EE/Orange/T-Mobile - Reclaim ALL price rises AND cancel contract re T&C change - 2

[Deleted User]

g6jns wrote: »

I am sorry to say that this illustrates the difficulties of a LIP (Litigant in person) up against a professional lawyer in a case with complex evidence. Unless you can condense it down to a few paragraphs then you are unlikely to succeed. You really need a professional to help you on the day. Perhaps RC might like to see if he can choose a strong case and see if he can get someone to act pro bono (free of charge). Nevertheless full marks for trying.

Hi G6jns,

I totally agree with you.
I would definitely recommend people to seek legal aid/ find a professional to represent them in the hearing if they decided to take the case to SCC. This was my very first court case and I honest had no ideas of what I should do and say. I simply answered the questions raised by the judge in the hearing, and this was just not enough in fighting against a solicitor over a relatively complex case. The case was complex and involving lots of terms/ regulations, and although the case was based on changes of terms rather than a price rises, the pennies increase might still have a great impact on some judges in making their decisions. I think it can be quite difficult sometimes to respond "correctly" to the questions raised.

[Deleted User]

jocklatic wrote: »

Does sound like the SCC route is a minefield & as g6jns says it's a complex case & EE have trained lawyers representing them. It may well be that after 1 or 2 cases have gone to SCC then we may get a better idea on how to fight it???
On a seperate note i have had a reply from Graham Howell/ Ofcom basically wringing his hands of any need to intervene & that its the jobs of the court......EE/ CISAS / Ofcom = bed partners

Hi jocklatic,

I think it is really depending on the person who hearing the case. In the end it is up to the judicator/judge to make the decision. But I agree that we can probably prepare better if we know how some of the judges are deciding the case.

[Deleted User]

barrowvian wrote: »

When I created the SCC claim, they gave EE 14 days since the 5th day after the claim was issued, which is the 25th for me. EE filed an acknowledgement of service which I believe means they're requesting to have 28 days to submit a defense.

I was reading on the Money Claim site that after 14 days I can submit my claim for judgement.

For anyone that knows, what would happen if after the 14th day I submitted my claim for judgement? It says on the submission page that I only have to wait 14 days. It already lets me scroll right through the judgement already, up until the point I can submit it. Would this likely be frowned upon by the court?

Hi Barrowvian,

I think you should call the helpline provided on the website/in the letters as the staff there could help you better. :beer:

Mikmonken

Check your home insurance or bank accounts to see if they have legal aid attached, some may well do and you can get advice from through them.

g6jns_2

[quote=[Deleted User];66810292]Hi G6jns,

I totally agree with you.
I would definitely recommend people to seek legal aid/ find a professional to represent them in the hearing if they decided to take the case to SCC. This was my very first court case and I honest had no ideas of what I should do and say. I simply answered the questions raised by the judge in the hearing, and this was just not enough in fighting against a solicitor over a relatively complex case. The case was complex and involving lots of terms/ regulations, and although the case was based on changes of terms rather than a price rises, the pennies increase might still have a great impact on some judges in making their decisions. I think it can be quite difficult sometimes to respond "correctly" to the questions raised.[/QUOTE]
What surprises me is that EE decided to spend more than it would have cost to settle in fighting it. Remember that their costs will be much higher than they can claim. I can only think that RC's campaign has got them worried despite all their bluster.

Mikmonken

g6jns wrote: »

What surprises me is that EE decided to spend more than it would have cost to settle in fighting it. Remember that their costs will be much higher than they can claim. I can only think that RC's campaign has got them worried despite all their bluster.

The breaching of the UTCCRs is a criminal offence I believe so if they lose the case there are fines, possible prison and also reputational risks wider than just us moaning lot.

MrJester

RandomCurve wrote: »

I have completed the response to the defence.


It highlighted a couple of issues with the actual CISAS case so I will amend that in due course (nothing that should stop us winning this case).


I will post the response below this post and on page 2 post #. I will also publish the response on the Fight Mobile Increases Website as a Word document as the formatting usually goes astry when copying to MSE (and I don't have the time to correct it) http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/complete-camapaign-against-ee/


@JoeJester - would you mind if I published the EE defence (I will take out personal details) so that others can cross reference the paragraphs (both here and on FMI)?


