Voluntary code for mobile networks

mouseclick

Quentin wrote: »

If even the big players from the carphonewarehouse group are prepared to "chance" it and issue unfair contracts, then the networks are hardly going to cut their own throats by imposing a sanction on the retailers - and so far we've seen no evidence that they have done so. We have though seen the unfair terms get worse since that code was first mentioned.

You are right. The networks are ignoring their responsibilities, I now have first hand proof of that. However, I have never in my life lost out when I have made a complaint either, ironically it was the same network company under a different name that had to sent 4 suits around with a camera to my home 15 years ago, when they messed up a car-kit installation and refused to accept responsibility. In the end it cost them a fortune. But in the end I was happy. We were both happy.
:j

mouseclick

Anyone want to send this? :rotfl:

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am pleased to see that you had the forethought to put a variation clause on the terms and conditions when I took out a mobile phone cashback contract with you. I now realise that it must have been in order to comply with Ofcom's new Code of Practice for the sales and marketing of subscriptions to mobile networks, introduced on 31 July 2007.

As a reseller, I presume you are aware that the code states:
In relation to a cash back offer, the following terms should be regarded as unreasonable:
- a requirement that the customer submits their original statements – copies of statements should be acceptable proof;
- charge for processing a cash back claim;
- a requirement that cash back claims are submitted within an unreasonably short period (such as anything less than 60 days, for example);
- terms stating that a cash back payment will not be made if the customer has an outstanding balance on their account.

Could you please advise me when the new terms will be introduced, how I will be notified of the new terms and by what method can I show my acceptance?

Thank you, in anticipation

g33za

Isn't a voluntary code ummm.... voluntary? And this has been signed by the networks and not the retailers.

And even if it was signed by retailers its still voluntary so no obligation to comply with it. This really isnt worth the paper it's written on.

mouseclick

g33za wrote: »

This really isnt worth the paper it's written on.

That may well be, and if so...

"We expect this new voluntary code of practice to stamp out mis-selling in mobile; if it does not, we will not hesitate to step in to protect consumers."

"Ofcom expects to see a significant reduction in the number of mis-selling complaints in the coming weeks as a result of this initiative. If it does not, it will move swiftly to assess more formal regulatory options to protect consumers."

Source, Ofcom Press Release titled "Ofcom welcomes new code on mis-selling in mobile market but warns of consequences of failure"

Quentin

The main problem we all have is over the payment of cashbacks.

As this code was only announced last week, then it will be months (not weeks) before the first cashbacks even become due on contracts taken out after the code was announced.

There will be no mis-selling complaints regarding cashbacks in the coming weeks on contracts taken out since last week.

If anyone is contemplating a new contract now, and want the voluntary code to be applied, then they should sort it out with the retailer prior to accepting the terms and conditions offered. Though only an ideallist would think this is likely to happen.

A voluntary code of conduct that has been ignored will cut no ice in the small claims court months down the line.

mouseclick

Quentin wrote: »

The main problem we all have is over the payment of cashbacks.

As this code was only announced last week, then it will be months (not weeks) before the first cashbacks even become due on contracts taken out after the code was announced.

There will be no mis-selling complaints regarding cashbacks in the coming weeks on contracts taken out since last week.

If anyone is contemplating a new contract now, and want the voluntary code to be applied, then they should sort it out with the retailer prior to accepting the terms and conditions offered. Though only an ideallist would think this is likely to happen.

A voluntary code of conduct that has been ignored will cut no ice in the small claims court months down the line.

It is quite clear from the press statement that CEO of Ofcom Ed Richards wants the problem of 400 complaints a month reduced substantially within weeks.

Where did you read that this code of conduct does not apply to agreements taken out before 31/7/07?

Quentin

You cannot read anywhere that the code is retrospective.

This voluntary code was only announced last week - even if it was law passed last week it would not be retrospective.

The press statement refering to "mis-selling" complaints bering reduced within "weeks" mentions two specific types of mis-selling:

1:

‘slamming’, where customers can be switched from one company to another without their express knowledge and consent.

Anyone experiencing this would know about it straightaway.

2:

cashback promotion schemes which offer – and then fail - to reimburse the consumer for a proportion of the line rental payable.

But these complaints (which are the ones we are concerned about) will not turn up until months after the first cashback has been due but not paid.

None of the usual suspects have amended their conditions since the code was announced - anyone entering into a contract today will be bound by a legal contract, and the voluntary code will be of no help should a problem arise.

Old_Gold

Quentin wrote: »

None of the usual suspects have amended their conditions since the code was announced - anyone entering into a contract today will be bound by a legal contract, and the voluntary code will be of no help should a problem arise.

Which was one of my original points in that unless the networks themselves start taking responsibility for the contracts to the customer and lay rules down to the retailer there is still likely to be problems.
However if anyone is actually forced to go to court a Judge is likely to look at what the industry's standards are and act accordingly. This has to make it a stronger case for the customer whether it is retrospective or not.
Also I do agree that if the number of complaints continues or increases then stronger action will have to be taken.

abchrvis

And:

Although the retailers haven't signed up to the contract directly, the code of practice says this:

"The signatories will place contractual obligations on their distributors and dealers to comply with the Code of Practice."

So if you sign up to a contract that violates the code of practice (like I did two days ago), then you have a complaint directly against O2 or Vodafone or whoever, since they have failed to enforce their own (admittedly voluntary) rules by not making the retailer comply.

mouseclick

abchrvis wrote: »

And:

Although the retailers haven't signed up to the contract directly, the code of practice says this:

"The signatories will place contractual obligations on their distributors and dealers to comply with the Code of Practice."

So if you sign up to a contract that violates the code of practice (like I did two days ago), then you have a complaint directly against O2 or Vodafone or whoever, since they have failed to enforce their own (admittedly voluntary) rules by not making the retailer comply.

I have got a violating contract, I did complain to T-mobile specifically about the violation, and despite pointing out their obligations, the response was:

"Thank you for your email letting me know you wish to make a complaint about the recent changes to your reseller's terms and conditions. I'm sorry to hear these changes are in conflict with the terms you agreed to when you took out your contract, and I completely understand why you've emailed me about this. Unfortunately, T-Mobile only provide the network services on accounts taken out through a dealer. I'm afraid that any queries regarding the terms and conditions of any sales incentives, such as the cashback offer you agreed to, must be taken up directly with the dealer you took out the line with. I'm afraid I've been unable to find any address other than the PO Box address you mention in your email, and I've included it below along with a contact number for them."

They were afraid even to mention the code. I replied pointing out that I had complained to Ofcom because they had not followed the code, and that I had drawn the matter to the attention of Consumers Association. Consumers Association said I should write to Ofcom, which of course I had already done.

T-mobile replied again with a crawly email asking me to phone them, and their second response did not mention the code either. Of course I didn't phone them, why should I resort to a method of communication that I will not have a proper record of.

I made my views clear to Ofcom. Legislate. If the resellers go bust, the networks pay up on their behalf. They aren't following the code so they deserve it.

I hope I am not the only one that puts the boot in, I am sure I won't be.

PS: Note that T-mobile did not say "Unfortunately, this contract began before the voluntary code was introduced, therefore I regret we are unable to help you...". Oh I really wish they had, then I could write to Ed Richards and say "How can this be cleared up within weeks if you are only applying it to contracts starting after 31 July?", I cannot possibly imagine the CEO of Ofcom negotiating a deal whereby he says the problem will be resolved in weeks, and the networks do nothing for 6 months. I would guess the networks pressed for "retrospective" not to be mentioned in case they would be inundated with claims, but Ofcom said "OK, but clean it up fast"

PPS: Wow, someone at T-mobile has re-read my email, or they have been contacted by Ofcom or Consumer's Association. I got this reply a few hours ago, I was not expecting it, I just read my email backlog. My god, they have now actually MENTIONED the code of conduct:

"Thank you for your response. I appreciate you getting in touch with us and I'm sorry for the disappointment that you've been caused. I understand your concerns about Ofcom's new code being ineffective. Your reseller is an independant dealer who sell our products. However, I've passed your feedback on to my colleagues who manage and oversee our dealers so they can address the issues that you've raised internally. Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with us Mr X. I do hope that you receive a positive outcome from Consumer Direct and Trading Standards."

Hmmmm... I need to re-read the code. Dextra solutions sent me the phone on behalf of the reseller. I won't have time to do that for a few days as I am busy.