

Page 2 of 8

Appendix 1 – Refund of previous price increases.

Details.

The price variation clause was not clearly and adequately drawn to my attention, GC 23.2, and CPRs

One of the tests of fairness in the UTCCRs is contained in the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidance at 12.4 as follows (Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (L)):

12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways.

• Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within narrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. As such they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.

I assert that when entering the contract I was not given adequate notice of the existence of the price variation clause (the most important clause of all according to the OFT) at the time of entering the contract. None of the pre contract literature (including the order summary attached) contained a reference to the price variation clause. The price of £31pm was only ever referred to in terms of the fixed elements of the contract (Call, Text and Data allowances) and the length of the contract (24 months), and was never qualified with a word such as “Initial” or “variable” to indicate that the price was not fixed .
USE THE FOLLOWING IF YOU PURCHASED ON LINE
At the time of purchase I did have to “Check” a box confirming I had read the T&Cs however this alone cannot constitute “adequate notice” as:

• There was no secondary box to “check” that specifically stated that the contract allows EE to vary the price i.e. clearly and adequately drawing the clause to my attention
• There is no opening summary within the contract in large type drawing my attention to the price rise clause contained within the detail of the contract
• Under UTCCRs “have read and understood” declarations cannot be used by EE as evidence of clearly and adequately drawing to my attention the price variation clause as per the UTCCRs guidance issued by the OFT as follows:
  • 18.5.5 'Have read and understood' declarations.
  • Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them (see Part IV). Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.
  • 18.5.6
  • In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not. The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all – see Group 9

USE THE FOLLOWING IF YOU PURCHASED DIRECT FROM EE ON THE PHONE
When entering into my contract via a call to the EE sales centre I was informed that there were T&Cs attached to my contract, however I was NOT informed that those T&Cs contained a price variation clause as required under the UTCCRs to ensure that the clause was clearly and adequately drawn to my attention. If EE should argue otherwise then I put EE to strict proof, by the provision of a recording of the sales call that the clause was clearly and adequately drawn to my attention.



USE THE FOLLOWING IF YOU PURCHASED IN STORE
The sales person never made clear to me that the contract contained a price variation clause, nor does the face of the contract clearly highlight that it contains a price variation clause.



I therefore entered into the contract with the legitimate expectation that the price was fixed for the term of the contract.Therefore the manner in which the contract was entered into did not satisfy the UTCCRs requirement that EE should have “clearly and adequately” drawn the price variation clause to my attention and should be deemed unfair and unenforceable



Further Evidence that the price variation clause was not “Clearly and adequately” drawn to my attention can be found in the Welcome letter which EE sent to me. This document clearly summarises the main parts of my contract and clearly shows the monthly price and the number of months – there is no mention that the price can be changed.



Additionally Olaf Swantee (Chief Executive of EE) has in an open letter to “Which” concerning price increases in fixed term contracts (Dated 9th July 2014) stated:
“….Following Which's Fixed Means Fixed campaign, we've introduced, changes and are now providing new customers with improved choice and transparency in all our pay monthly plan pricing.
‘We now explain when customers sign up or renew their contract that the price of our pay monthly plans will increase once a year in line with inflation”
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/mobile-phone-price-rises/ee-olaf-swantee-response/



It is clear from the above that EEs own Chief Executive recognises that EE have changed its methods so that there is now “transparency” and that they “now explain” that prices will increase. This is clear evidence from the very top of EE that previously this was not the case.
I put EE to strict evidence to prove that I was informed that the contract contained a price variation clause at the time my contract was taken out. If EE disputes my claim that its advertising at the time did not contain clear guidance that the price was variable, then I put EE to strict evidence by provision of such adverts which were being used when I entered into my contract.



I also ask the adjudicator to consider the name of the price plan that I was contracted to – “Panther 26”, the name of the plan corresponds with the (initial) monthly contract price and is further evidence that I genuinely believed I was signing up to a fixed term contract at a fixed price and is further evidence that the contract does not meet the “clearly and adequately” fairness test
The adjudicator should consider Ofcom GC 23.2 in relation to the plan name:
Mis-selling prohibition
23.2 When selling or marketing Mobile Telephony Services, the Mobile Service Provider must not:
(a) engage in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct;
I believe EE linking the plan name to the initial monthly cost falls foul of the Ofcom GC 23.2 (a) in that if the price is not fixed then the name is misleading and deceptive and is part of the reason as to why I believe a degree of compensation should be considered by the adjudicator.
Further under the CPRs (Regs 5 & 6) paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 state:
Misleading information generally
7.6 These are actions that mislead by:
• containing false information OR deceiving or being likely to deceive the average consumer (even if the information they contain is factually correct), and
• the false information, or deception, relates to one or more pieces of information in a (wide-ranging) list - which includes at paragraph 7.7 (g) “the price or….”
and
• the average consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a result.

