Mobile phone prices up again – is Three your unlucky number?
Three Mobile has increased its prices by 3.6% for existing customer’s monthly plans following Orange and T-Mobile before it. For fear of bastardising Lionel Richie’s lyrics… ‘Three times a price rise’.
Anyone who signed up to Three before 8 March 2012 will be hit by the price hike from 16 July.
Mobile and mobile broadband customers will have to swallow a 3.6% price rise. On a £25 monthly plan that will be around 90p extra a month, or another £11 per year.
Only contract prices will change, with calls and data remaining at their current levels. Pay-as-you-go customers will also be unaffected. If you’re going to be affected, Three will contact you by text, email or letter between 21 May and 1 June to let you know. Three said of the price rise:
‘We know that increases are never welcome, so it’s not a decision we’ve taken lightly and we’re confident that your plan still represents excellent value for money.’
It’s all in the terms and conditions
It’s a case of deja-vu – Orange and T-Mobile have previously increased their own contract prices. Each time this has happened, their customers have come to Which? Convo to vent.
It’s understandable really – if you signed up to a contract, whether 12 or 18 months, your expectation would be that the £25 or so monthly price would stay static. Not so, mobile companies have a clause in their T&Cs that allows them to increase contract prices on a yearly basis as long as they’re under the rate of inflation (retail prices index).
And when we’ve questioned the regulator Ofcom on this, it has told us that the price rises are ‘not likely to be a breach of current legislation’.
But when we actually ask mobile customers whether they know prices can go up, 94% of 1,036 people voted in our poll that they didn’t realise their contracts weren’t at a fixed price.
It might be legal, but it’s not a line of fine print that many people are aware of. And when customers are told that they can’t cancel their contracts early without charge, the red mist starts to descend.
Make price rise terms clearer
The key is making the fact that prices can rise by inflation clearer to new customers, instead of hiding this clause in reams of terms and conditions. Our principal advocate Mark McLaren said:
‘On the one hand, it seems consumers’ expectation is that a mobile phone contract is a fixed price for a fixed term. On the other hand, mobile companies are able to increase prices by RPI during the term of the contract. This is a contradiction that can only be solved by either regulatory intervention or, at a minimum, better information to consumers at the point of sale.
‘That’s why we welcome the fact that Ofcom’s priorities for 2013 include “promoting effective choice for consumers by ensuring clear information on service, price and quality is available”.’
Are you a Three customer who will be hit by this price rise? How do you feel about it? Did you know that mobile contracts aren’t strictly at a fixed price?
[UPDATE 25/05/2012] - As you know, we’ve been talking to Three. Which? doesn’t think it’s fair to increase prices in this way without giving consumers the ability to cancel as a result of the price increase. We think that when you sign up to a fixed rate deal, that’s what you expect it to be. Fixed, for the period you agreed to.
We think that Three should recognise this and do the right thing by allowing those customers who can’t stomach this increase to cancel their deal without penalty.
A spokesperson for Three responded to us as follows:
‘Despite costs increasing in a number of areas within our business, we have not passed on an RPI level rise to our contract handset customers in the nine years we have been in operation. Increasing our prices for existing customers is a decision we have not taken lightly. We know that increases are never welcome and we have tried to do this in the fairest way possible for all of our customers. We are confident our plans continue to offer the best possible value for money.’
Post a Comment
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked
Benny
I have a question for which and all other consumer watch dogs!
Why dont you all get your legal teams to have a chat and formulate an plan to take three to a small claims court action using the best canidate from the forums for a breach of contract condition 10, this would cost you guys nothing at all!
If you need to prove detriment just like others here I am on an DMP therfore it goes without saying its detrimental to me as any contractual amount is increased and my other creditors find out whats stopping them from saying all my debt repayments should increase by 3.6%?
Some times you have to stand up for whats right, when last did WHICH have 1000 posts within 3 weeks for any other subject matter and you have done what exactly to date?
Which is in danger of having the same rep as three, you employ contract solicitors on retainers so it would cost you guys nothing so what you waiting for?
Benny.
menai1
I also sent a complaint to three over the price rise have been told someone would get back to me within 10 working days also which are now being very silent on this issue have they heard anymore on the iPhone contract after they spoke to three? Please update us which on what you plan to do next.
Benny
@Admin, why is old posts from 2 days ago now on the last page of this thread?
Patrick Steen
Hi Benny, We’ve fixed that now. Thanks for letting us know.
Suresh
quick update from me:
I got my PAC code from 3 after about 45 minutes on the phone, and them eventually telling me they wouldn’t give my PAC code without paying the ETC up front over the phone. I then told them it was blackmail, and I would be informing the police. 5 minutes later I had my PAC code.
A few hours later, I got a call from 3 offering me a ‘deal’, which was £1 off a month – needless to say I told them shove it and that I was paying the ETC under protest and I was suing them to get it back.
Got my GiffGaff sim:
Push Email finally works
The internet is 3x as fast – during peak times I was getting ~3.5mbps down, 2mbps up on GiffGaff (the upload is more than my sky broadband), and on 3 at same time I was getting 1mbps down 0.2mbps up
Got free £5 credit from GG with a £10 goodybag (unlimited data,texts,250 mins)
and
PAC code accepted by GiffGaff, number porting tomorrow, bye bye 3 forever!
Anyone who wants a free GiffGaff sim with £5 credit (you need to topup £10 first), click here http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/sureshk
Kal El
My number ports over to GiffGaff tomorrow
C Read
I think a few misunderstandings need clearing up here. People are angry, but misdirecting their anger. Ofcom is a regulator, and does not have a remit to involve itself in individual cases. A lot of people are asking why they are not getting involved. Simply put, their remit does not allow them to do so in this case:
http://ofcom.metafaq.com/help/services-and-billing/conchange
Not that you shouldn’t contact Ofcom, just make sure you only inform them of issues which are within their remit. This includes, but is obviously not limited to, not mentioning the clause clearly at point of sale, and not permitting you to cancel under as detrimental under the terms above. Ofcom feel that it’s not going to be detrimental for most people, but if it is for you then you can cancel. Another point would be if you were told the price would not change (excluding VAT etc.) at the point of sale as I was. Andrew Dyson makes the point that term 4 allows for a rise of 1,000%+, but under clause 8(2) of the UTCCRs, the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. It should still be raised with Ofcom, and brought in line with the likes of Orange and T-Mobile, but is not cause for cancellation on its own.
There’s a lot of focus on the ‘material’ term. I’m in agreement with Andrew Dyson here, it’s a good way of excluding frivolous claims. The problem 3 have, however, is that they have no definition of detrimental in their contact, so UTCCR can be brought in.
Under the UTCCR, core terms, such as the headline price, the handset and such cannot be considered, but clauses relating to changes can be as these are not individually negotiated. This is not just my opinion, but one received after talking with two contract law lecturers, so I’m confident it’s correct.
For anyone who’s confused, here’s the simple process to go through. If this still doesn’t make sense, call the nice guys at Ofcom who’ll talk you through the process you need to go through.
1) Complain to 3, tell them it is detrimental to you, and you wish to invoke 10.1. When they deny you your rights, ask if that is their final position. Assuming yes, end call. You may record this call if you wish, but it’s not likely to be necessary. Don’t waste your time arguing or getting angry.
2) Quick chat to Ofcom, they’ll guide you through the procedure. Don’t expect them to solve the issue for you, but they’ll tell you the process. Do make sure to let them know any issues mentioned above, and more if you have them.
