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

Mikmonken

RC for clarity would this approach work for those who have had the claim rejected a second time?

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

RC for clarity would this approach work for those who have had the claim rejected a second time?

I think CISAS will still say it is the same case. You can try and see what happens, but when it goes to CISAS we will need to clearly differentiate this case and the original Price rise case in the claim itself.

RandomCurve

I have chased up CEDR again and have a response from Graham Massie as per below - as he clearly sates that his CEO has got the rules right then I will be asking him why they have not been applied!!!


Dear RC,


I am afraid that your interpretation of what you have been told is again incorrect.


1. Our CEO has not misinterpreted the CISAS process
2. EE has not been shown favour.
3. There is no basis for me to give you details of any of our communications with individual customers.


Given that you have previously advised that you do not presently have a case with CISAS, there is nothing more than I can add to my email of 23 October, and I will not be responding to any further queries of this nature

regards

Graham Massie


Just for the record when he says "I am afraid that your interpretation of what you have been told is again incorrect" is in reference to the fact that I quoted his CEOs interpretation of CISAS rules to him, and he thought it was MY interpretation and so said I had mis-interpreted the rules - so I asked him if his CEO does not understand rules as it was interpretation I had sent!!

The good thing is now he has admitted that his CEOs interpretation of CISAS rules IS CORRECT, then he now needs to explain why CISAS have not followed the rules! He will be receiving my follow-up email in due course

Grandpa_John

Just a small update on my case. I have just been informed by CISAS that my comments have been noted and passed on to my adjudicator they will contact me when she has responded. I'm choosing to take this as they accept that there is a clerical error and are allowing a potential correction. I would think the administrator would just refuse to enter into correspondence if it didn't class as clerical?

RandomCurve

Grandpa_John wrote: »

Just a small update on my case. I have just been informed by CISAS that my comments have been noted and passed on to my adjudicator they will contact me when she has responded. I'm choosing to take this as they accept that there is a clerical error and are allowing a potential correction. I would think the administrator would just refuse to enter into correspondence if it didn't class as clerical?

It will be interesting to see how they justify:
"h. I find that the customer is accordingly entitled to redress in respect of any loss which followed from this breach. "
Translating to £50 compensation!


Keep us updated.

RandomCurve

The response to CEDR (see post #284)


Dear Graham,


Thank you for your email of 30th November.


I am pleased that you have confirmed that your CEO (Dr Karl Mackie CBE) has NOT misinterpreted the CISAS rules. This is VERY IMPORTANT as the process he has outlined has NOT BEEN FOLLOWED by CISAS.


The process as outlined by your CEO Dr Karl Mackie CBE, which you have confirmed as being correct is:

• “……… we would not send out a formal adjudicator ruling to the customer, merely relay the fact that we have decided that the claim is out-of-scope and explain the reason. In these circumstances again, a customer can explain that we are misinformed and we may then proceed with the case if we agree(despite Rule 8 (a) and (b) which say that our decisions are final)”

The Process as followed by CISAS:

• CISAS accept a Case;
• EE contact CISAS claiming the cases are a re-run of cases already heard;
• CISAS dismiss cases as “directed” by EE saying it is out of scope
• THIS STAGE (as articulated by Dr Karl Mackie CBE) has not happened – it should have been:
  • A customer can explain that we are misinformed and we may then proceed with the case if we agree (despite Rule 8 (a) and (b) which say that our decisions are final)”

Given that the CISAS process was put in place to safeguard impartiality and promote transparency (and thereby demonstrating CEDRs impartial mediation abilities) then it follows that a departure from the procedure can only be seen as either:

• An oversight by CISAS or
• CISAS acting with bias in favour of EE.

As you also clearly stated that EE has not been shown any favour then, if I take you at your word, the departure from process must have been an oversight.

As we have now established that the departure from process was an oversight then surely it is incumbent on CEDR (as a leading provider of independent and impartial mediation services) to instruct CISAS to reopen the cases in question and to follow the correct procedure. Should CEDR fail to take this action then I am sure Ofcom and the media will be able to draw their own conclusions.

I look forward to your response which informs me that CISAS have been instructed as above. I am assuming that a leading mediation service would not seriously refuse to communicate on an unresolved matter, especially as many consumers are following this correspondence.

Regards


RC

RandomCurve

Ofcom wash their hands of this -EE get away Scott free unless YOU act to protect yourself.
I have highlighted the areas where Ofcom are basically saying that they have better things to do than protect the consumer from the sharp practices of the Largest Mobile Operator in the UK .




Dear RC

I write in reply to your email and letter dated 3 November 2014.Please accept my apologies for the delay in doing so.

You attached with your letter an earlier email of 1 April and you referred to 10 points labelled A – J and asked 10 questions, some of which contained sub-questions. I have considered carefully what you said, but I am afraid I cannot give you all the answers you request.