RandomCurve

Page 8 of 8

Further or in the Alternative

Right to a Penalty Free Cancellation under GC 9.6. – Restricted Cancellation rights

I believe EE made the change to T&Cs with reference to Ofcom guidance in which CPs were asked to ensure that any price variation clauses were written in such a way as to ensure that they comply with the UTCCRs and therefore move from being unenforceable to enforceable, Clearly any change in T&Cs that moves me from a position whereby EE have an unenforceable price variation clause to a position where EE can now enforce the clause has to be to my Material Detriment. This position is supported by the very language that EE have used when explaining how this change “benefits me” i.e. “…certainty and transparency…” which is the language of the UTCCRs.

The relevant Ofcom regulations are below with a link to the full document, but note that this is not a change that is a legal requirement and EE were not, and are not legally obliged to change T&Cs in existing fixed term contracts by this guidance. It is Paragraph 4, which I have highlighted, which is most relevant.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/addcharges/statement/Guidance.pdf
This is industry guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services. It focuses principally on additional charges in consumer contracts, also referring to the obligation for communications providers to comply with General Condition 9 (contract terms)

Guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services
Introduction

1. Standard form terms in contracts for the supply of goods and services in the UK, between sellers or suppliers and consumers, must comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”). The OFT, together with a number of other bodies including Ofcom, share the task of enforcement. As a qualifying body, Ofcom has certain duties to consider complaints about terms in contracts used by communications providers (“CPs”)

2. The OFT has published general unfair contract terms guidance, based on its experience of enforcing the Regulations, which addresses a wide range of terms in consumer contracts. ………

3. Ofcom believes that sector-specific guidance (this “Guidance”) on a limited range of such issues will benefit CPs and consumers. This Guidance focuses principally on contract terms which provide for the payment by the consumer of additional charges, default charges, minimum contract periods and notice periods, and contract terms which may lead to additional charges being incurred.

While in many cases this is helpful in considering terms in consumer contracts within communications markets, it does not directly address some of the common terms in contracts for communications services.

4. Ofcom expects CPs to review their terms in light of the Guidance and to amend or remove any that are unfair. Unfair terms are not legally enforceable against consumers (see Regulation 8(1)), so it is in CPs’ interests, as well as consumers,’ to ensure that terms are fair.

Further EE have tried to tell me that this change in T&Cs is for my benefit as it makes my contract clearer. If EEs motive is truly to make the contract clearer then EE would have taken the opportunity to remove the phrase "material detriment" from their contract terms as this is the most ambiguous part of the whole contract. By not rectifying this, but only seeking to ensure that the price variation clause is clear (and therefore more likely to be enforceable) and references the highest inflation rate, I believe highlights the real motive for the change to T&Cs which is not to make the contract clearer for my benefit, but rather to give EE a price variation clause which is more likely to be enforceable, and gives EE the right to apply a higher price increase and therefore the change is clearly to my Material Detriment. This again demonstrates a breach of the CPRs in both the lack of professional diligence EE have applied, and using misleading information that gives rise to a material distortion, as it altered my decision on whether or not to seek a penalty free cancellation.

General prohibition

10.2 The general prohibition is made up of two tests. It prohibits practices that:

• contravene the requirements of professional diligence

and

• materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product (or are likely to).

Test 1: Professional diligence

10.4 Professional diligence is defined (in Regulation 2) as:

‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either — (a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general

principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.

Test 2: Material distortion

10.8 Material distortion is defined (in Regulation 2) as:

‘appreciably to impair the average consumer’s ability to make an informed decision thereby causing him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise’. It applies either when a practice distorts or is likely to distort the average consumer’s behaviour.
The second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought, or would not exercise cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.
Misleading and aggressive practices

3.5 Regulations 5-7 of the CPRs prohibit commercial practices which are misleading (whether by action or omission) or aggressive, and which cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.

OVERALL
In summary the change in T&Cs gives rise to my right to a penalty free cancellation as it purports to allow EE to impose a higher price rise (RPI) than was previously the case (CPI) and at the same time narrows my scope for seeking a penalty free cancellation should EE impose a price rise.

Through EE not applying the Professional Diligence required under the CPRs (in not notifying me of my right to a penalty free cancellation when the T&Cs were changed as per GC 9.6) AND by using misleading wording in the change notification text EE have materially distorted the way the effects of the change in T&Cs were presented to me which has caused me to exercise my cancellation rights at a much later time than would have been case.