3) Make a complaint to Ombudsman services. You’ll probably need the full 2,000 characters, but the letter will come in useful because you’ll not get a quick response and…
4) Once the above is completed, the letter to the Ombudsman will have most of the information you need to write a pre-action letter to 3. Template from WHICH:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/taking-a-dispute-to-the-small-claims-court/sample-letter/
Do take the time to list everything you’ve done.
Do source (link, screenshot and timestamp) the parts of the contract you are referring to.
A screenshot of the email and a screenshot of the T&C glossary in the appendix is worthwhile too
Do send the letter to three by recorded/registered mail. It’ll cost £1.55, keep the receipt.
I am requesting (your claim may well differ)
cessation of contract as per T&Cs, with a letter to confirm
written statement that they intend no further billing
refund of overpayments (the 3.6%) to date
PAC
Don’t try to claim anything ridiculous you’re not entitled to.
Do make sure you’ve laid out what you’ve done clearly, else any case would go against you.
Don’t use threatening or overly emotional language. Words stronger than false are discouraged!
Threats of talking to Watchdog/Which/your dad should not be included.
Do state that if the matter is resolved amicably to your satisfaction you will take no further action.
Before anyone asks, I haven’t cancelled my direct debit, hence why I’m seeking a reclaim of overpayments. If you claim that you can’t afford the price rise, then pay off the remainder of your contract this might hurt your case. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just pointing out facts.
Disclaimer – The above is not legal advice as I am unfamiliar with your personal situation.
Suresh, I’m replying to you because, although you posted with good intentions, an affiliate link to another provider which you would benefit from may fall foul of Which’s terms & conditions of posting, especially if you’ve not noted that you will benefit from it.
Suresh
@C Read
I did not realise posting that link would possibly fall foul of which?’s T&C – if it does, which? please free to remove it.
Good reply though C Read, good info for people.
I did all that you mentioned, and 3 just completely ignored my letter and request for a PAC in writing. The next step for me is paying the ETC under protest, then a pre action letter, then court action.
As C Read said though, don’t get angry in the letter, simply state the facts, and it’s probably not best to claim for outlandish compensation. I’d say just claim what you paid/will pay.
Joe Bloggs
@C Read
Have you followed all these steps yourself? How far have you got? Have you actually issued your claim yet?
davidjl
@C Read
Interesting post, but I have a specific observation and a query, as well as a general concern: -
1. You said “Ofcom feel that it’s not going to be detrimental for most people, but if it is for you then you can cancel.”
For Ofcom to be so inactive – whether that complies with their remit or not – yet to make this sort of statement – if that is what they say – is outrageous, and should not be accepted by anyone. I know what detriment means. I speak English. It means loss or damage and it is an absolute term. A loss of £0.01 is still a detriment. The word cannot be changed, quantified or limited by Ofcom or anyone else, and certainly not retrospectively.
2. You said “Andrew Dyson makes the point that term 4 allows for a rise of 1,000%+, but under clause 8(2) of the UTCCRs, the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. It should still be raised with Ofcom, and brought in line with the likes of Orange and T-Mobile, but is not cause for cancellation on its own.”
What exactly do you mean by “it is not cause for cancellation on its own.”? What is the “it”? The clause itself? Three’s interpretation of it? The fact that they can raise their prices as much as they like? Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it is not the suggestion that Three can raise their prices that is the issue here; it is the suggestion that they can do so without triggering a right to cancel. In other words, the “Unfair Term” is Three’s strained and unintelligible interpretation of Clause 4 – assuming they have one; I haven’t seen it yet.
3. You have referred to Mr Dyson’s arguments, yet, at least according to the Independent story, his course of action was to cancel then apply to the court for a declaration that he has done so validly. Has that position changed?
I remain concerned for people who want to try to continue paying then claim money back. The act of paying, whether it’s the 3.6% increase or an ETC, may amount in fact or in law to an acceptance of the change by you.
PS Hopefully I now have an avatar, to foil the “guest spammers”, aka Three’s Stooges. Thanks to Which? for the suggestion.
davidjl
Oh, I forgot one other point:
Re Three’s “not permitting you to cancel”. They have no business permitting or refusing cancellation. The cancellation is unilateral, by the customer, once they have notified a detrimental change.
My head hurts thinking of the legal ramifications of consumers effectively imbuing Three with a right or obligation they don’t actually have under the contract, then taking them to court to enforce it.
Suresh
@davidjl – paying the ETC only infers acceptance is you do not pay it under protest. as long as you pay it under protest, i’m pretty sure it’s legally recognised as you do not accept the payment, but you feel you have to pay it to avoid problems. A lot of the scenarios on moneysavingexpert are about paying under protest then reclaiming the money back.
Continuing to pay the monthly bills under protest : not sure how that will be viewed in court, but at least people who can’t afford the ETC have some way of saying they don’t accept the charges.
Finally @davidjl – there was a post supposedly from Mr Dyson on here updating us on his story, and I think he stated that he paid the ETC under protest then sent a pre action letter, before suing in small claims court.
@C Read – after reading your post further, I see a few things which need clarifying. You state that we should complain to Ofcom about things in their remit, which include 3 not letting us cancel (and not the price rise itself). However, when you complain to Ofcom about this, they don’t care, and just say it’s commercial so cannot get involved. The communications ombudsman says the same thing. They are both useless. In my experience there are no ‘nice guys at Ofcom who will talk you through it all’, they just say the can’t/won’t get involved, end of story.
I also agree with davidjl that it is not up to Ofcom to define detrimental. Something which I’ve said time and again. Only the courts can decide. 3 cannot retrospectively define it, all they can do it consider a case and agree if they think it’s detrimental, they cannot state categorically it isn’t. And besides, they flat out refuse to even consider anybody’s case that it is detrimental.
davidjl
@Suresh
I don’t agree that paying under protest is appropriate here. You are, in effect, paying them so that they won’t take legal action against you. Then taking legal action against them. It makes no sense. I’ve used the example of the garage as an illustration of when it is appropriate, which doesn’t apply here. Whether the possibility that Three might attempt to damage your credit rating is sufficient “duress” to justify payment under protest is doubtful, in my opinion. I’ve said my piece on this issue; I’m not going to repeat myself again unless faced with reasoned legal argument, beyond “i’m pretty sure it’s legally recognised”.
Secondly, I am uneasy about discussions regarding Mr Dyson and his views when they are reported secondhand (by Suresh or C Read or anyone else). I am doubly concerned when people (Suresh) report what they *think* was on a post by that individual. Unless there is another, which I doubt, it is on page 14 of this forum – not too far to look back – and it DOES NOT say he is paying the ETC, under protest or otherwise.
By contrast, a direct quote from the Independent, re Mr Dyson: “He has cancelled his contract unilaterally and applied to the small claims court for a declaration that he has justly done so – in order to prevent damaging his own credit record.” This position may not be accurate – see page 14 herein – but at least you can see – and check – that what I have quoted is correct.
C Read
Okay, I’ll try to reply as clearly as possible.
@Suresh I don’t know what you wrote in your letter to 3. If it was just a written version of the verbal request, they wouldn’t have to answer it. If they did reply I would expect a similar response to the ones posted here by others. A pre-action letter might also result in no response, in which case filing at the small claims court becomes necessary.
@Joe Bloggs I phoned 3 the day they sent the notice. I have spoken with Ofcom and raised a complaint with Ombudsman Services already. I spent a lot of time reading relevant legislation, and talking to legally trained individuals who I am lucky enough to know. I sent 3 a pre-action letter today, and have yet received no reply from Ombudsman Services. Should the OS resolve it, or should 3 agree, that will be the end of it.
