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

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

RandomCurve

spare to edit

Browntoa

New thread , link to old thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5021418

Mikmonken

So today I chased Lynn Parker for a response, and had confirmation from CEDR that they are looking into the case and will get back to me within 14 days.

But most irritating of all got smug email from EE, after deliberately copying EE into an email to OFCOM, saying

"I can only assume that CISAS have reviewed your application and have decided that it is not valid under the Scheme Rules, and that this remains their position."

you know full well that's what they've done.

As a side note I've seen this http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/11/uk-isp-scotnet-sues-customer-effort-recover-adr-complaint-fees.html and wonder if EE sent a letter before Action to CISAS, rather than objecting to specific claims?

MrJester

Just commenting so it appears in my subscribed threads will update with my situation soon as I hear back from CISAS!

Mikmonken

So an update expected from OFCOM next week, everyone fingers crossed they ask CISAS to reopen the cases, other wise SCC here we come

ulaggy

Well I had an email from Mr Howell today. Can't remember which email it's in reply to but here it is - Don't know if anyone has had this response yet?

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email escalating your complaint to me. I apologise for not responding sooner. I have considered what you said carefully.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I note your comment about me being the recipient of a complaint about Ofcom. I do not think it is unusual for the first level of complaint to an organisation to be reviewed internally. It enables a different, but senior, person to look at what has happened and, if possible, to resolve it, as well as a chance to identify any ways we could have done better. That kind of review is not necessarily the end of the process. For Ofcom, there are two possible routes by which you may be able to take further action. One is seeking a judicial review so that the Courts will look at Ofcom’s decision. The other is taking the complaint to the Parliamentary and Healthcare Ombudsman. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Turning to your two complaints, my response is as follows.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Complaint 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You ask me to explain why Ofcom is taking no further action in respect of the change EE made to its price variation terms. I have reviewed relevant documents, including previous correspondence and CISAS determinations. It appears to me that my colleagues have addressed the right issue: the change in the terms (not the effect of the new term). I am also satisfied Ofcom had valid reasons for deciding not to take further action, even though I acknowledge CISAS has taken different views in some cases and I know you disagree with those reasons (both of which we took into account in considering our position over time). My colleagues appear to me to have explained Ofcom’s position fully and fairly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As they explained, Ofcom uses RPI as a guide in deciding whether price rises in contracts made before 23 January 2014 are materially detrimental under General Condition 9.6 (“GC9.6”). In those contracts, Ofcom is not generally likely to regard price increases at or below RPI as meeting this requirement. That being so, Ofcom has ultimately taken the view that introducing a term making clear that prices could increase by up to RPI was not likely to be a materially detrimental change (even taking into account CISAS’s views in some cases). Ofcom also decided that this was not a matter we should use our available resources to pursue as an administrative priority.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ofcom also considered this matter under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “UTCCRs”). This led to EE amending its terms, to make clearer the RPI-limited basis for any price increases, and adjusting certain increases it had made. Again, Ofcom has taken the view that this aspect of the matter should not be pursued further as an administrative priority. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ofcom’s resources are not unlimited. This means we have to make choices, sometimes unpopular ones, about what matters to pursue. We use general policies and our administrative priority framework to help us target the resources available in the ways we think are most likely to meet our main statutory duty to further citizens’ and consumers’ interests. This framework is explained further in our enforcement guidelines.[1][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In this case, it appears to me that my colleagues applied this framework in a reasonable way. They took into account the views we had taken and the outcomes we had secured; that the harm and risks to consumers’ interests were limited or had been mitigated; that there was no on-going conduct they judged required action and that there was no basis to think an investigation would in all the circumstances have justified the resources involved. They considered that our resources should be devoted to other consumer protection priorities. These include our forward looking policy work to tackle mid-contract price rises on an industry-wide basis, our ongoing work on nuisance calls and investigations into Three and EE under GC14 (complaints handling), into Unicom under GCs 9 and 24 (mis-selling) and into BT under GC 15 (text relay services). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Complaint 2 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am afraid I do not agree with you that Ofcom’s reasons for taking no further action are unclear (see above), nor that Ofcom has failed to respond properly to the points made in correspondence from consumers like yourself. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I know you disagree with Ofcom’s responses and that they are not necessarily in the form requested. However, it seems to me they do set out clearly and in detail Ofcom’s position in relation to the matters asked about. In particular, my colleagues have set out in detail Ofcom’s initial views, under GC 9.6 and the UTCCRs, how they have further considered the matter in light of relevant CISAS determinations and correspondence from consumers, and the way they considered Ofcom’s administrative priorities and made decisions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am afraid I am not, therefore, going to respond as requested to “FMI-4” and “FMI-5.” Ofcom has already set out its position in the areas they cover.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely,[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Graham Howell[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Corporation Secretary[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/draft-enforcement-guidelines/annexes/Enforcement_guidelines.pdf[/FONT]

Short version - "!!!!!! off"