We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
EE/Orange/T-Mobile - Reclaim ALL price rises AND cancel contract re T&C change
Options
Comments
-
I have posted various versions of EE T&Cs on the FightMobileIncreases.com website for ease of reference, plus details of the notification of the change in T&Cs and a table showing al price increase the have been applied.
http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-february-2014-changed-tcs/various-ee-terms-and-conditions/
Email 1 is also available to download:
http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/complete-camapaign-against-ee/0 -
The first Email to send to EE is now available see post #4 on this forum:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/50214180 -
I've added a bit more to my previous post, regarding Misrepresentation Act 1967. What do you reckon? Should I give it a go?
Actually, looking at it, I'm not sure that I can do all of it. I think I'd either have to go one route (T&C claim) or the other (Misrepresentation Act). Unless you can think of a way to combine them?
The other thing is time frames on Misrepresentation. I'm over 18 months into the contract, they'd probably wonder why I've left it this long. Probably say that I should have done this after last year's price rise. I guess I could argue that I wasn't aware of the Misrepresentation Act until just now.
Hm. I dunno!
Right, I've settled on the following.Dear Mr Swantee
Price Rise Refunds and Penalty Free Cancellation.
The purpose of this email is twofold.
1) To request the all sums taken from my account which are over and above the originally agreed contract price are refunded for any price increase that has been applied to any contract that I have held with T-Mobile at any time over the six years. My request is based on my belief that the price variation clause which T-Mobile have relied upon would fail the test of fairness under several headings of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations1999 (UTCCRs) the list below is not exhaustive:
1 The price variation clause was not clearly and adequately bought to my attention at point of sale. Point of sale for my change in tariff was in-store on 21/11/2012 and at no point did the sales assistant inform me of any price variation clause. In fact, he failed to explain any part of of the changed contract terms.
2 The price variation clause is not narrowly nor precisely defined
3 Due to the constituent elements of the contract an RPI increase cannot be a true reflection of cost increases incurred by T-Mobile, and therefore the price increase has been used to suit T-Mobile's own needs which is strictly forbidden under the UTCCRs
5 The price clause is discretionary – there is no reason given in the contract as to the circumstances in which a price rise can be applied
6 T-Mobile cannot pass the risk burden of inflation to me in a short term contract
7 T-Mobile have informed Ofcom that they can predict future cost increase with some certainty - I therefore have no way of knowing what inflationary factors were already taken of account of.
8 The tariff change that took place on 21/11/2012 took me from my previous tariff to a tariff called "Full Monty £36", as you can see in the attached Service Agreement photo. The wording of this is quite clear on the Service Agreement, and combined with the lack of informing me of the price variation clause, is grounds for a case of Fraudulent Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act of 1967. Had I known that my contract contained a price variation clause, I would not have agreed to this and would have instead terminated my contract with T-Mobile at that time.
Email sent, let's see what happens!0 -
rockstarzzz wrote: »Thanks RC! I received EE's defense just 2 minutes before 5pm. I will paste it here but will try to highlight the part where may be I can use blackaqua's defense if possible or anything you suggest to highlight that fact about it being more than RPI.
THE CLAIMANT’S NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT
44. The Respondent submits that, point 15.1(b) provided that notice to cancel (no such right being admitted) was required to be given prior to the change taking effect. The change was to take effect on 28 May 2014. By the Claimant’s own admission, he first brought his dispute and first gave notice to terminate the Agreements on 25 June 2014. The Respondent submits and confirms that it has no records that the Claimant requested to terminate the Agreement prior to the Claimant’s email dated 02 July 2014, attached hereto at Schedule 2 and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof. The Respondent submits therefore that the Claimant still had ample opportunity if the change gave grounds to cancel (none being admitted) to give notice to terminate the Agreement without a cancellation fee before the change took effect. The Claimant having given notice to terminate the Agreement on 02 July 2014, he was entitled to terminate the Agreement subject to him paying a cancellation fee.
45. As the Claimant did not give notice to terminate the Agreement until 02 July 2014, the Claimant’s right has been extinguished in any event, as he would have been required to give notice to terminate the Agreement before the charge took effect on 28 May 2014.
***************************************************
Some points to note:- They have refused that their increase is more than RPI.
- They have admitted that the increase is 98p per mobile number. This makes it 98p x 2 = £1.96 per month. I have to pay 18 months of my contract with this increase.
- They have gone into arguing "material detriment" and GC9.6
- They denied that contract thats not "fixed term" was mis-sold to me.
- They ask for £423 per line as my termination fee. If I understand correctly termination fee is remainder of line rental in full. This makes it £23.5 per month for next 18 months. This isn't my line rental - Discounted or otherwise.