@davidj (1) it’s to do with what Ofcom has a remit to do. Ofcom exists due to act(s) of parliament, and they are tasked with specific functions. If 3 followed the regulations they have laid down, then they would have notified us at point of sale, and would offer 10.1 cancellation to anyone for whom it is detrimental. Ofcom cannot extend their remit, but can deal with violations of the regulation they impose. If you feel Ofcom’s remit is too restrictive, you would need to write to your MP. If, however, you feel as I do that 3 have not complied with what Ofcom ask, then you should inform them of that. The more people who complain, the more likely they are to do something. Andrew Dyson’s paper covers this quite effectively, and it’s also worth reading http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/01/can-a-telecoms-provider-change-the-terms-of-your-contract/
@davidj (2) the clause in the 3 T&Cs, is not, merely by virtue of being unfair, cause for cancellation. The reason for this is that 3 could realistically revise the contract so that the unfair term is removed and replaced with a fair term which limit’s 3′s ability to change terms. Clause 8 of the UTCCRs is what you should read if you want to understand this better.
@davidj (3) I don’t speak for Mr Dyson, and he’s commented here, so I’ll refer you to those comments. As I understand it there was a minor inaccuracy in the story.
@davidj (4?) If I arrange for provision from another company, I am paying twice for my service. I have raised objection and requested cancellation under the T&Cs. I don’t wish to harm my credit record, and I don’t want to pay two mobile phone companies for service at the same time. I also expect that getting money back from 3 will be much more difficult than not giving it to them in the first place.
@davidj (5?) I used the term denied in my letter, it’s clear enough to cover me. I’m appalled that it has come to this though. It’s not uncommon for people/companies to make legal claims without sound basis – without these the small claims court would be a lot quieter.
@Suresh (2) I’m quite good on the phone, and I know Ofcom’s remit, so I made sure to relate only points which would be of interest to them. I had quite a good back and forth conversation with the gentleman who fielded my call, and at no point was it heated. I suspect a lot of people who call are angry that Ofcom won’t fix their individual problem, and communications break down, hence why I started my earlier comment on that point.
@Suresh (3) fortunately we have the UTCCR regulations to fall back upon. If any of these cases reach court, and the decision is in the claimant’s favour on this point, it would likely drive a review of this point. In the meantime I can only suggest you write to your MP, as they have the power to change Ofcom.
Overall I’m a lot happier we have Ofcom; the alternative seen in the USA where there is much less regulation is a lot worse.
Suresh
@C Read – my email and letter (both identical) to 3 stated cancellation under 10.1 (d) and formally requested a PAC code. Both of which they have ignored. I have complained to both Ofcom and OM:C about this – neither of which seem to care. They just cut and paste the same response ‘commercial reasons…not covered’. I honestly feel completely let down by Ofcom and the Communications Ombudsman, and feel they do not care about what 3 are doing.
@DavidJL – if we don’t pay under protest, what other course of action do we have? cancel DD and let 3 trash our credit ratings? It is not simply a matter of ’3 do not need to accept it’, they will simply just keep charging and issue defaults when we do not pay. They are not regulated by the consumer credit act, so have no need to issue notices or not issue defaults on disputed bills. The only thing they have to abide by is harassment laws, which involves debt collection.
Either way, I guess by now most people have either completely given up trying to fight 3, or are on the verge of taking them to court in whatever way they see fit. I will probably not post on this thread any more as it’s really just becoming a repeat of the same thing over and over.
I wish good luck to everybody in their struggle against 3 in this matter.
davidjl
@ C Read
Firstly, are you from Which?? I only ask because you made reference to Suresh’s allegedly inappropriate link, yet you aren’t a “Red poster”.
On to the individual points: -
1. I may not have expressed myself clearly there, for which I apologise. My “outrage” is not at their limited remit, which I understand, but based on the fact that they may be trying to redefine the English language in a way that suits their “watchees”. Now, I hope that what you said about Ofcom (“Ofcom feel that it’s not going to be detrimental for most people, but if it is for you then you can cancel.”) is merely your loose interpretation of Ofcom’s decisions in the T-mobile and Orange questions – which I haven’t read and don’t intend to. *If* Ofcom have actually said that in the full knowledge of the extent of the present issue with Three, which is undoubtedly different, then that is outrageous.
2. I have read section 8 many times and I understand it. I am well aware that an Unfair Term does not invoke the right to cancel. What I have been saying on this forum all along is that the notification of the price increase gives the right to cancel (assuming clause 4 does not do what Three say it does, or, if it does, that it is s. 7 unfair.) With respect, having re-read your original post in the light of your subsequent clarification, I still feel that it was unclear, hence my question. Now I understand what you were saying and I agree.
3. Yes. The minor inaccuracy was that he had not actually issued court proceedings yet, but was complying with the pre-action protocol before doing so. However, so far as I can tell, the nature of his case has not changed, since he did not correct *that* element of the independent story. Anyhow, I felt, and still feel, that you may be using his arguments to justify a course of action which he himself has not followed nor advocated. My mistake perhaps, but the way you wrote earlier, it crossed my mind that you knew him or may have spoken with him independently!
As I said earlier, I am uneasy about the way other people’s views can be distorted secondhand, and I think, as you rightly suggested in your reply to me, if you are going to refer to anyone’s point of view you should use direct quotes or at least reference to specific documents.
4 (Your numbering) See my post to Suresh above for my views on paying under protest. Having said that, I don’t understand the logic in your reply: the first part of point 4? appears to argue for paying Three then suing them; the second part, namely “I also expect that getting money back from 3 will be much more difficult than not giving it to them in the first place.” suggests quite the opposite.
5. I understand, but I feel that Three’s “denial”, “refusal to accept”, “failure to permit” or any other description must simply be ignored. It shouldn’t be given any legal credence. It’s maybe a minor point, but it goes to the heart of the issue: Three are acting as if they, and only they, have any say as to how their Terms & Conditions are to be interpreted. That, at the end of the day, is why we are all here.
davidjl
@Suresh
I’m sorry you feel that way Suresh. Did you not at one point say you were taking independent legal advice. Has that not developed?
Anyhow, I can’t say any more than I already have, and I certainly can’t change my own views in the present circumstances. You have to make your own decision.
I realise, and it makes me sad, that credit is the new god for this day and age. Three are promising you hellfire and damnation, or at least allowing you to expect that. Whether you believe it is up to you. I am (fortunately) a confirmed atheist.
Suresh
I did, and they said it boils down to what is classed as detriment, and advised me to take it to small claims court without a solicitor getting formally involved as it would overly complicate things.
Citizens advice bureau were pretty useless.
And yes for 99% of people, credit ratings is unbelievably important, and 3 have the potential to ruin a lot of people’s lives due to default notices.
Anyway last post on here, as it’s getting pointless to post any more. If I ever got an outcome from court, I’ll post it here, otherwise assume any further posts are trolls from 3
C Read
@davidjl I’m not from Which? Just a regular guy who’s not had the honour of being impersonated yet. I made a couple of comments in the early pages, did some reading, talked to some experts and then posted an update as there were a few areas I thought I could help out with.
On 4 – I’m mainly referring to the early termination charge. If there is difficulty getting it back, I’m less fussed about a couple of quid than several hundred.
mar
could you tell me at what address do I write a complaint to the three
Because I can not find
Suresh
So 3 are still desperately trolling this thread to get people to stay with them. Truly pathetic.
Kal El
Which do you plan on doing something about the Three troll posts?
Ben
Obvious trolls are obvious
Sunjay Bhogal
to all these people that are getting very good deal, where are you getting them from. I keep getting the same generic letter about inflation, this is the sixth time now. I am not getting anywhere.
I just to given up, serve the remaining term of the contract and tell them when to go to hell after that. Enough is Enough.
Suresh
Most likely they are trolling the thread from 3, trying to get people to stay with them.
I got offered a £1 a month rebate, which of course I turned down.
Kal El
Interesting story on the BBC website about inflation and how the RPI has fallen again
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18503213#
johno1066
Great, I’ll be looking forward to my text message stating that prices will be going down then
Patrick Steen
Hello everyone, we have again been through the comments to find those from ‘trolls’ and have deleted them accordingly. As our T&Cs state, we take impersonating other commenters with multiple IP addresses very seriously:
‘Choosing a screen name. These should not include profanities, contact information (phone numbers, postcodes etc) or appear to impersonate someone else. If we think the name you have chosen is unsuitable, we may prevent you from using it on our website.’ http://conversation.which.co.uk/terms-conditions/
We will prevent trolls from making further comments as and when we see them or are alerted to them. Please use the ‘Report this comment’ feature on the comments you suspect to be breaking our T&Cs and we will look at them as soon as possible.
johno1066
Good stuff, what a shame people have to behave that way. I have my thoughts as to why there are some people who are attempting to disrupt such a thread. For me, It only serves to further my resolve and I too, will port my number to giffgaff as I did when I transferred my account to metrobank. The more people who send a message to Companies that if they treat their customer’s with contempt, then those customers will, and can, take their hard earned money elsewhere.
badda_bing
I have been following this thread from its beginning and used some of the extremely helpful suggestions from people posting in my ongoing correspondence with Three – thanks to you all.
I will not repeat what has already been said by everyone who is in the same predicament, except to say that This approach from Three is shocking.
What I do find amazing however is the apparent lack of support/action from OFCOM and that there is still no official view from Which.
Which – can I ask if you are likely to be posting a formal response, not the holding line you have provided previously but a considered view on where we consumers stand?
Thanks
Imran
Hi everyone,
I am new to the thread and have been reading some of the posts. Is it possible for me to end my current contract without paying the ETC due to the price increase (which they have written to me about). My contract is due to end in July 2013, so I have another year on it. I am on the One Plan.
Thanks everyone.
Kal El
Come on Which, give us an answer. You said yourself that the email started to go out on the 21st. This means for some people tomorrow is the end of their 30 days. I thought you were all about helping the consumer!!
basilio
Can anyone open a account on the face book guiding people not to take three mobile connection as they increase the prices inbetween the contracts.And most of thier reply are from customer servives from mumbia who talk utter rubbish.
Durr
It was interesting to see on the news that RPI is down to 3.1% now, nice little money maker for Three there.
Also is anyone going to sue in court while still paying? I honestly can’t afford the ETF, but have run out of options. It would be difficult to sue them for money not paid. I spoke to consumer direct and they said that is a grey area, although they said Three sounds like they are abusing their power and logged a complaint with trading standards.
I haven’t yet contacted ombudsman, though it sounds like a waste of time from what people have been saying. Consumer direct did say there was no time frame for taking them to court, you don’t have to do it in the 30 days Three says, you only need to ask Three to cancel under section 10 in that time frame.
Does anyone know if Three take any money off the ETF? When I had to pay one with another network they took the VAT equivalent off, so although a big sum it was slightly less than I expected.
Sean
I have not contributed to this thread for some time, my absence being the result of the confusion that was created by those (referred to here by many as “trolls”), who sadly felt it necessary to impersonate some of the many important and earnest contributors in order to cause confusion over the issues involved.
However, having subscribed by email, to this and other threads involved in lengthy discussions on the same topic, I want to say how heartened I have been by the many good people’s responses here, and express how I have enjoyed reading the many helpful and clearly detailed contributions made by those who, like me, have serious concerns over the direction in which business practice in relation to consumers in this country, is being allowed to drift toward the potentially abusive in terms of behaviour.
Tomorrow will see my 30 day period having expired.
Having complained in the same manner as the many here, both to Three and indeed to the other suggested agencies, I have received the same bland, disempowered and disempowering responses.
I am as angry at the appalling way Three, as a “communications” company, have acted and responded with regard to the many issues surrounding this matter, particularly in relation to the blatant reconfiguring and “sleight-of-hand” tactics regarding the dating and accessibility of the various copies of the T&Cs from their website.
How this can be allowed to occur without offical reproach, frankly utterly disgusts me, and I cannot underline more how disappointing the lack of effective action and feedback on the parts of OFCOM, the Consumer Ombudsman and Which? have been, for in my position, and given the narrow time frame, I had hoped for much much more as my only direct avenue of support, concern and action.
However, as a man who has significant health and mobility problems, living alone on a very limited benefits income, I am unable practically to financially or physically pursue the route of personal legal redress that I, like many others, desire so deeply, given the costs and logistical (postal, attending court, ETC, etc.) ramifications thereof.
I do however, as my own final word on this matter, want to say this (particularly as it has been made quite clear that Three’s Executives have indeed been reviewing all posts here since the beginning of the thread).
I can promise Three that:
1. As soon as my contracts end with your company, I will not under any circumstances do business on a personal level with your company ever again.
2. Having MUCH time on my hands, the will and articulation to use it constructively, and ready access to the internet which thankfully does NOT rely on your appalling so-called AYCE data service, I will do everything I can to explain clearly JUST how your company has conducted itself regarding this issue, in as many open forums as it is possible for me to do so, in order to limit your new business take-up as much as I possibly can in the future.
3. I will now cease completely to recommend your company, both to the staff of the organisations that provide for my welfare, and those attendees with whom I come into personal contact with on a regular basis for support.
4. I will encourage everyone within the above categories, to spread the word and equally discourage any further business with your company.
If money alone be your god… and you insist on continuing to act in this manner toward your loyal customer base with no remorse whatsoever… then let your new and repeat business be our target.
A company is only as strong as it’s advertising… but with the rise of social media and the new business consciousness that extends from it and recognises it’s importance in securing a strong market foundation in an ever more unstable economic climate, word of mouth is shown clearly to be the increasingly stronger contender, and indeed the best, or worst, advertising there is…
I will say, not “Welcome…” but “Goodbye to Three”, in as many ways as possible and to as many as I can, and I encourage all those reading this, and who may sadly be unable to act legally as they would wish to, for all the same reasons, to help me in doing the same.
Had your company responded with a shred of dignity and integrity… I am sure all here would say “it could have been so very different”.
May I end by wishing every success to all those who are empowered and in a position to pursue this matter through the courts, and thanking all, who even in a small way, have shown great courage, integrity and compassion in their willingness to share their help and advice here. with others.
As a last word, I would send my particular thanks to Mr. Andrew Dyson.
The very best of luck to you all.
johno1066
Well written Sean, quite agree.
DavidJL
Aye, well said.
menai1
Why are Which being so silent on this issue?
Sunjay Bhogal
Please to announced that so far since this issue is I have stopped 17 people from joining Three network.
Samantha
I have tried several times to complain to Three. I have told them it is detrimental to me and asked them what proof they would like. They say they is no way whatsoever they would let me out of the contract. That they would not accept any proof… and started back on their routine mumbo jumbo on how they can increase the price…
OFCOM says we can if it is detrimental. I informed Three of that and basically Three have told me they don’t care what OFCOM have said and that I should then contact OFCOM. OFCOM are telling me I should complain to Three – which I have. Over, and over, and over again – with them never addressing my questions, instead they provide the same scripted answers.
I even got to the point of asking to speak to someone higher. They refused to, telling me this was the final point of escalation. I know this is angering for us all. Sorry for the rant. I am really annoyed as are the rest of you. My 30 day period ends tomorrow, at which date I will no longer be able to cancel my contract under these reasons, even though I have emailed and phoned asking to do so.
I will indeed be deterring possible future customers of Three, informing them of the terrible treatment and lack of respect for loyal customers. My contact ends in a year and I for one will be making sure they know how unhappy I am throughout. Power to social media interaction I say. They are going to love all this free (negative) publicity don’t you think!
Sunjay Bhogal
@ Samatha.
I know how you feeling about this, My 30 days ends tomorrow as well which I being trying to end the contract but they just completely ignore this request.
I just have to carry on with this contact for another 11 month then I will leave them for good after 7 years. Three are an absolute disgrace. I will do my best to discredit them. Power to the social-media.
Imran
I have been reading the posts that have been put up and just wanted to thank all of the people for taking the time to write up these posts. I phoned and tried to cancel my contract aswell. I was going to send a written letter but just dont see the point of pursueing it any further. So know I have another year left on my contract. I have usually been a big fan of three, always recommending them to friends and family. The way three have handled themselves is disgraceful and I will also be detering people from thier network. It seems like they THINK that they can do what ever they want and get away with it….. Power to the people… deter as many people as you can…
Michele
I am drafting a response today about by disatisfaction with regard to Three’s handling of my complaint. Like others, my month is nearly up and I just can’t afford the money or risk to fight them in court. Whether it is the right thing to do or not, I shall have to continue with the charges and pay under protest.
I have though asked them if now that RPI has fallen to a rate even lower than when they decided to carry out this rise, will they be dropping their prices – I doubt not will be the outcome…
In any case (and just in case Three are reading these posts) I have found some interesting links about stats with regard to bad customer service and what people do if they encounter it:
http://www.retailcustomerexperience.com/article/183007/Survey-Twice-as-many-people-tell-others-about-bad-service-than-good
http://www.businesszone.co.uk/blogs/andyhanselman/compete-or-get-beat/25-statistics-customer-expectations-and-attitudes-service-20
Three – You may be interested…
Keith
Historicaly cost of living indeces have been used as of benefit to the individual to assist them in living with the increase and assisting them negotiate an increase to their wage or a determination of a rise to their state benefits pensions etc in line with said increase
I would take the view that a clause refering to cost of living increases would give the individual who directly suffers from this increase a strong case to seek a reduction in their outgoings on that contract and not as a further encumberance to them by that contract
A cost of business rise index is not refered to in this contract
This appears to be a perverse use of the cost of living index and should be robustly addressed as a matter of some urgency by all agencies involved in protecting the individual
Keith Brooker
johno1066
Exactly Keith,
Surely by allowing companies to use RPI as a means of increasing prices it only serves higher inflation. What happens when inflation is lower, will the prices come down? No, they never do.
Simon
Could someone please let me have the best email address to send an email to 3 to state that I am continuing to pay under protest?
Thanks
badda_bing
This post is addressed to Which. Can you confirm whether or not you will be posting up a formal peice of advice for consumers on this issue.
Sean
Sorry but I had to return here to let you know that @ThreeUK and @ThreeUKSupport are attempting to have the Twitter accounts of some of those who speak out against them on Twitter suspended! So much for free polite speech on Twitter and in the UK! Three can campaign on there and express as much as they want but we cannot?
Please can I ask as many of you as possible to step up the campaign against Three on Twitter and force this issue out into the open with more of their potential future and repeat customer base?
As far as I know, we don’t live in a fascist state JUST yet… or do we?
Sean
Just to show the content that they are trying to suggest is unsuitable for Twitter, here are some example tweets that are being found on there:
Monthly Contract Price Hike by @ThreeUKSupport @ThreeUK being legally challenged by many angry customers: http://ow.ly/bHQcm
Check your contract terms, @ThreeUKSupport @ThreeUK say theirs mean that they can increase the “fixed” price every 12 months
T&Cs of monthly contracts with @ThreeUKSupport @ThreeUK allows them to increase their FIXED prices at least once every 12 months!
The @ThreeUKSupport @ThreeUK network says it can hit ANY and ALL “fixed” contract customers with a price increase every 12 months!
Can you see anything that could be considered inappropriate reading for Twitter users? I doubt it, unless, like Three, you are in the business of silencing any and all opposition to the actions of Three in this matter of course.
Please feel free to use the above polite tweets in your own posts on Twitter to educate their readership further as to how they deal with loyal contract customers.
Ian Mason
What an insult, Three are now advertising the phone and contract I took with them, only now with increased benefits at £2.00 per month cheaper than mine,and that’s before their price increase! A soon as our contracts can be terminated myself and my partner are off to another company never to darken Three’s door again
PP
If I stop the direct debit, and then continue to pay the fixed monthy cost by bank transfer, surely it is for them to sue me for the increase. Am I missing something?
Riaz
I dont think Three would supply Bank Details for bank transfer or standing order – given the circumstances
Sunjay Bhogal
@pp if you pay by other means, you will have to pay extra. Most companies do this including utility companies..
PP
I could always set up a standing order.
PP
You are right
:
Ways to pay your bill.
There are lots of different ways to pay your bill. We recommend setting up a Direct Debit or a regular debit or credit card payment. It’s easy and you’ll save £4.09 per month.
Direct Debit.
Paying by Direct Debit is the easiest way to pay your bill. The amount you owe, which is shown on the front of your bill, will be automatically be taken from your bank every month. Payment will be taken from your account about 19 days after your bill date. Find out how to set up a Direct Debit.
By card.
Pay your bills automatically using your Visa, Mastercard or Amex card. Just register a card with us and we’ll automatically take payment from it each month. This service is free and continues until your card expires. Find out how to register a card.
BUT, if I change to credit card payment, I could dispute the difference I suppose – that will cause them some grief.
menai1
I asked yesterday for a update from Which on what they are doing to advise or help us still no answer come on Which what about the iPhone contract you were looking into. A voice would be nice.
Sunjay Bhogal
Hello , I sent the following tweet on twitter today:
Dear @twitter, #threeuk @ThreeUK @ThreeUKSupport are blocking #tweets about there recent prices rises during mid contract. #freespeech
Here is the reply from @ThreeUK:
@ThreeUK
@xxxxxxx Not at all, we’re having to report excessive tweets as spam so we can hear the majority of our customers
—————–
P.S keep tweeting
Sean
Hi Sunjay, and thank you very much for your support over on Twitter.
Yes it seems they will do or say anything to stop any customers, who are unhappy about the RPI price increase, from having any kind of public voice whatsoever, even on Twitter.
Here is my own reply which I received from Three this morning:
“@dudtwo @ThreeUKSupport We block spammers, so that we can get to genuine queries. If the no of tweets becomes obstructive we have no choice
08:31 AM – 21 Jun 12 via HootSuite”
So now it seems, I am no longer to be considered as any kind of valued contract customer, but simply as a nuisance and a “spammer”, and may I add being labelled so in a public forum.
I will however not be discouraged and will be continuing to post there, and can I please ask once again for more people to help as it will serve as much as possible to validate our case.
Many thanks.
Kal El
Just tweeted my support:
why are @ThreeUK @ThreeUKSupport blocking and reporting people for spam when they ask questions about the RPI price increase?
badda_bing
Hi Sean my support added I will try and tweet more when I can.
I am assuming that Which have now moved on to something far less controversial and less challenging. Their silence speaks volumes.
DavidJL
I agree re. Which? I can’t believe they have allowed time to tick by the first “cancellation windows” without saying more than they have. However, I do suspect they have come up against the same stonewalling from Three that the rest of us have. Three must now be starting to count the cost, i.e. how many cancellations, and, if the latest posts here are any indicator, I suspect they may be breathing a sigh of relief.
Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, I got a paper bill yesterday including the full monthly charges which go beyond my cancellation date (24th June). I paid the proportion due till the 24th and we’ll see what comes next. I’m looking at various means, including the Data Protection Act and libel law, to resist if they try the Credit Rating thing.
On a more frivolous note, it occurred to me today how apt, yet ironic, as a description of Three, is the well-known quote from Cool Hand Luke:
“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach.”
Patrick Steen
Hello everyone, don’t worry we haven’t forgotten about you and we have not moved on. We have since published a newer Conversation than this one, and would love to see you commenting on there if you haven’t already: http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/three-mobile-price-rises-customer-reaction/
We are still in contact with Three on the issue of iPhone contracts – we are awaiting a response, so we shall see what they come back with.
It is very hard to get instant solutions on these things – we have pressed Three and spoken to Ofcom, but it seems that, as the law currently stands, mobile providers may well be allowed to include a term that lets them increase prices in line with inflation.
Although it may indeed be legal, we don’t think it’s right. We think these contracts should be at a fixed price for the length of the contract. There are a number of avenues we’re exploring to see whether we can make this the case – all of which require investigation, which in turn takes time. Your comments and the popularity of this debate (it’s our second most commented Conversation!) are great evidence that will help us with this, and we are sharing them with Ofcom and others.
The short term advice from our lawyers is to ‘pay under protest’. What does that mean? Register your complaint with Three (and the Communications Ombudsman and Ofcom if you’d like), but keep paying your bills. This is a way of making sure you are not in breach of contract while you challenge their action. In other words, you are ‘reserving your rights’ and will not get in trouble (you would if you stopped paying). If it later turns out that this price rise was not lawful, it will be easier for you to prove that you hadn’t accepted the price rise and therefore could apply to claim back the money.
And continue being vocal on the matter – we can hear you and we want the companies above to hear you too.
Finally, on the matter of Three reporting some of you on Twitter as ‘spammers’ – we think that is utterly wrong and have told them not to do it on Twitter. You should not be banned from Twitter just for having your say.
wavechange
Is there any mobile phone company that offers genuine fixed-price contracts, Patrick?
We have now had at least three Conversations in which customers have vowed to leave their present provider when their contract expires or beforehand. It seems like musical chairs, with not many chairs to choose from.
davidjl
@Patrick Steen
Whilst I’m glad Which? are at least talking to us, can you please explain to me, in detail, what exactly you think “paying under protest” will achieve and the potential risks?
We know, from clause 4 – and it is as clear as day to me – that Three can raise their prices as much as they like. So our *only* hope is that we are entitled to cancel. Three say we can’t, but I am sure that’s just nonsense, and Which? are leading people down the path of accepting that nonsense, in law or in fact, or both. I understand why it is difficult to give advice to many different people, but I can’t accept that’s a justification for giving bad or incomplete advice like this.
Let me put it this way: if Three are so sure that I am not entitled to cancel my £25.00 a month deal and are therefore entitled to a £241.00 Cancellation Fee from me, why did they offer me a new 2-year deal on otherwise the same terms but for £11.00 a month, provided I pay that Cancellation fee? If they believe they are entitled to that fee anyway and they are just “being reasonable” or “attempting to settle” then that logically means they can either afford to give me an £11.00 a month deal, or at least what arguably amounts to £21.00 a month (ignoring the “front-loading” of the Cancellation fee), which gives the lie to their original claim as to why they had to put the prices up in the first place.
Suresh
well, I said I wasn’t going to post on here any more, but after seeing which?’s post above …
@which? – well done for completely missing the point entirely.
Almost this entire thread, and most of the complaints on here have been about Three NOT ALLOWING CANCELLATIONS, not that they have increased the prices. Almost nobody would give 2 hoots about Three raising the prices if they had been honourable and allowed cancellations (because anyone that wanted to stay with Three would just cancel then rejoin at a lower rate).
Three have been completely underhanded, dishonourable, borderline illegal, and in some cases almost completely illegal (trying to blackmail me to pay the ETC) and that is what you should have been fighting.
Patrick Steen
Wavechange: A previous commenter posted that O2 had told them on Twitter that they had no plans to increase their prices. However, I’m not aware of a mobile provider that doesn’t have a similar contract term. This is why we want to tackle this unfair term in all mobile providers’ contracts.
David: We believe you should have the right to cancel without penalty. This is what we pushed Three to do in the first place – however, they didn’t budge.
Why? As it stands mobile companies are apparently legally allowed to raise prices in line with inflation as this is not seen as ‘significant’, and therefore a term that allows such a variation is argued not to be unfair.
Ofcom’s argument is that an RPI price rise is unlikely to be detrimental for the majority of customers, but what constitutes ‘material detriment’ is uncertain and may vary from one person to another. Therefore, every situation would need to be assessed on an individual basis. That is why we are saying it is better for you to ‘pay under protest’ while you are challenging Three so that you don’t risk getting into hot water.
To Suresh and Rich below: We have challenged Three over their contractual terms. We’ve also encouraged them to do the right thing given the legal uncertainty and allow those customers who can’t stomach this increase to cancel their deal without penalty. We do think you should be able to cancel, however Three is set on the fact that a price increase in line with inflation does not offer the automatic entitlement for the customer to cancel and that its contract allows this.
Because Three are so adamant that you can’t cancel your contract, we’ve advised you pay under protest, which still leaves the door open for you to obtain a refund in case the legal position subsequently changes.
Although this is extremely disappointing, and please keep on complaining and paying under protest, we are trying to look at the bigger picture to change all mobile contracts so that this doesn’t happen again. Thanks, Patrick.
wavechange
Thanks Patrick. I support what you are trying to achieve, even though I don’t have a phone contract. If companies reserve the right to increase the price, even by the RPI, they should highlight this by referring to a ‘variable price contract’.
davidjl
@Patrick
Ok. I am getting a bit fed up with this. I realise Which? may be concerned to effect change with ALL mobile phone companies. Admirable. But, in connection with Three, PLEASE stop referring to Ofcom’s decision, or any other argument, that does not specifically address the issue that Three’s Terms & Conditions DO NOT say that they can raise prices without comeback, clearly or at all. I understand that T-Mobile’s do, and Orange’s do, and I have seen excerpts from one or both of their Terms & Conditions that clearly state that. My further understanding is that Ofcom decided that Terms *like those* were not unfair. Fine, rightly or wrongly that’s done. But Three’s are not like those. The term they are relying on is garbled, ambiguous, or simply does not say what they want it to. Have you even had a coherent explanation from Three as to how they interpret clause 4 – with reference to the actual words, I mean?
Why is it so hard to get anyone – Three, Which?, Ofcom or Ombudsman – to address this question? I suspect I know why Three won’t (because they know their argument is weak at best) by why won’t the others?
