New EE mobile contract and have received the price increase

savergrant

The problem is that phone contract bundles are often opaque. You would need to calculate the cost of the airtime plan, the cost to buy the phone outright, and interest on buying the phone, and whether that is fixed or variable. Then the airtime plan should be separated from the phone hp to allow you to exit your plan without having to settle the hp on your phone purchase. Probably best to buy phone separately and be very careful with long contracts.

Money_Grabber13579

born_again said:

Trouble is given may phones are now getting close to £1000 or in the case of new i-phones above. How many people will be able to afford a 12 month contract which includes paying for the cost of the phone?
Take the cheapest i-phone 14 £849. That is £70 a month over 12 months.

Clearly the airtime has to have some form of annual increase to cover increased costs, or they are simply going to increase prices to make sure they do not lose out over contract length.

Is that an issue in practice though? Do most networks not have separate airtime and phone plans, so whilst it might be paid as a single amount, say, £50 a month, is £35 not for the phone plan and £15 for the air time? My understanding is that the RPI + x% increases are on the air time only so why couldn’t the networks offer 2 year phone plans and then either 2 year fixed price air time contracts to match, or if they want to increase the air time price part way through, consumers should be allowed to exit the air time (whilst still being locked into the phone plan which doesn’t change in price).

Just because it’s written into the contract doesn’t make it fair. If I lease a car for £300 a month for 3 years and they were to write a similar term into the contract, I could be paying £400 a month by the end of the lease. That could be the difference between the car being affordable and unaffordable and I don’t think it would be considered fair on the consumer if they were to do so. Why is it fair for phone companies to do exactly that?

Some (many?) people won’t agree, but that’s my view anyway.

born_again

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Some (many?) people won’t agree, but that’s my view anyway.

Don't disagree with you.
Phone cost should not be included in any annual increase, only airtime.

Maybe they need to go the way of other consumer finance deals. Factoring in the protentional increases over the given contract. Should also cover TV/Broadband as well. 

Now would the regulator have the bottle to enforce that. 😶‍🌫️
I guess it would mean we would all pay more for the contracts, but with the stability that you have a known amount to pay each month of the contract.

Or they could do the same as Mortgages. Fixed term, or variable rate with annual adjustments & you take your pick 👍

jon81uk

born_again said:

Trouble is given may phones are now getting close to £1000 or in the case of new i-phones above. How many people will be able to afford a 12 month contract which includes paying for the cost of the phone?
Take the cheapest i-phone 14 £849. That is £70 a month over 12 months.

Clearly the airtime has to have some form of annual increase to cover increased costs, or they are simply going to increase prices to make sure they do not lose out over contract length.

Always better to take out a separate loan for the phone and mobile airtime contract. 

Apple offer simple 0% finance for the phone and can then get a cheap sim only contract elsewhere. 

I’ve just paid off Apple (well Barclays technically) over two years and have a sim contract under £10 a month with Three.

Peter999_2

I was with Tesco Mobile for this exact reason.  When I took out the contract I only went with them as they were the only one who still doesn't increase the cost mid contract.       It was 100GB a month for £14 (it still is for new contracts now) which I did need at the time.   My usage has gone down so I'm going to take out a smarty 60GB for £10 a month instead.  No "mid term" contract rises with them - there is no fixed in contract.

born_again

Peter999_2 said:

I was with Tesco Mobile for this exact reason.  When I took out the contract I only went with them as they were the only one who still doesn't increase the cost mid contract.       It was 100GB a month for £14 (it still is for new contracts now) which I did need at the time.   My usage has gone down so I'm going to take out a smarty 60GB for £10 a month instead.  No "mid term" contract rises with them - there is no fixed in contract.

Guessing this is Sim only. Are you sure on the contract as Tesco say's it's 24 months.

https://www.tescomobile.com/shop/sim-only-deals/sim-only-contracts?sortBy=prod_default_products_created_at_desc

5.3 for ending early

https://www.tescomobile.com/content/dam/tesco-mobile/terms-and-conditions/pay-monthly/Tesco-Mobile-Pay-Monthly-Service-Terms-and-Conditions-After-16th-June-2022.pdf

Casskale

born_again said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Some (many?) people won’t agree, but that’s my view anyway.

Don't disagree with you.
Phone cost should not be included in any annual increase, only airtime.

Maybe they need to go the way of other consumer finance deals. Factoring in the protentional increases over the given contract. Should also cover TV/Broadband as well. 

Now would the regulator have the bottle to enforce that. 😶‍🌫️
I guess it would mean we would all pay more for the contracts, but with the stability that you have a known amount to pay each month of the contract.

Or they could do the same as Mortgages. Fixed term, or variable rate with annual adjustments & you take your pick 👍

The amount you borrow isn't necessarily borrowed by the network at any particular point in time.

It's interesting that you chose to highlight mortgages which are the perfect example of why interest rates are not fixed for the duration of the lending period.

Banks will typically not offer 25-30 year bonds because customers typically won't stick with their bank for 25-30 years and that leaves them massively exposed.

Mobile phone providers don't want to be exposed either so they just apply inflation + some per cent and call it a day.

The alternative is to just buy the handset outright and go SIM Only, as I do. And it avoids all this nonsense being stuck in 18 moths contracts with yearly increases, but I do wish OFCOM would just outlaw the increases and make the price you're quoted the price you pay for the duration of the contract.

theonlywayisup

Peter999_2 said:

I was with Tesco Mobile for this exact reason.  When I took out the contract I only went with them as they were the only one who still doesn't increase the cost mid contract.       It was 100GB a month for £14 (it still is for new contracts now) which I did need at the time.   My usage has gone down so I'm going to take out a smarty 60GB for £10 a month instead.  No "mid term" contract rises with them - there is no fixed in contract.

No coverage here from Tesco Mobile.  It would be false economy for us to change. 

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

OP said..
pay monthly contract with new phone in Mid January.

So well outside the 14 day limit.

So Op is paying @ least £50 a month. Given a 14.4% increase.

Far better to go SIM free & buy your own phone, or MSE style keep old one 👍

Surely, for the OP, the 14.4% increase should only apply to the air time part of the contract.  The phone part should stay fixed.

Peter999_2 said:

I was with Tesco Mobile for this exact reason.  When I took out the contract I only went with them as they were the only one who still doesn't increase the cost mid contract.       It was 100GB a month for £14 (it still is for new contracts now) which I did need at the time.   My usage has gone down so I'm going to take out a smarty 60GB for £10 a month instead.  No "mid term" contract rises with them - there is no fixed in contract.

Tesco mobile have now also announced that they will be increasing by 14.4% and then every year by CPI plus 3.9%.  Tesco have got some fudges for changing now to a new 2-year contract and for ClubCard holders.

Something very fishy is going on here as there is the same percentage being applied across many networks - it's almost like there has been some collusion behind the scenes.

Why should the future rules be set at CPI + 3.9%?  Why not just CPI?  The 3.9% means the cost rising in real terms for ever and it will become exponential.  Very unreasonable.

b4u2

I am thinking about taking sky to court over a missell.