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

Mikmonken

Further to our previous correspondence in relation to your application to CISAS, we write to advise that we are unable to accept your application.


In accordance with Rule 2 b) of the CISAS Rules, the scheme cannot be used to settle disputes that are the subject of a previous valid application made under the Scheme.

They say they cannot accept a claim of previous valid application, whilst they've not detailed what was related (I asked and have requested it be provided) they have not accepted the claim, therefore we could submit the same claim in two parts, cause twice the headache as neither claim referred to the other?

I personally would like to put OFCOM and CISAS under a lot of pressure for this.

ulaggy

I *think* we could probably submit a claim based solely on the T&C change and it'd go through. But the way CISAS are going, who knows!

RandomCurve

Well surprise surprise a little pressure from EE and CiSAS roll over.


A quick email to CISAS (copy in Ofcom and the Media) asking them to explain how rule 2 b is relevant when the new claim is in regards to:

1. Price increases applied under the Pre March 2014 price variation clause AND
2. The change in T&Cs effective March 2014,

Whilst the original claim related to

• the price increase applied under the new Post March 2014 price variation clause

Also ask for copies of al correspondence and transcripts of all meetings/telephone calls as CISAS rules are clear that both sides see all materials in relation to the case.


Also anybody who has never taken a case to CISAS should do so as there is no way rule 2b can be applied to your case.

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

Thoughts? Is there a max number of concurrebt claims we cAn submit? We could at submit the previous claim as two parts

No but they may switch to the claims being vexatious.

Citroen

RandomCurve wrote: »

Well surprise surprise a little pressure from EE and CiSAS roll over.


A quick email to CISAS (copy in Ofcom and the Media) asking them to explain how rule 2 b is relevant when the new claim is in regards to:

1. Price increases applied under the Pre March 2014 price variation clause AND
2. The change in T&Cs effective March 2014,

Whilst the original claim related to

• the price increase applied under the new Post March 2014 price variation clause

Also ask for copies of al correspondence and transcripts of all meetings/telephone calls as CISAS rules are clear that both sides see all materials in relation to the case.


Also anybody who has never taken a case to CISAS should do so as there is no way rule 2b can be applied to your case.

Done and copied you in too.

RandomCurve

ulaggy wrote: »

Not yet, I asked RC whether I need to wait until CISAS clarify what they are doing with peoples' claims or whether I should just go straight for it now. Think he may have missed that post!

Sorry - thought I had responded to this - for you it is time for the SCC.


Send EE a "Letter Before Action" (can be an email as long as it is clearly headed "Letter Before Action". Outline the basis of you claim (does not need to be in great detail)

1. Previous prices rise are unenforceable as they are unfair under the UTCCRs, and
2. T&Cs change was of Material Detriment

And state the remedy you seek

1. Refund o al previous price rises and
2. Penalty Free termination from date X wit a refund of all sums taken from your account from that date and a PAC code.

Give them a date (at least 7 days from the date of you email) on which you will begin proceedings through the Small Claims Track of the County Court.

RandomCurve

Found this - may be useful to copy in the Observer on all correspondence (I suggest using "mobile phones -EE" in the subject line):


http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/03/worst-mobile-phone-how-complain-orange


Are you having problems with your mobile phone provider? Are you struggling to receive a signal, or having difficultly cancelling your contract? Please write to us at Cash, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU or email your.problems@observer.co.uk putting "mobile phones" in subject field.

barrowvian

I sent this reply to CISAS based on what you've written RC;

CISAS,

Please explain how rule 2 b is relevant when the new claim is in regards to:

1. Price increases applied under the Pre March 2014 price variation clause AND
2. The change in T&Cs effective March 2014,

Whilst the original claim related to;

• The price increase applied under the new Post March 2014 price variation clause

As per CISAS rule regarding transparency, please also provide copies of all correspondence and transcripts of all meetings/telephone calls between CISAS and EE. CISAS rules are clear that both sides see all materials in relation to the case.

As EE have been given the opportunity to object to the decision to handle this case, I would now like to take the opportunity to object to CISAS as I feel you have not properly understood the basis of the claim. Claim one related to 'PRICE RISES' and claim two related to 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS CHANGES'. Please explain how these are the same thing. I require a full written response detailing your decision and reasoning.

Regards,

XXX

I have a feeling we're going to be banging out heads against a brick wall now. CISAS are obviously corrupt, much like OFCOM, and are being leant on by EE. The only remaining option is to have a crack at taking them to SCC. I have a bit of confidence in this as I've taken two companies this route before, albeit for completely different things, and they've buckled before the deadline. I'm happy to go first and raise this. I may just need help summarising this case into specifics that are no more than 2000 characters, if I remember correctly. Not much space to get all the details out so bullet points will probably be the way to go.

GolfBravo

RC,

Can I have your opinion please.

I had 2 CISAS cases against EE fail (all using your templates, T&C's and then Price rise). In both cases CISAS adjudicators acted more like EE defence, not even acknowledging the basis of both claims.