Furthermore, not all relevant Terms & Conditions include “materially”. Mine don’t. Three’s attempt to retrospectively change them is egregious, yet it appears Which? are simply accepting that. On a related issue, Ofcom have no business whatsoever deciding to redefine – retrospectively or otherwise – what “detriment” means in a consumer contract, and I’ll happily go to court on that point. Are you seriously telling us that consumers are supposed to be aware of Ofcom judgements on the definition of an ordinary English word in their contracts? Come on Which?
And finally, it hasn’t escaped my attention that you have dodged my main question, i.e., what exactly do you expect people to achieve (not what you expect them to avoid, which is the question you appear to have answered – i.e. “hot water”) by not cancelling and “paying under protest”? And what do you believe to be the risks of doing so?
Rich
davidjl – 100% agree. Our contract is very different, and should be considered entirely by itself. Ofcom advised on Orange and T-Mobile contracts – not ours.
JSmith
@davidjl
Agree with what you are saying. Have you contacted Andrew Dyson about this? You’ve got his details from the paper, right? Maybe you two could join forces?
JSmith
@davidjl
Well said, I agree. Have you contacted Andrew Dyson about this? You’ve got his details from the paper online, right? Maybe you two could join forces?!
Rich
” as the law currently stands, mobile providers may well be allowed to include a term that lets them increase prices in line with inflation.”
But the agreement between Three and their customers fails to include such a term, doesn’t it?
Kal El
That’s what I thought. Hence why we are all complaining.
davidjl
Exactly Rich. It seems Which? are missing the point entirely.
Rich
Ah well… I finally got my PAC last Wednesday, and ported out on the Friday. Have told them via email and recorded delivery that I’m leaving under 10.1d due to the price rise being detrimental to me, as well as the TrafficSense fiasco.
Also, after keeping up with these conversations and the lack of meaningful input from Which?, I must question the value of the subscription.
Michele
Rich, Kal El and Davidjl – My understanding is that their T&C’s do point this out under 4.1 (b)(iii) which states that:
(b)We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Packages, on the following basis (iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Package (if applicable) by an amount which is more than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in any twelve month period.”
Other than the fact that there have been many examples with regard to not making their T&C’s clear to their customers, specifically with regard to price increases for example, the main dispute is whether or not the customer can cancel their agreement without having to pay the ETF because it is materially detrimental to the customer under point 10.1(d) which states that:
“Within one month of a materially detrimental variation to your agreement. You can end the agreement within one month of us telling you about a variation to your agreement (which includes your Package) which is likely to be of material detriment to you. You must give notice to Three Customer Services within that month and your agreement will finish at the end of that month once we receive your notice. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.)”
This is what we currently should use in our argument against them until a governing body of some description can rule that any price increase within a fixed term contract are deemed not lawful, as Patrick has stated.
Kal El
Michele
Thats what I meant. If the T&C’s had said that provided any price increase was below the RPI then 10.1(d) did not apply then no one could have argued. But it doesn’t.
So Three haven’t included a term that allows them to increase prices inline with inflation without the customer being able to invoke 10.1(b).
Which have missed the whole argument!!
davidjl
Whoa, Michele, that is a complete bastardisation of clause 4!
davidjl
To clarify, unless you have a different set of T&Cs to me, you have run separate elements of clause 4 together to make it look like a continuous whole!
Do you work for Three?!
I’m kidding.
Sort of.
Michele
Davidjl – How rude, no I don’t!
But whilst I do have a some integrity, I clearly do not posses very advanced copy and pasting skills…! Lol! I did actually take it from their current T and C’s section from their webpage and just cut out the bits that weren’t relevant as I didn’t think they were, well, relevant… Anyway the whole bit just for your benefit is:
4. Variations to your agreement or prices
4.1 We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Packages, on the following basis:
(a) any updated Packages and new terms will be available on our website and on request to Three Customer Services;
(b) we will let you know at least one month in advance if we decide to:
(i) discontinue your Package; or
(ii) make any variations to your agreement which are likely to be of material detriment to you; or
(iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Package (if applicable) by an amount which is
more than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in
any twelve month period.
You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10.
Is that better? Am I now forgiven…?
davidjl
Fair enough Michele.
And as everyone can now see, the only *actual* mention of RPI is in connection with a requirement to give notice.
Three, I expect, want an *implied* right to raise by the RPI that is different in effect to any other variation. This is the problem. They are relying upon implied terms and/or a strained construction of clauses 4 and 10 (or so I can only imagine – they haven’t actually expressed that to me), which is anathema to a Consumer Contract, and forbidden by section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
badda_bing
Nikki/Patrick, thanks for the response. As mentioned by my fellow posters this is not about an increase this is about 3 using T&Cs for their benefit (price increase) but then ignoring the same T&Cs when people choose to cancel under 10.1(d).
The issue that we are looking for clarification on is whether cancelling under 10.1(d) is allowed as any price increase in by it’s nature detrimental to those it’s applied to. There is no definition of the term ‘detrimental’ and even if there was could it really be any different to the generally accepted definition?
As others have said, I personally have no problems with price increases, they are part of life.
However what is not acceptable is signing people up on two year “fixed” contracts which are not properly explained at the point of sale. Also what is not acceptable is penalising one group of customers, namely those that commit to three, for the benefit of the rest, new, payg and business customers.
How immoral is it to increase my price but then offer a better phone (iPhone 4S) on the same package for cheaper (£34.00) than I was paying BEFORE the increase? The new £34 price allegedly includes the price increase.
Overall this is just hocking business practice, and what’s even worse is that there is no protection for consumers. It’s going to take someone with time and money to press this all the way to Court.
Awful situation really
Sean
@Nikki @Patrick Steen
Thank you both for your support, particularly with regard to defending our rights in freely posting complaints and web links, and airing our views on Twitter.
We are trying as much as possible to direct readers there to these and other forums, where heated discussions by unhappy Three and other mobile network customers are taking place, and where, we believe, the real detail of the legal and moral argument that we as customers feel we have can be understood.
And again, to all readers here and elsewhere, please subscribe to the threads suggested below on Twitter and feel free to politely add to our efforts to enlighten as many new and repeat customers of Three about the failings of their recent business practices and decisions.
Subscribe to “mentions”:
@ThreeUK
@ThreeUKSupport
and subscribe to “hashtag”
#ThreeUK
Many thanks again to anyone who can help.
Samantha B
Someone seems to have been on a negative voting spree. An employee of Three perhaps?
keith
R.p.i. is an index that shows how actual and projected increased costs to businesses have already been passed on to the consumer by way of increased prices
If businesses were allowed to further increase their retail prices to consumers in line with the latest r.p.i. then r.p.i. would double every time it was updated ad-infinitum
It then follows that a business using r.p.i.as a measure to further increase its prices to its consumers during a fixed term contract has no reasonable place in contract law and therfore makes such increases unlawful
This is not a grey area that needs testing it is common sense and as such in contract law makes reasonable fact
Keith Brooker
davidjl
Well said Keith.
I for one have never been under any illusion that Three’s price increase is motivated by anything other than greed, pure and simple.
Simon Timmins
Well finally a response from OFCOM and relatively detailed on a number of questions.
Any comments would be appreciated :
Dear Mr Timmins
Thank you for your email of 11 June 2012 sent to my colleague L******; she is on leave and I have been asked to reply on her behalf. As you raised a number of questions, I have spoken to my colleagues to try and get the answers and these are as follows:
1. What specific new obligations did Ofcom place upon Mobile Service Providers in May 2011 which would have necessitated Mobile Service Providers to change their Terms and Conditions?
