EE to increase pay-monthly mobile prices by 2.7% - MSE News

mobilejunkie

Same thing every year. No wonder it's so easy to con certain people - you know, the ones who make up the law as they go along and prefer sand on their heads without drinking the water.

David_-_fair_telecoms

I have finally had clarification of the position from Ofcom.


The position is not as stated in the news article, however it is not quite as I described it.


A determination of "material detriment", i.e. the option to leave without penalty, has nothing to do with whether the increase is due to RPI, the profitability of the company or any other particular factor.
It is all down to whether the increase was identified as a definite feature of the contract at the time when the terms were agreed. Such a feature must be stated with transparency and prominence.



If the company says that they they "may" incease the price, then any decision to exercise that opportunity is deemed to cause "material detriment". If however they said they "will" increase the price and stick to the precise manner in which such an increase was defined (e.g. in March, based on the RPI at December), then this is simply the normal application of the contract terms - it is not NEWS.


Furthermore, the specific requirement to give 30 days notice does not strictly apply when the terms of the agreement are not being varied. Whilst it is reasonable for this to be done, it can create confusion because it may look like a situation of "material detriment", whereby 30 days notice is mandatory.



The contentious wording in the article is therefore references to:

• "can … in line with inflation" - Tolerance of a price rise has nothing to do with the basis for the increase, it is all about the agreed terms of the contract.
• "include a warning" - A warning about discretionary action makes no difference whatsoever.
• "successfully prove you've suffered" - Ofcom's definition of what is and is not "material detriment" is explicit and takes no account of individual circumstances (other than the detail of the contract terms and the manner in which they were expressed).

If an EE customer agreed to incur a definite price increase on the basis that is being followed, then there is no opportunity to leave without penalty when this is applied. If they were no more than warned about the possibility of a RPI increase, then the opportunity to leave without penalty remains.


Correction to my previous posting - I stated that a variation to price during a contract had to be specified in £ and p in order to avoid being deemed to cause material detriment. That was incorrect. Any clear and specific definition (with no opportunity for discretion) is permitted.

pmduk

David_-_fair_telecoms wrote: »

It is all down to whether the increase was identified as a definite feature of the contract at the time when the terms were agreed. Such a feature must be stated with transparency and prominence.

Most of the networks have made these RPI rises clear for years, however, customers choose not to read contracts, whether or not the terms are clear and/or prominent.

carrotmuseum

And former Orange customers are being forced to move to EE packages this Spring. At higher cost, of course! Switch to 1p mobile, great value and it's run by EE!!

pmduk

carrotmuseum wrote: »

Switch to 1p mobile, great value and it's run by EE!!

Don't be confused. It's an entirely different company, renting network capacity from EE

David_-_fair_telecoms

pmduk wrote: »

Most of the networks have made these RPI rises clear for years, however, customers choose not to read contracts, whether or not the terms are clear and/or prominent.

If any particular significant term is not sufficiently prominent, so that a customer may readily fail to be aware of it when entering into a contract, then it does not meet a meaningful requirement for prominence.


Promince means that the price must be quoted in the form "£[x] per month, increased annually in line with RPI", for example.

d123

David_-_fair_telecoms wrote: »

If any particular significant term is not sufficiently prominent, so that a customer may readily fail to be aware of it when entering into a contract, then it does not meet a meaningful requirement for prominence.


Promince means that the price must be quoted in the form "£[x] per month, increased annually in line with RPI", for example.

You mean like EE does?

pmduk

The only thing prominent when a customer is taking a new phone contract is the shiny new toy heading in their direction. There is nothing that Ofcom, MSE, you, me or Uncle Tom Cobley can do to legislate differently, it's basic human nature.

mobilejunkie

pmduk wrote: »

The only thing prominent when a customer is taking a new phone contract is the shiny new toy heading in their direction. There is nothing that Ofcom, MSE, you, me or Uncle Tom Cobley can do to legislate differently, it's basic human nature.

It's also basic human nature to blame everyone and everything else but themselves for their own blatant mistakes and laziness. Either they haven't got much of a brain (sometimes apparent) or they don't like using it. Many also like to twist the world away from reality and demand the nanny state comes riding to their rescue when inevitably they aren't happy with the results.

JamieGT

EE increased prices for me as well . I only have a Sim only