There are Four highlighted areas in the response that you need to review:
Two highlighted "pink" these refer to the change notification - I have used the EE 4GEE version - if you are on a different contract please change the pink highlighted area to the correct notification (it is on the original CISAS case on page 1)


A yellow highlighted area refers to the fact that CISAS have accepted these case before - it is a little risky putting this in and it is up to you if you take it out or leave it in (I would leave it in)


If you remove the yellow highlighted area you will also need to remove the area highlighted blue.


the blue highlighted area can be removed - it is a little more risky than the yellow area as it makes it clear to CISAS that they are being monitored - and they won't like that (like most low level life forms they prefer to hide under rocks where they can't be observed!)! I would personally leave that in, but it is relatively high risk in that CISAS may decide they can not carry on with your case in case you tell someone the outcome! Personally I would leave it in -but that is because I would be more than happy (would actually prefer prefer) to take this through a court process to try and get some publicity!

Thank you for everything RC. To note, I left in yellow section, and removed blue section. I felt the blue was a tad too much.

Mikmonken wrote: »

We’ve reference the industry guidance for unfair terms which i believe is quite dated guidance 2008/2010? (i can't find a specific date)

We need to include the following as an addition (RC correct me if otherwise)

EE reference to the recent comments with the intention of increasing certainty for consumers, Given the time scales scales in surrounding the change in T&C's it is more likely that EE are reference the guidance issued in October 2013 - where CP had 3 months to implement (i.e by 23 January 2014) the guidance as follows -> Price rises in fixed term contracts Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc9/statement/GC9_statement.pdf

EE have inferred that the changes made were "in light of Ofcoms recent comments" however it is categorically clear from the comments that Ofcoms guidance was not in relation to existing contracts as per the implementation of guidance detailed below.

Implementation

1.28 Ofcom will adopt the approach set out in the guidance three months after the date of publication of this statement. It will apply in relation to any new contracts entered into on or after that adoption date.

1.29 We consider that three months should be sufficient for CPs to make any adjustments they identify as necessary in light of our guidance whilst ensuring that protection for consumers entering into new contracts takes effect as early as reasonably possible.

1.30 For existing contracts, GC9.6 will continue to apply as it does now. Any question regarding whether a price increase meets the material detriment requirement will be considered on a case by case basis.

1.31 In all cases, we will monitor compliance with GC9.6 and consider taking enforcement action where necessary.

It is unclear as to whether EE are are either referring to "Guidance on unfair terms in contracts for communications services" as being a recent document, which it is not or referring to "Price rises in fixed term contracts Decision to issue Guidance on General Condition 9." a recent document which is clear with its intent that the guidance only applies to "new contract" Either way EE are manipulating the content of the guidance and Ofcoms comments.

Even the clearer meaning of the change offered by EE in the defence, it is still not made clear that the inflation rate they can reference has been amended under the new T&C.

Thank you for the addition, it was added to the response.

Response sent. Now we wait.. well done so far RC & Mik, great work :T

Maccadinho25

Received a response from Graham Massie today - have others received the same? Happy to send to the Fight Mobile Increases email address if required

RandomCurve

Maccadinho25 wrote: »

Received a response from Graham Massie today - have others received the same? Happy to send to the Fight Mobile Increases email address if required

I received it too- will post a response up later. I have been busy, as I will show shortly.

RandomCurve

[quote=[Deleted User];66803191]Hi RC,

..... The defendant interrupted by offering the judge a short summary of the case.......[/QUOTE]

This is key to know - Before attending the court have a short summary prepared (on paper to hand to the judge and the defendant).


If the Defendant interrupts bluntly tell them that the judge directed the question at you not them - and then proceed to answer (that way they know from the start that you mean business).


If the Judge appears to be answering on the defendants behalf it may be worth saying something " it would be nice to hear the defendants view on this point". After a couple of times of that the judge will get the message!


And last thing I get from this is always quote the relevant section of law, and make the defendant address that point (they will try and !!!!!foot around it) if they do try to avoid it make it clear that they have not addressed the point and repeat it (as many times as is necessary).


Thanks for sharing this info - it will be invaluable to me shortly when I attend court with a customer on another network.