- Discounts were applied to my plan and I have been paying only £16. So 2.7% of that should be 43p not 98p. For it to be 98p, they must have calculated my line rental as - £36.46
- Although, that is my line rental in my very first agreement but my discounted line rental that appears on my bill that I submitted is £16 (after increase - £17).
Can I use any generic template from you? It feels like they've used all the possible arguements we've seen in past cases. Should I merge all the templates?
I have been given till 1st August to respond.
Yes you have a case, but the date you first contacted EE may be a problem!
The response you received is in the main the standard response and you can use the defence response below (but will need to cross reference the paragraph numbers) - the two documents can be downloaded from the fight Mobile increases website ( http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/ )
EE Defence updated version from Mid June
EE Defence Response from 26-6-14
As for the NET increase can you post on the forum the cost of each line the amount actually coming out of your bank account Before and After the price rise? I think you are saying:
Line 1 £32.00 + 98p = £32.98 or 3.1%
Line 2 £16.00 + 98p = £16.98 or 6.13%
if the above is correct then this is your response to Paragraph 28 as it proves that EE have used a rate higher 2.7% and by there own defence at para 28 they stated this would allow you to terminate the contract penalty free.
Regarding the date of the claim this will be an interesting test case for the new campaign! the response to Paragraphs 44 and 45 is as follows:
"As stated earlier my claim is based on a breach of GC 9.6 and NOT the contract therefore any time limit for action is not determined by clause 15.1(b) of the contract but by GC9.6. 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, and as the Regulation is more in line with USD 20/22 and the UTCCRs the statutory time limit for me to take action should be used which is 6 years."
0 -
See post #1475 on the Price rise forum. A potentially interesting test case for the time limitation within GC 9.6!!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66109470#Comment_661094700 -
I've added a bit more to my previous post, regarding Misrepresentation Act 1967. What do you reckon? Should I give it a go?
Actually, looking at it, I'm not sure that I can do all of it. I think I'd either have to go one route (T&C claim) or the other (Misrepresentation Act). Unless you can think of a way to combine them?
The other thing is time frames on Misrepresentation. I'm over 18 months into the contract, they'd probably wonder why I've left it this long. Probably say that I should have done this after last year's price rise. I guess I could argue that I wasn't aware of the Misrepresentation Act until just now.
Hm. I dunno!
Right, I've settled on the following.0 -
RandomCurve wrote: »The problem with words like fraudulently is that the adjudicator is likely to shy away from taking the case. Also the name of the contract implies £36 is the cost, but EE can argue that this is not the case - it is your call, personally I would leave it out - but as I have said so many times before I am not legally trained.
Too late to change email now, as sent it. Will see how they respond anyway!0 -
I've not thought outside of the box so have word for word submitted your proposed initial letter.
I'll let you know what response i get.
Cheers0 -
Too late to change email now, as sent it. Will see how they respond anyway!
A "softer" approach that won't make CISAS shy away is breach of Ofcom GC 23.2 (see page 136 and 141 on the link below) re "Full Monty £36" being misleading - you can reword your original email in the next contact with EE and for the actual CISAS case - and we may use this for ALL cases where others have a similar price plan name:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/mobmisselling/statement/statement.pdf
Page 136 - 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;
and the guidance to GC 23:
Page 141 - Mis-selling prohibition
A23.8 GC 23.2 sets out prohibitions on the MSP regarding unacceptable types of sales and marketing behaviour (generally described as ‘mis-selling’). Such prohibited mis selling
behaviour includes, but is not limited to:
• the omission of relevant or the provision of false and/or misleading information (for example, about tariffs, potential savings or network coverage); such misleading conduct includes deceiving a customer or providing the customer with misinformation which is likely to affect a
customer’s purchase decision;0 -
rockstarzzz wrote: »Thanks a bunch RC!
Since we are going right into the details, I've dug into my old bills as well as my bank statments.
I am paying on BOTH lines exactly same price plan.
The price plan is listed on my contract as Panther36 Loyalty Plus. This plan is £36 per month. But when I signed the contract, it said £37. No biggy.
Out of that, I get a Loyalty Plus discount of £20. That means each month I am on a discounted contract where I only pay £17 BEFORE any hikes. However, with 98p increase, that makes it £18. That is 18 per line.
Line 1 and 2 : I was paying £14.30 before VAT.
After increase: Line 1 and 2 : I am paying £15.12 before VAT
I am bad with VAT. But if VAT is 20%, that makes early bills to be £17.10. If 2.7% rise of based on this price, it should only be 46p rise, NOT 98p as they say. Correct? Is that how I should represent this?
I would not get bogged down in the detail of VAT. Simply say
"I was paying £14.30 before VAT for each line, £14.30p plus RPI of 2.7% = £14.69p, but EE are charging £15.12p before VAT an increase of £0.82p or 5.7% which is in excess of the RPI and as per EEs defence at Para 28 I should be entitled to a penalty free cancellation as requested."0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards