MSE News: EE and O2 mobile customers to be hit with 1.1% price rise

RandomCurve

mobilejunkie wrote: »

That's clearly utter nonsense. More like 95% didn't want or try to and since the network is still up and running the 5% (according to you) you say stayed would be paying millions of pounds each for their contracts.

Did you really need to make that point?
I thought given the topic, and most peoples intelligence, it was obvious I meant 95% of those who tried to cancel without having to spelling it out - EE don't just give people penalty free cancellations when they rip you off.

RandomCurve

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Then he should define who he's referring to as opposed to all customers.

If you read the post in context it is responding to a comment about last years thread, so obviously relates to those who took action on last years thread.


My post did not say "all customers".

mobilejunkie

No. it said "95% of customers". Making up figures is ludicrous and that statement is completely inaccurate in any case. I'm a customer (x3) and didn't leave so you are making statements which actually should in all probability be the opposite way round (i.e. 95% of their customers didn't leave).

However, I'm not in the game of plucking figures out of the air or making inaccurate statements to wave any flags.

RandomCurve

mobilejunkie wrote: »

No. it said "95% of customers". Making up figures is ludicrous and that statement is completely inaccurate in any case. I'm a customer (x3) and didn't leave so you are making statements which actually should in all probability be the opposite way round (i.e. 95% of their customers didn't leave).

However, I'm not in the game of plucking figures out of the air or making inaccurate statements to wave any flags.

I have amended my post to help those who can't put things into context.

Preeble

After having my EE contract cancelled last year and taking out a new phone with o2 in June, I'm definitely fighting this.
Going for the material detriment route again, as i have proof this was sold to me as £ x 24 month contract from my original order confirmation email, and using parts A1.10 and A1.14 from the ofcom publication I feel I have a strong case. After 3 hours on the o2 live chat arguing this I was offered £10 credit to my account (the increase will add around £5 to my total contract) which I declined as there is only one solution for material detriment. They also wouldn't issue a deadlock letter for it (despite 3 hours of me arguing my case, and them just saying no..) but I am now through to the email round! and have had my first response back. The fun begins again it seems :rotfl:




"A1.10
Ofcom is likely to treat any price increase to the agreed core subscription price (however constructed and described in the contract terms) during the fixed term of a telecommunications contract as a modification that is of, or is likely to be of, material detriment to consumer and small business subscribers for the purposes of GC9.6. The core subscription price is one of the most important factors in the subscriber’s choice of contract. It is likely to be the most important aspect of one of the key terms of the contract. There is likely to be a significant possibility that the subscriber would not have entered into that contract had they been bound to pay a different price to that they agreed.

A1.11
Accordingly, in the event of any such increase to the agreed core subscription price, Ofcom is likely to take the view that the relevant subscribers should be given the rights provided for by GC9.6. That is:
a)to be given at least one month’s notice of the price increase and of their ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed increase is unacceptable; and
b)to be allowed to withdraw from their contract without penalty if they choose to exercise that right.

A1.13
The importance of the core subscription price in the subscriber’s choice of contract means it should be clear to the subscriber before entering into any contract what the price offered and agreed is. The subscriber should be able to compare offers, make informed decisions and rely on the price agreed. An increase at the CP’s discretion, changing it to a price the consumer might not otherwise have chosen to pay over other offers on the market is, or is likely to be, materially detrimental.

A1.14
These examples of the application of this guidance are for illustrative purposes:
Example 1: discretionary price increases The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24 - month contract for services on terms that the core subscription price will be £10 per month. The contract also contains a term to the effect that the CP may increase the agreed core subscription price by up to a certain amount, percentage or index - linked level (such as RPI). Ofcom is likely to treat any exercise of the discretion to increase this agreed price during the fixed minimum term of the contract as a modification meeting GC9.6’s material detriment requirement. Ofcom’s concern is with the application of price and price variation terms which give the CP discretion as to, for example, the possibility, amount and/or timing of a price increase. We are likely to take a similar approach to that above to the application of contract terms that reserve such discretion and/or are to the same or similar effects as those in example"

tgroom57

While you are whinging on about a 30p a month rise from your very useful mobile providers- BT landline has been doing this for years and no-one bats an eyelid.

I've just received my BT quarterly bill. They have *refunded* my payment in advance and charged me at the new rate applying a 6.25% increase. I consider that - refunding money they've already taken so they can charge more- to be infinitely more despicable than applying a RPI increase to an ongoing contract you haven't paid for yet.

Comparison would be if your mobile provider billed you extra for the last 2 months even though you'd already paid.
Where is Offcom on this?

Madgick

I too have recently received the letter from EE declaring the increase to my monthly payments due to RPI.

Whilst it is not a large amount to me personally, it will make a huge difference to the monthly balance sheet for EE and it is extremely irritating that loopholes are still being exploited in this way.

I don't understand why there seems to be some hostility from older members about last years campaign and toward RandomCurve. It was a positive venture in my opinion with a largely successful outcome.

Will there be any concerted effort to have charges overturned or contracts cancelled penalty free again?

d123

Madgick wrote: »

I too have recently received the letter from EE declaring the increase to my monthly payments due to RPI.

Whilst it is not a large amount to me personally, it will make a huge difference to the monthly balance sheet for EE and it is extremely irritating that loopholes are still being exploited in this way.

It's not a loophole it is now a clear part of the contract.

I don't understand why there seems to be some hostility from older members about last years campaign and toward RandomCurve. It was a positive venture in my opinion with a largely successful outcome.

Will there be any concerted effort to have charges overturned or contracts cancelled penalty free again?

I was one of those that took them to CISAS last year and won, this year is different, the increase is prominently displayed before purchase and on the paperwork received when starting a contract, as well as in the t&c's.

People cannot compare this increase which was completely within the t&c's with last years which was a breach.

Just opening the Shop page on the EE website has this prominent warning in bold:

The monthly price shown will be adjusted every year in your March bill by the Retail Price Index announced in February that year. Customers joining on a 24 month Business plan with a handset will not have their price adjusted until March 2016.

http://shop.ee.co.uk/mobile-tariffs/pay-monthly

It's one thing to fight an obvious breach of the t&c's, it's another to expect to get out of a contract because something prominently displayed as going to happen actually happens...

Yuff

I raised a complaint to O2 about the change, in premium numbers included in my inclusive minutes, which they have upheld but they have also said i can't terminate my contract without paying £159 to cover the cost of the remaining 6 months.
Apparently it was in my T&C's 18 months ago, which I have asked them to send over to me.

boatman

d123 wrote: »

It's not a loophole it is now a clear part of the contract.



I was one of those that took them to CISAS last year and won, this year is different, the increase is prominently displayed before purchase and on the paperwork received when starting a contract, as well as in the t&c's.

People cannot compare this increase which was completely within the t&c's with last years which was a breach.

Just opening the Shop page on the EE website has this prominent warning in bold:


http://shop.ee.co.uk/mobile-tariffs/pay-monthly

It's one thing to fight an obvious breach of the t&c's, it's another to expect to get out of a contract because something prominently displayed as going to happen actually happens...

The loophole to get out of the contract this year is that they have applied the price rise a month early, not the fact that they have a price rise.