Communications Providers (CPs), including mobile service providers, made changes to their terms and conditions to comply with their obligations under the General Conditions which were modified in May 2011 to implement the revised EU framework. Ofcom’s statement of changes made to the General Conditions can be found here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc-usc/statement/Statement.pdf.
By way of background, the General Conditions are a set of sector specific rules made by Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003 with which CPs must comply. Enforcement of the General Conditions is a matter for Ofcom. General Condition 9 (GC9) sets out the requirement on Communications Providers (CPs) to offer contracts with minimum terms. The General Conditions can be found here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/ga/general-conditions.pdf. GC9 is on page 18-21.
In May 2011, the key changes to GC9 were:
· CPs to provide additional information in their contracts with consumers and also make this information available to other end-users on request;
· the maximum duration of initial consumer contracts will be 2 years; and users generally must be offered an option to contract for the provision of public electronic communication services for a maximum duration of 12 months;
· subscribers must be able to withdraw from contracts penalty-free following a notice of any materially detrimental contract modifications, and
· contract termination conditions and procedures for termination must not act as a disincentive to end-users from switching their providers.
In addition, GC9 was further modified in September 2011 to take account of Ofcom’s decision to prohibit automatically renewable contracts to residential customers and small businesses with no more than ten employees in the fixed voice and broadband sectors. (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/arcs/statement/ARCs_statement.pdf).
Therefore, CPs had to make changes to their terms and condition to ensure compliance with the above modifications in 2011.
2. Did these changes mean that Mobile Service Providers were now allowed to make unilateral modifications to Terms and Conditions without notifying consumers?
GC9 requires consumers to be given a least one month’s notification of their ability to withdraw from the contract penalty-free where a modification is likely to be of material detriment. CPs are expected to take a pragmatic view of what, in general, is likely to amount to material detriment and to take account of the specific circumstances of individual subscribers. We advise customers to contact their CP if they think they have or will suffer material detriment and to be prepared to provide evidence to support their claim.
More generally under consumer law, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 apply if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a unilateral change to a term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. Terms which may be regarded as unfair under the Regulations include terms which have the object or effect of allowing the price to be increased without providing a right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded.
The effect of the Regulations is that a standard form term in a consumer contract, under which a trader purports to reserve the right to change the price of what is provided, has the potential to be unfair. The Office of Fair Trading, which has powers alongside Ofcom to enforce the UTCCRs (see below), has produced guidance on this. (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311.pdf).
Whilst Ofcom has the power to consider contract terms for fairness under the UTCCRs, we cannot resolve individual consumer’s disputes with traders about particular terms in specific contracts. Nor do we determine if a particular term is unfair. Only a court can do that. In cases where we think a term is unfair, we may take enforcement action on behalf of consumers generally (as a group). This action could include seeking undertakings from a trader that it would not use unfair terms in its contracts with consumers, or seeking a court order preventing such use.
3. If Three intended to change to their Terms and Conditions, but didn’t make those changes for 12 months and then unilaterally and without notice to consumers made those changes, would that be acceptable to Ofcom?
4. Is it an acceptable practice for Mobile Service Providers to make no mention of Terms and Conditions on any of their point of sale or delivery paperwork but rely on links to Terms and Conditions on websites, which can be unilaterally modified without notification, provide lack of any transparent Terms and Conditions revision history and don’t provide paper copy Terms and Conditions to customers.
Response to Q3 and Q4
Ofcom is currently investigating associated issues for all CPs as part of an own-initiative monitoring and enforcement programme into compliance by those providers with the requirements under GC9 and the UTCCRs where relevant: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_01082/. As part of this programme we are considering individual providers’ contract terms and the related procedures of each provider. Whether or not a contract can be modified unilaterally without notification is part of what we are looking at and will depend, in each case, on the wording of the term in question and an assessment of the position under the UTCCRs.
5. Are Three in breach of their Licence or General Condition 23 for the Sales and Marketing of Mobile Telephony Services for any of their actions mentioned above?
We are not able to reach a view on this without investigating further. We will consider what, if any next steps may be appropriate once our review of GC9 is complete.
I hope the above information proves helpful.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Sutton
Consumer Contact Team
(Edited by moderators)
davidjl
Without considering it in too much detail or checking any of the links, that all seems quite encouraging. Nothing at all in that seems to justify what Three appear to be accepting and reporting as Ofcom’s point of view. I have the distinct feeling Three have been using Ofcom’s words out of context to their own advantage, but sadly I also feel Which? are too ready to accept Three’s interpretation.
Interestingly, these words “We advise customers to contact their CP if they think they have or will suffer material detriment and to be prepared to provide evidence to support their claim” have been parroted by Three and Which?, yet here they are being used in connection with a change to the contract terms, NOT regarding a change to the price. This is a significant difference IMO. Three’s claim is that they can change the price *in line with the contract* and that the price does not trigger the right to cancel because it is not detrimental. Not all changes to contract terms & conditions are detrimental. Mostly they’re drily obscure and unimportant. ANY price increase is detrimental. BY DEFINITION.
Incidentally, it is laughable if Three think they can unilaterally change their terms to tack the word “materially” onto “detrimental” yet try to say that such a change is not, in itself, “detrimental”.
But all that’s academic really. Clearly the UTiCC Regulations are relevant here, applying to both clause 4 and any attempt by Three to unilaterally change the contract terms.
That certainly helps to restore my confidence in Ofcom. Thanks for posting that, Simon, and for persevering long enough to get it!
The main words, however, to take note of: -
“We cannot resolve individual consumer’s disputes with traders about particular terms in specific contracts. Nor do we determine if a particular term is unfair. Only a court can do that.”
So, again I ask Which?, what do you expect consumers to gain by “paying under protest”?
JSmith
Two comments.
First, the General Conditions set MINIMUM standards for providers. OFCOM’s May 2011 GC9 requirement that providers must allow customers to cancel for variations that are of ‘material detriment’, did not require Three to change iPhone customer’s contracts to give them LESS protection (i.e. by replacing ‘detriment’ with ‘material detriment’). If Three are trying to say that they ***had*** to change their iPhone T&Cs ***because of*** the May 2011 GCs, they are being totally disingenuous. It’s all a smoke screen.
Second, OFCOM exists to offer consumers an ADDITIONAL avenue of protection. Their regulations etc don’t scale back the protection that customers have in contract law, based on whatever their T&Cs might say. Even if Three’s price hike didn’t involve any breach of OFCOM General Conditions, that doesn’t mean the T&Cs (properly interpreted) don’t give them a right to cancel.
You need to keep pressing for a full revision history. That’s the only way to get the bottom of this.
davidjl
On second reading:
Another interesting sentence, given the – largely irrelevant IMO – debate about detriment or material detriment is “subscribers must be able to withdraw from contracts penalty-free following a notice of any materially detrimental contract modifications”.
Note: this neither says nor implies that customers are not entitled to withdraw for less than materially-detrimental modifications. It is, if you like, a minimum standard.
Three’s terms clearly, or at least ambiguously (and see s7 UTiCCR 1999), permit cancellation for lesser changes.
But again, this is only really relevant to contract changes, not a price change which Three claim to be permitted within the contract.
I’m beginning to suspect a rather diabolical series of machinations by Three with regard to misuse of Ofcom’s utterings…
davidjl
Final point on this for now:
Three (and all other mobile providers) are expected to know, understand and abide by Ofcom’s rullings and guidelines. We, the consumers, are not.