My EE contract is running out tomorrow.

Would you suggest trying the LBE and small claims route for a full refund (from T&C's change)?

RandomCurve

Email to Ofcom/CISAS/EE/Media/Olaf
[EMAIL="OCCtelecoms@ofcom.org.uk"]OCCtelecoms@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL];
[EMAIL="Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk"]Lynn.Parker@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk"]graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk"]Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@cisas.org.uk"]info@cisas.org.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="info@cisas.org.uk"olaf.swantee@ee.co.uk"][/EMAIL][EMAIL="info@cisas.org.uk"][/email][EMAIL="olaf.swantee@ee.co.uk"]olaf.swantee@ee.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk"]Edwin.lane@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="joel.taylor@ukmetro.co.uk"]joel.taylor@ukmetro.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="your.problems@observer.co.uk"]your.problems@observer.co.uk[/EMAIL]




Dear Ofcom


Ofcom Ref 1-257538305


Thank you for your email of 11-9-14 in response to my email of 6-9-14.


I think Ofcom have missed the point of my email (as you initially did in May 2013 when EE interfered with CISAS due process in regards to their March 2013 price increase, and again in July when the OS refused to accept cases in regards to the Vodafone out of bundle price increases).


I am not asking Ofcom to “review an individual compliant”, As you have correctly identified this is the role of the ADR scheme, You also correctly state that “The Communications Act REQUIRES that individual complaints are dealt with by either of the approved schemes”, and this is what my email to Ofcom is in relation to.


There is a body of consumers who want CISAS to review if:

• The EE change in T&Cs, and
• All prices rises prior to May 2014 (under the OLD I,e the old price variation clause) are compatible with:

• The UTCCRs
• General Conditions of Entitlement
• EEs contract
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.
  
  

As all of the above fall within the remit of the ADR process – then under the Communications Act that you reference the ADR must accept the cases.

CISAS initially accepted cases in relation to the above – including those from consumers who had previously submitted CISAS cases (and lost) in relation to EEs price increase of May 2014 under its NEW price variation clause. Following SECRET negotiations between CISAS and EE CISAS are now claiming that they cannot accept the cases as follows:

“Further to our previous correspondence in relation to your application to CISAS, we write to advise that we are unable to accept your application.

In accordance with Rule 2 b) of the CISAS Rules, the scheme cannot be used to settle disputes that are the subject of a previous valid application made under the Scheme.”

It is obvious from even the most basic review of the basis of the claims that the new claim is NOT “…to settle disputes that are the subject of a previous valid application made under the Scheme”

Under Section 54 of the Communications Act Ofcom can only approve ADR schemes which:



Approval of dispute procedures for the purposes of s. 52E+W+S+N.I.


(1)Before giving their approval to any dispute procedures, OFCOM must consult the Secretary of State.


(2)OFCOM are not to approve dispute procedures unless they are satisfied that the arrangements under which the procedures have effect—


(a)are administered by person who is for practical purposes independent (so far as decisions in relation to disputes are concerned) of both OFCOM and the communications providers to whom the arrangements apply;


(b)give effect to procedures that are easy to use, transparent and effective;


(c)give, in the case of every communications provider to whom the arrangements apply, a right to each of his domestic and small business customers to use the procedures free of charge;


(d)ensure that all information necessary for giving effect to the procedures is obtained;


(e)ensure that disputes are effectively investigated;


(f)include provision conferring power to make awards of appropriate compensation; and


(g)are such as to enable awards of compensation to be properly enforced.




The secret negotiations between EE and CISAS are clearly in breach of:

• S 54 (2)a, - as it impinges on CISAS’s independence;
• S 54 )(2)b - as secret negotiations are NOT transparent
• S54 (2)c - as they have denied the consumers right to use the procedure free of charge on a matter that clearly falls within the ADR remit
• S54 (2)e – as even the most basic of reviews would have noted that earlier cases are in connection with entirely different matters. Additionally as CISAS have not sought he consumers view on EEs assertions then CISAS could not have effectively investigated.
  
  

(As an aside in previous cases when customers have won compensation and EE and have been very slow to comply CISAS have said that they do not have any enforcement powers – if this is the case then Ofcom have failed to set up an ADR scheme in accordance with The Communications Act S52 and S54(2)g – and I would appreciate your comments on the enforcement powers that ADRs have).

I trust that Ofcom now understands the situation is about compliance with the Communications Act and that Ofcom (as in previous instances of this nature) will contact CISAS and remind it of its obligations under the Communications Act as if those obligations are not adhered to by CISAS then Ofcom has failed to fulfil its statutory duties under that Communications Act S52

I also request that Ofcom remind EE and CISAS that the ADR process must not only be independent, but must be SEEN TO BE INDEPENDENT. Therefore EE should not be allowed to approach CISAS once CISAS have accepted cases (which they have) other than to submit a defence. Once the adjudicator is appointed then the adjudicator determines if they are able to accept the case or not.- and gives the reasons for their decision. This is as per the Communications Act and CISAS own rules.



Regards