topic Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts in Pay Monthly

O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

adamtemp64 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:59:01 GMT

Loads of threads over this but the salient points are

1 Ofcom rules apply from 23rd Jan 2014 and allow for price rises http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2014/01/checklist-when-taking-out-a-new-phone-or-broadband-contract/ This line beyond what you agreed to at the point of sale

2 O2 issued new T&C that apply from 23rd Jan 2014 that meet the guidelines above. http://www.o2.co.uk/termsandconditions/mobile/our-latest-pay-monthly-mobile-agreement

3 On contracts prior to the giudline implementation date 23rd Jan 2014 the relevant T&C have it covered. the links below should confirm it. I.e. o2 can put it up by RPI.

aug 2013 - Jan 22 2014

(may2013-august2013)

(april2011-april2013)

Complainimg to o2 or ofcom will not exclude you from the rpi rises and in all the T&C o2 have the get out clause if above stated rpi.

These are the facts and however harsh you feel it only Ofcom are to blame and o2 have used the guidelines as implimented

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

davethorp — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:00:09 GMT

Leaving O2 for a network that complies with the OFCOM ruling in the spirit it was intended will however exclude you from future increases. Especially if you are on O2 refresh and can simply buy out a phone plan which is excluded from the increases

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:03:49 GMT

I Hate to be the one to bear Bad News for O2, but the RPI was de-designated by the Office for National Statistics as a recognised national statistic in March 2013.

It was replaced with the new measure of inflation, called RPIJ, which uses a different formula, and almost always reflects the CPI.

The measure of inflation, which is what is mentioned in clause 5.3 of the relevant T&C, is the RPIJ, which is at 2.0%. O2 are increasing prices by 2.7% or more than inflation, so to take clause 5.3(a) as reason for terminating, is a valid legal argument and should be upheld...

I'll update on the course of that argument once it has passed the Retentions Team Manager, who has all the evidence in email.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

perksie — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:08:42 GMT

You seem to have posted the same thing twice for some odd reason.

I've flagged the copy for you.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:10:37 GMT

who? me?

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:13:03 GMT

We know that ofcom are to blame as they seem like a bunch of spineless nerks who can't make rules only guidelines any fool can do that and I bet they get paid loads for it too but the only way to get at O2 for being underhand and not going with the other networks is to leave

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

davethorp — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:21:13 GMT

@perksie wrote:
You seem to have posted the same thing twice for some odd reason.

I've flagged the copy for you.

While there are multiple threads on the same issue, the poster is quite justified in posting the information into each and every thread in case some members of the community are only following certain threads. If the moderators want to merge the discussions into one thread (which I think they should) then that is the time to discuss the issue of posting the same thing more than once

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

adamtemp64 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:48:57 GMT

The full pdf of the guidance goes into more depth remember o2 now use the word will and not maybe in the new t&c and it is teh most prominet part of the t&c intro http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/gc9/statement/guidance.pdf

A1.14 These examples of the application of this guidance are for illustrative purposes:

•

Example 1: discretionary price increases

The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract for services on terms that the core subscription price will be £10 per month. The contract also contains a term to the effect that the CP may increase the agreed core subscription price

8 by up to a certain amount, percentage or index-linked level (such as RPI).9 Ofcom is likely to treat any exercise of the discretion to increase this agreed price during the fixed minimum term of the contract as a modification meeting GC9.6’s material detriment requirement.

Ofcom’s concern is with the application of price and price variation terms which give the CP discretion as to, for example, the possibility, amount and/or timing of a price

increase. We are likely to take a similar approach to that above to the application of contract terms that reserve such discretion and/or are to the same or similar effects as those in example 1.

•

Example 2: agreed prices

The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract on terms that the core subscription price will be £X per month for the first 12-months (or some other period) and £X + £Y (or £X + Y%) for the second 12-months (or some other period). On the basis that the relevant price terms are sufficiently prominent and transparent that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s), Ofcom would not regard the application of the agreed price in the second period as a modification of the contract capable of meeting GC9.6's material detriment requirement.

