Is the end nigh for surprise mobile price hikes?

Let’s start with some FACTS here which?

* Ofcom are misleading consumers when they state they started an investigation into this issue in May 2011 – their review which covered this issue as well as others, started in January 2012 and was to be reported on/action taken, by July 2012.

* Ofcom and which? did not inform both callers to ofcom and posters to the various threads set up on which? conversation that this review was taking place, until AFTER both which? and ofcom announced spoke of an extended review, or to put it in plain english, a delay of the findings of the review until January 2013 at the earliest.
Ofcom, it was reported by visitors to this website, posted that the stock answer of “it’s down to the individual to proove detriment” was given, followed with “complain to your mobile phone company directly, or try the ombudsman”. Which? repeated this in it’s replies.
This suggests that ofcom had no intention of acting on this issue after it’s investigations, as mobile companies were consulted during ofcom’s revue, so would have been fully aware of any non action to come, so went ahead and used their small print/undisclosed contracts.
It could also have been an ofcom trade off with mobile companies, as another poster to which? has stated, with the costly bidding of 4G coming up in January 2013, which coincides nicely with the extended review by ofcom.
This also fits in with which? choosing not to force ofcom’s hand into responding to a super complaint (90 days would have seen a result by October 2012) and instead issuing a formal complaint of exactly the same nature and ignoring consumers on why they chose this course of action.

* July 2012 which? stated that they had submitted a “formal complaint” to ofcom as urgency was needed to sort out this issue.
When questioned as to why a “super complaint” was not submitted, as is within which?’s powers and would have given ofcom 90 days in which to respond, Which? stated that speed was of the essence and a super complaint would have been time consuming to put together, therefore delayting the process further.
FACT: Everything submitted by Which? to ofcom in their formal complaint, was exactly the same information that is required of a “super complaint”
When asked for the difference of criteria between a formal and a super complaint submission, which? ignored the question and have not answered.
For which? to act in this manner, on what it has claimed to be THE most posted on issue, is bizarre!

* FACT: Ofcom do not act upon individual’s complaints.
The reason for delaying their findings/action for a further 6 months – from July 2012 to January 2013 at the earliest – is down to which? submitting their “formal complaint” alongside their marketing campaign “fixed means fixed”
The coincidence of ofcom’s delay and the launching of which? fixed means fixed campaign, suggests that which? were well aware of what was happening at ofcom and used the opportunity to gain more coverage in the media and internet, in effect, a marketing exercise.

* Timeline:
July 2012 – ofcom to reveal review findings/action, until which? submitted a formal complaint (to much fanfare in the media) – ofcom announce they will now delay their findings/action until January 2013.
October 2012 – had which? submitted a “super complaint” this would have forced ofcom to reveal it’s findings/action this month – all which? have said on the issue is that they expect ofcom to deal with this issue well before the January 2013 review extension following their formal complaint.

Ofcom have now announced that they will be setting up “a 3 month consultation process” that conveniently stops nothing with the mobile phone companies (whom are breaking the law!) and allows them to continue to sell contracts as “fixed” prices until January 2013 at the earliest, when the expensive bidding for 4G starts.

Ofcom, which? and mobile phone companies have all been in speaking to each other, but consumers are not allowed to see any notes relating to this. Why not?
Ofcom, which? and mobile phone companies have all been complicit in deceiving (strong word but appropriate) consumers.

How which? have the sheer cheek to now post;
“Ofcom must act swiftly

Ofcom’s announcement is definitely a big step in the right direction, but it’s now absolutely essential that this consultation is carried out swiftly and that it results in something that genuinely protects you and me from these unfair rises.
We’ve got this far because you’ve spoken up here on Which? Conversation or have been one of the 32,000 who’ve signed our Fixed Means Fixed campaign. And I think it will take your voice to get the right result from the consultation.”
is beyond me!

If which? wanted it dealt with urgently, why not submit a super complaint?

I close with a psychic prediction….
– Ofcom will find in 2013 that it is no longer acceptable to sell fixed contracts on mobile phones without the *disclaimer showing that prices can be increased by RPI during the term of the contract. If this is not stated on mobile company’s advertising then the consumer will be able to complain to ombudsman and get out of their contract without penalty.
– Which? will claim a “victory for the consumer” demonstrated by the ofcom’s findings/actions. This will be plastered all over the media and online.
– Mobile phone companies will then use all the millions raised to assist in their bids for 4G

This whole issue has shown, to me anyways, that which? are no longer fit to be trusted with the power of issuing a “super complaint” or called a consumer body.
We always knew ofcom (and other regulators) were too close to big businesses, but for a consumer body to be in bed with the same regulator is a disgrace.
Which? you can never claim to be “independant” again!

Simple answer No. Don’t forget its Ofcom that allowed them to hike prices on “Fixed” contracts in the first place. So I can’t see them changing much, maybe reducing the number of increases to one per contract.

I’d rather see the word FIXED being banned for anything but a fixed term/price contract, otherwise they should be forced to switch to using VARIABLE which is what it is.