EE contract dispute

DannyT2k

Hoping someone with experience can advise me on this.

EE have been overcharging me £10 p/mth for three years on my mobile phone contract. I still have the original contract and it states there is a "£10 1 MONTH" offer for a mobile dongle, which has been left to roll over ever since.

I have disputed this charge, claiming that it clearly states the offer is for one month only and they should have cancelled the contract after one month as I did not agree to it being rolled over. Otherwise, why state on the contact it is for 1 MONTH?

They have offered me £100 compensation and claim I have 28 days to agree to that otherwise the offer is off the table. I am pushing for a full three-year refund and threatened to get in touch with the financial Ombudsman.

What I don't understand is that if it was up to me to cancel the contract, which was not a rolling contract as far as I'm aware, why they are offering me any compensation? They could simply say, you didn't cancel the contract so tough luck. That implies the fault is there's, in which case I should have full compensation.

Hope someone can advise whether it's worth me taking this up with the Ombudsman to get a full refund, or just accept EE's offer of a £100 refund.

d123

DannyT2k wrote: »

Hoping someone with experience can advise me on this.

EE have been overcharging me £10 p/mth for three years on my mobile phone contract. I still have the original contract and it states there is a "£10 1 MONTH" offer for a mobile dongle, which has been left to roll over ever since.

I have disputed this charge, claiming that it clearly states the offer is for one month only and they should have cancelled the contract after one month as I did not agree to it being rolled over. Otherwise, why state on the contact it is for 1 MONTH?

They have offered me £100 compensation and claim I have 28 days to agree to that otherwise the offer is off the table. I am pushing for a full three-year refund and threatened to get in touch with the financial Ombudsman.

What I don't understand is that if it was up to me to cancel the contract, which was not a rolling contract as far as I'm aware, why they are offering me any compensation? They could simply say, you didn't cancel the contract so tough luck. That implies the fault is there's, in which case I should have full compensation.

Hope someone can advise whether it's worth me taking this up with the Ombudsman to get a full refund, or just accept EE's offer of a £100 refund.

It’s a 1 month (30 day) minimum term contract (as opposed to a 12 or 24 month contract), if you don’t give notice to terminate it will keep operating until such time as you give the required notice to terminate.

You’re lucky to get any compo if you’ve allowed it to keep running without giving notice to terminate.

DannyT2k

Thanks for the response.

It doesn't say anywhere on the contract that it's minimum term. It says "£10 for 1 month" - so that's all I should ever have paid. Had it said on the contract or small print that payments would roll forward and I would have to cancel the contract to stop those payments, that would be a different matter.

I'm not interested in what was implied, purely the facts as legally written - as that is what the Ombudsman will support.

JJ_Egan

In that case take it to the Ombudsman .
As the forum members will say 30 day rolling contract.


Is it the truth that after this first 30 days contract you never used the product again ??

DannyT2k

Correct, I never used it after the 30 day contract expired. I suspect that's why they're offering compensation,but ultimately I don't believe they would pay any if they didn't have to. The fact they are willing to offer compensation, which they changed from £60 to £100 over the phone, implies they know they're in the wrong, which is why I feel I have legal grounds to push for full compensation.

Also, putting a 28-day deadline on their offer of compensation infers they know they would lose the case but are trying to pressure me into accepting a payment. You have to wonder the logic behind setting a compensation deadline in a dispute of this sort.

[Deleted User]

DannyT2k wrote: »

Correct, I never used it after the 30 day contract expired. I suspect that's why they're offering compensation,but ultimately I don't believe they would pay any if they didn't have to. The fact they are willing to offer compensation, which they changed from £60 to £100 over the phone, implies they know they're in the wrong, which is why I feel I have legal grounds to push for full compensation.

Also, putting a 28-day deadline on their offer of compensation infers they know they would lose the case but are trying to pressure me into accepting a payment. You have to wonder the logic behind setting a compensation deadline in a dispute of this sort.

Except they'll say it's a goodwill gesture, not compensation and they're allowed to set a time limit for you to accept it. If you don't then they need send a deadlock letter so that would explain their time limit. I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

giraffe69

Can I enquire what was on your monthly bill during this time?

mobilejunkie

DannyT2k wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

It doesn't say anywhere on the contract that it's minimum term. It says "£10 for 1 month" - so that's all I should ever have paid. Had it said on the contract or small print that payments would roll forward and I would have to cancel the contract to stop those payments, that would be a different matter.

I'm not interested in what was implied, purely the facts as legally written - as that is what the Ombudsman will support.

Few contracts state "minimum term" even though they all have one. Sounds like you didn't actually read the t@c. If your attention to detail is such that it takes you three years to notice the money going out every month your understanding of what you signed up to is likely just as sparse. So that leaves the question - do you feel lucky??

DannyT2k

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Except they'll say it's a goodwill gesture, not compensation and they're allowed to set a time limit for you to accept it. If you don't then they need send a deadlock letter so that would explain their time limit. I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

A goodwill gesture of £100? Doubt it. Obviously not a lawyer, if I was I wouldn't require the assistance of people like you.

DannyT2k

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Few contracts state "minimum term" even though they all have one. Sounds like you didn't actually read the t@c. If your attention to detail is such that it takes you three years to notice the money going out every month your understanding of what you signed up to is likely just as sparse. So that leaves the question - do you feel lucky??

I did read the contract and t&cs, nowhere does it mention minimum term or rolling contract. The payment was not independent on my statement, it's rolled up into my mobile phone bill. It's only when I studied the bill in detail online that I found the charge was part of the overall payment.

I also upgraded my phone during this three-year period, and I find it unusual that they did not flag up this £10 payment considering they go into every other detail when drawing up a contract.

d123

DannyT2k wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

It doesn't say anywhere on the contract that it's minimum term. It says "£10 for 1 month" - so that's all I should ever have paid. Had it said on the contract or small print that payments would roll forward and I would have to cancel the contract to stop those payments, that would be a different matter.

I'm not interested in what was implied, purely the facts as legally written - as that is what the Ombudsman will support.

That’s quite unique then. Which set of terms and conditions did you agree to then?

https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/terms-and-conditions