A number of your questions ask Ofcom to give you statements that EE has breached requirements of the General Conditions or provisions of consumer law. I am afraid that Ofcom cannot simply make determinations of those matters and make announcements in correspondence. There are a number of statutory provisions that apply, so that a process that is rigorous and fair to all parties is followed. We would need to conduct a proper investigation and consider all the relevant evidence on both sides before making a determination or asking a court to do so. For example, sections 96A – 96C of the Communications Act 2003 contain provisions relating to Ofcom determining whether a Communications Provider (“CP”) has breached requirements of a General Condition. Once Ofcom has done a proper investigation, these provide for CPs to have the opportunity to make representations in response to the case against them before Ofcom makes a final decision.
Where we take action under general consumer law similar provisions are relevant. Under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002, we have powers to obtain court orders stopping breaches of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCRs”) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (“CPRs”), both of which your letter refers to.[1] Under section 214 of that Act, however, we cannot ask a court to make such an order unless we have first engaged in consultation with the party against whom the order might be made (here, EE). That involves putting the case and evidence to that party and giving it chance to respond.

Ofcom cannot therefore give you the answers you request to your questions. We have considered whether we should begin the sort of investigation that would enable us to consider and determine the issues you raise under the proper processes. We have decided, however, not to do so (although we are writing to EE re-iterating its regulatory obligations). We have considered this in light of the allegations you have made, the other areas on which we have focussed our resources in relation to mid-contract price rises and our other consumer protection priorities. As you know from our other extensive correspondence, Ofcom has to make difficult choices as to the matters to which we devote our resources (which are not unlimited and do not allow us to investigate every matter drawn to our attention) in order best to meet our duties to citizens and consumers. As you also know, the administrative priority criteria we use to help us make these choices are in our published enforcement guidelines.
We have taken into account, in particular, that we devoted considerable resources to tackling mid-contract price rises on a forward looking basis. The outcome was the guidance that applies to contracts made from 23 January this year. Providers have made significant changes to their practices in light of this. We have taken the view that the resources that would be required to investigate this matter further are better employed on other consumer protection priorities.

Like much of our previous correspondence, I know this is not the answer you wanted. I hope you can see, however, why I cannot respond in the way you wanted and the basis for the position Ofcom has taken, even if you do not agree with it.

Kind regards

Lynn

boatman

Has anybody else ever been refused backdated payment from a CISAS decision for not providing proof of a better deal? I was told they would not backdate my payments to when i lodged the claim, only allow me to cancel, even though they agreed that T-mobile had breached the contract by not allowing me to leave.

RandomCurve

boatman wrote: »

Has anybody else ever been refused backdated payment from a CISAS decision for not providing proof of a better deal? I was told they would not backdate my payments to when i lodged the claim, only allow me to cancel, even though they agreed that T-mobile had breached the contract by not allowing me to leave.

This is wrong on so many levels!

1. How can a person who adjudicator son phone contracts not know that sim only deals are cheaper than combined deals?
2. What difference does it make anyway - EE breached the contract (they never cancelled when they should have) and therefore were not entitled to the money (you had no choice but to carry on using a service you did not want them to provide as they won't give a PAC for free). The difference between SIM only and your contract is irrelevant!
3. Finally - and this is where you may have leverage - I think you can write to CISAS saying there has been an administrative error. If the Adjudicator required more evidence to reach a decision then under rule 4.4 (a) he should have asked for it.

4.4 Documents and Additional Information
a) CISAS may, on behalf of the adjudicator, contact the customer and company to ask for further documents or information. CISAS will send copies of any extra information or documents received to either party

http://www.cisas.org.uk/CISASRules-12_e.html

RandomCurve

I have received a few PMs along the lines of the one below. I have seen this before and below is the advice I gave then, however I do not know what the outcomes were, but assume that Buymobiles backed off as otherwise I'm sure somebody would have contacted me.


A while back with your help I did a Cisas case and won, I got my contract cancelled and compensation - Result.

Today Buymobilephones.net have emailed me a final demand within 14 days for the initial cost of the handset due to my contract not lasting 24 months, they lost their commission and in their T's & C's they can do this.

Payment to the tune of £XXX.XX

Any idea if as Cisas said I can cancel I have any way out of paying this amount?

I appreciate any help if you have seen this before.

Many thanks


My thoughts are that you had a contract with EE which EE breached, and CISAS instructed EE to release you from the contract PENALTY FREE. Separately Buymobiles have a contract with EE and if they had written the contract properly then BM would still be able to claim commission from EE as the only reason your contract ended was due to EEs actions.


So my advice is to write back to BM explain that EE breached the contract and that CISAS cancelled the contract PENALTY FREE (send a copy of the CISAS decision). And suggest that they need to contact EE to recompense then for any lost commission, as it is solely due to EEs breach of the contract that the contract was cancelled by CISAS.