MSE News: EE to increase monthly prices by 4.1%

boatman

To be fair I know where mobilejunkie is coming from, EE never used to issue deadlock letters, I would guess in the last couple of years they have been spoken to by OFCOM. I think the point about CPI is valid and they should be encouraged, if not forced to use it, but in the context of complaining about the RPI rise is not something you could use. Sadly OFCOM decided, wrongly in my opinion to allow an RPI increase in to mobile contracts, if companies want to use it, it needs to be implemented in a way that it is clear, certainly in the case of EE its not clear.

eDicky

My complaint that the effective increase in the monthly cost of my plan is 13% instead of 4.1% was escalated within minutes to an Executive Care Team member, who declined to offer any remedy, and when I told him I would need to take it further he prepared my deadlock letter the same day, Monday 19th, and I received it Wednesday.

So they seem to be doing this without delay, if they don't offer any suitable concession, as they seem to have done with someone on the other thread.

Today I finally got around to sending my complaint to the Ombudsmen Service, based mainly on the fact that the original price without discount of the plan that I am on was never mentioned to me when I signed up to the discounted price, and at the same time agreed to the annual RPI increase on that.discounted price specifically.

Oxy1

eDicky wrote: »

My complaint that the effective increase in the monthly cost of my plan is 13% instead of 4.1% was escalated within minutes to an Executive Care Team member, who declined to offer any remedy, and when I told him I would need to take it further he prepared my deadlock letter the same day, Monday 19th, and I received it Wednesday.

So they seem to be doing this without delay, if they don't offer any suitable concession, as they seem to have done with someone on the other thread.

Today I finally got around to sending my complaint to the Ombudsmen Service, based mainly on the fact that the original price without discount of the plan that I am on was never mentioned to me when I signed up to the discounted price, and at the same time agreed to the annual RPI increase on that.discounted price specifically.

If the new Consumer Rights Act has not materially changed this particular provision then I believe the above case could be extremely helpful to anyone who had an EE price increase. Even to those who have been with EE for more than a year and have no "discount" and hence those for whom application of the offending terms is least unfair.

The reason for the above is that (at least under older legislation - I will need to check it has been absorbed into the new act without significant curtailment in this respect) if a particular term could be draconian in some cases, even hypothetical, then it could be ruled to be unfair and null and void in all cases - even in those when it is not particularly draconian. The above example shows that the offending term is not only capable of being interpreted in a very draconian way, but has in fact has been so interpreted by EE.


In any case I think it makes perfect sense to take to ombudsmen even if the particular ombudsmen is a joke as I understand EE will have to pay a case fee, hopefully for every case. Does anyone know how much is it? I think if even 5% of people affected would take it to the ombudsmen EE would just give up.

boatman

Oxy1 wrote: »

If the new Consumer Rights Act has not materially changed this particular provision then I believe the above case could be extremely helpful to anyone who had an EE price increase. Even to those who have been with EE for more than a year and have no "discount" and hence those for whom application of the offending terms is least unfair.

The reason for the above is that (at least under older legislation - I will need to check it has been absorbed into the new act without significant curtailment in this respect) if a particular term could be draconian in some cases, even hypothetical, then it could be ruled to be unfair and null and void in all cases - even in those when it is not particularly draconian. The above example shows that the offending term is not only capable of being interpreted in a very draconian way, but has in fact has been so interpreted by EE.


In any case I think it makes perfect sense to take to ombudsmen even if the particular ombudsmen is a joke as I understand EE will have to pay a case fee, hopefully for every case. Does anyone know how much is it? I think if even 5% of people affected would take it to the ombudsmen EE would just give up.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted
Have a look, it shows a list of terms which may be regarded as unfair.

NittyGritty

i too have received my deadlock letter from EE, days after complaining about the Lack of mention in the terms refuring to (where in the terms does it state the RPI increase should be based on the non discounted price of your price plan rather than the discounted price you currently pay)


my question is whats the best way or points to use to take it to the ombudsman


anyone have any other good points to use in my complaint to them which are relavant?

boatman

NittyGritty wrote: »

i too have received my deadlock letter from EE, days after complaining about the Lack of mention in the terms refuring to (where in the terms does it state the RPI increase should be based on the non discounted price of your price plan rather than the discounted price you currently pay)


my question is whats the best way or points to use to take it to the ombudsman


anyone have any other good points to use in my complaint to them which are relavant?

I think the basis of your claim is that EE do not make it clear in the contract how the rpi increase is applied. State the terms in the consumer rights act(Price variation clauses Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraphs 14 and 15) how it states that if EE chose to use rpi it needs to be clear how it is applied, explain that you do not believe it is. Also use the info CMA37(5.23 onward, page 105). I would also state that according to CMA37, the use of price variation terms in a short contract is somewhat of a grey area anyway, the fact they have not made it clear just makes it worse. The increase should be applied to the negotiated price you actually pay.

overpricedcoffee

Watching this thread with interest, good luck guys!

musicmonkey1

Ofcom guidance says this:




A1.10 Ofcom is likely to treat any price increase4 to the agreed core subscription price (however constructed and described in the contract terms)5 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 GC9.6.6 7 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:

• 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
• to be allowed to withdraw from their contract without penalty if they choose to exercise that right.

• They even give an example which says this:
  
  
  
  
  • 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 price8 by up to a certain amount, percentage or index-linked level (such as RPI).9 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.
  It seems to me that this is pretty unequivocable. Ofcom's own guidance states that these RPI increases even when contracted are a material detriment and subscribers should be given the option to leave with no penalty. However just try getting Ofcom or their adjudicator to support a claim against your mobile phone provider. I tried ---- and failed. I have now written to Ofcom's Chief Executive about it - I'm not hopeful the above guidance will be applied it seems that mobile phone providers are being allowed to stick it to the little guy.

boatman

musicmonkey1 wrote: »

• It seems to me that this is pretty unequivocable. Ofcom's own guidance states that these RPI increases even when contracted are a material detriment and subscribers should be given the option to leave with no penalty. However just try getting Ofcom or their adjudicator to support a claim against your mobile phone provider. I tried ---- and failed. I have now written to Ofcom's Chief Executive about it - I'm not hopeful the above guidance will be applied it seems that mobile phone providers are being allowed to stick it to the little guy.

OFCOM are effectively allowing the networks to run with this example:

Example 3: agreed prices
The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract on terms that the agreed core subscription price will be £X per month for the first 12-months (or some other period) and £X + RPI 10 for the second 12-months (or some other period). On the basis that the relevant price terms are sufficiently prominent and transparent
that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s), Ofcom would not regard the application of the agreed price in the second period as a modification of the contract capable of meeting GC9.6's material detriment requirement.

The crucial point being 'prominent and transparent'.
The problem with the EE and Vodafone contracts with regard to the RPi increase is that it is neither of those things. In EE's case it says in the contract 'the price you pay', which can be interpreted as the final amount including a discount.

pmduk

MKB wrote: »

Does anyone know which of the two ombudsman services is most likely to be helpful.

There are two ombudsmen services covering the Communications industry. EE have chosen to use Ombudsman Services: Communications. It is their choice, not yours.