MSE News: EE to increase monthly prices by 4.1%

timbouk

boatman wrote: »

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.

It's perfectly clear in their T&C's how they SHOULD calculate the RPI increases, just read the definitions of all the words they use:

Your 'Price Plan Charge' and the Charges for Additional Commitment Services include an annual price increase, which will be the annual percentage increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) published by the Office for National Statistics

The wording definitions show:

'Price Plan Charge'; the charge for the 'Price Plan Service', which comprises the 'Monthly Charge' for the Price Plan

!!!8216;Price Plan Service'; the inclusive Services supplied with Your Price Plan, the charges, types of calls You can make, messages You can send, data You can use and details of any other Services and other terms and conditions for which are set out in the Plan Price Guide for that Price Plan;

!!!8216;Monthly Charge'
The amount that You pay each month in advance for Your Price Plan Service


The key wording is ".. that YOU PAY each month....."
Perfectly clear that the RPI should be based on the discounted price.

boatman

timbouk wrote: »

It's perfectly clear in their T&C's how they SHOULD calculate the RPI increases,

The key wording is ".. that YOU PAY each month....."
Perfectly clear that the RPI should be based on the discounted price.

I agree with you, but clearly EE think differently. I think OFCOM need to clarify it, when I spoke to them they said it was the full tariff price, which to me is wrong, unless they do its down to individual cases which is just not right.

eDicky

boatman wrote: »

I agree with you, but clearly EE think differently. I think OFCOM need to clarify it, when I spoke to them they said it was the full tariff price, which to me is wrong, unless they do its down to individual cases which is just not right.

Yes, it appears that EE are agreeing with and giving resolution to some who ask for the RPI increase to be calculated on their discounted price, yet with others (including myself) they insist that it's based on the original price and issue a deadlock letter. Totally inconsistent.

eDicky

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.

Here is the result of my above mentioned complaint to Ombudsman Services Communications:

Dear Mr eDicky

Your complaint about EE

We recently accepted your complaint against EE for investigation.

We contacted EE for its view and it disputed that your complaint falls within Ombudsman Services: Communications terms of reference. These are the rules we have to follow when deciding if we can accept a complaint for investigation. A copy of the terms of reference is available in the governance section of our website, https://www.ombudsman-services.org/governance-os.html

We have now reviewed the available information and agree that we will not be able to consider your complaint. The reasons for this are:

We can confirm that as the RPI is a commercial decision, this is something Ombudsman Services Communications is unable to investigate. Due to this the case will be closed.

We have told EE and we have closed your case with us. As we cannot continue with the investigation you are now free to follow other routes to try and resolve your complaint.

---

Other routes..?

pmduk

eDicky wrote: »

Other routes..?

Your choices appear to be to either accept you have entered a valid contract or default on said contract and hope for your day in court to argue the point.

The Ombudsman was never likely to solve this issue for you.

MKB

pmduk wrote: »

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

Why does the part in the EE terms that I quoted (stating that customers who have purchased their device could use the EU Online Dispute Resolution Platform) not apply?

Although I'm interested to know the answer to that question, in my case my complaint has been resolved. The Executive Office at EE, after listening to the phone call in which I was sold my last contract, agreed to offer me a credit that would more than cover the difference between the 7.9% increase they are applying and the 4.1% increase they are contractually limited to, for the remainder of my contract, at which point I can hopefully negotiate a new deal.

MKB

eDicky wrote: »

Here is the result of my above mentioned complaint to Ombudsman Services Communications:

Dear Mr eDicky

Your complaint about EE

We recently accepted your complaint against EE for investigation.

We contacted EE for its view and it disputed that your complaint falls within Ombudsman Services: Communications terms of reference. These are the rules we have to follow when deciding if we can accept a complaint for investigation. A copy of the terms of reference is available in the governance section of our website, https://www.ombudsman-services.org/governance-os.html

We have now reviewed the available information and agree that we will not be able to consider your complaint. The reasons for this are:

We can confirm that as the RPI is a commercial decision, this is something Ombudsman Services Communications is unable to investigate. Due to this the case will be closed.

We have told EE and we have closed your case with us. As we cannot continue with the investigation you are now free to follow other routes to try and resolve your complaint.

The part bolded is quite shocking if reported accurately. Firstly, it makes no sense. How can a price index be a decision? Secondly, if what the Ombudsman is trying to say is that the decision to raise prices by RPI is a commercial one, that is completely irrelevant as it is not what eDicky is complaining about. The complaint is that EE is breaching the contract by increasing prices well in excess of the 4.1% RPI.

This suggests to me that this Ombudsman is either (a) not independent and deliberately using spurious obstacles to block complainants, or (b) pretty stupid.

pmduk

MKB wrote: »

Why does the part in the EE terms that I quoted (stating that customers who have purchased their device could use the EU Online Dispute Resolution Platform) not apply?

It just isn't necessary for UK customers, you can complain directly to the relevant ADR if it is a case they can consider. On this occasion, the ADR, (Ombudsman Services: Communications, has decided it cannot investigate what it considers a business decision by EE. OS:C is notorious for usually sticking to the letter of the contact.

Complaining via the EU Online Dispute Resolution Platform would forward your complaint to the identical destination.

I'm glad, however, you've got the matter sorted.

boatman

MKB wrote: »

The part bolded is quite shocking if reported accurately. Firstly, it makes no sense. How can a price index be a decision? Secondly, if what the Ombudsman is trying to say is that the decision to raise prices by RPI is a commercial one, that is completely irrelevant as it is not what eDicky is complaining about. The complaint is that EE is breaching the contract by increasing prices well in excess of the 4.1% RPI.

This suggests to me that this Ombudsman is either (a) not independent and deliberately using spurious obstacles to block complainants, or (b) pretty stupid.

I agree, the complaint is about EE's application of their terms, or lack of it, not that they have applied an RPI increase. CISAS said the same thing a few years ago with T-mobile RPI increase, but I complained and they then accepted my claim, perhaps you need to reword it.
EE have defined that the RPI increase is applied to the 'price you pay', but that is not what they are doing. Under the rules they are allowed to apply an RPI increase, provided it is 'prominent and transparent', your argument is that it is not.

pmduk

I think it highlights the different approach between OS:C and CISAS. CISAS always appears to be more 'consumer-friendly'.

This whole situation calls for a body such as the Office of Fair Trading, (obviously now disbanded), in its absence you might want to ask your MP to raise the matter with Ofcom as they refuse to deal with individuals' complaints.