•

Example 3: agreed prices

The subscriber agrees and enters into a 24-month contract on terms that the agreed core subscription price will be £X per month for the first 12-months (or some other period) and £X + RPI

10 for the second 12-months (or some other period). On the basis that the relevant price terms are sufficiently prominent and transparent that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s), Ofcom would not regard the application of the agreed price in the second period as a modification of the contract capable of meeting GC9.6's material detriment requirement.

A1.15 As set out above, the position in examples 2 and 3 depends on the relevant price terms being sufficiently prominent and transparent that the subscriber can properly be said to have agreed on an informed basis, at the point of sale, to the relevant tiered price(s). Where that is so, the application of the agreed price(s) at the relevant time(s) would not be a modification of the amount he or she has agreed and is bound to pay. Most clearly, this proviso as to prominence and transparency could be met where CPs market offers, and enter into contract terms, in a way that sets out with equal prominence that the contract price is £X in period 1 and £Y in period 2 (or some other periods).

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

perksie — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:03:38 GMT

@davethorp wrote:
@perksie wrote:
You seem to have posted the same thing twice for some odd reason.

I've flagged the copy for you.
While there are multiple threads on the same issue, the poster is quite justified in posting the information into each and every thread in case some members of the community are only following certain threads. If the moderators want to merge the discussions into one thread (which I think they should) then that is the time to discuss the issue of posting the same thing more than once

At the moment their post is only a claim that the O2 figures are wrong, so spreading it around the forum is not on, if they're proved correct it's different.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

davethorp — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:14:47 GMT

@perksie wrote:

At the moment their post is only a claim that the O2 figures are wrong, so spreading it around the forum is not on, if they're proved correct it's different.

Claim validated. Presumably the poster is now justified to continue with their posting

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/february-2013/stb---consumer-price-indices---february-2013.html

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

perksie — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:20:18 GMT

Well done to them if it is.:smileyhappy:

Very unlike O2 and their legal team to get it wrong.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:20:36 GMT

Given AshMason's very interesting piece above regarding RPI & RPIJ - are we expecting to see a partial climbdown by o2?

Or is this part of a general price increase happening across the industry with o2 being the first to take a kicking?

Mmmmm I wonder

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

adamtemp64 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:26:12 GMT

Well the rpi is still published and may not be a national statistic but ofcom refer to rpi in the guideline and o2 do in the t&c o2 do not claim it to be a national statistic.

If o2 change anything it maybe to reflect the new standard.

But the fact still remains o2 can do what they have done in full compliance of the code(not law) and ofcom will not chastise o2.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:42:23 GMT

Adam is right, because the figure quoted in all previous contracts up until 23 January is RPI, they've continued to use that figure. There isn't any requirement to operate CPI or RPIJ figures.

Naturally, if RPI stops being a published figure then O2 would have to substitute it, but while it continues to be published then O2 will use it.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:51:31 GMT

If they have any customers left that is

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:54:02 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
If they have any customers left that is

I'd wager that O2 have an estimated % of customers that they think will leave, in addition to the about 1% who leave each year for cheaper deals elsewhere. I'd also wager that the % they have thought of will be single figures, and they'll be proved right in time, when offset with the % who join o2 from other networks.

The vocal minority is still a relatively small minority.

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:57:04 GMT

Well we can only hope not and that O2 suffers where it hurts in the pockets which must be bulging

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:00:09 GMT

This was broadly similar to the posts I put out two days ago about too many on the network so they can afford to lose a few cheaper end contracts etc (along with a few expensive ones I am sure)

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

davethorp — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:02:13 GMT

If O2 are gambling on that the percentage of churn needs to be a very low 2.6% otherwise their revenue will drop.

Bearing in mind this will also hurt new connections as many more savvy consumers will not agree to contracts where rises are hard wired in when other networks are offering fixed contracts I cannot possibly see the effect on revenue being below 2.6%

Re: O2 mid term rise v ofcom ruling Facts

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:05:47 GMT

davethorp you are bang on.

After all the hype few will cancel. Most will either accept, receive a discount or move to the cheaper options like Giff Gaff and Tesco Mobile. Now let me see, which networks do they use? ??

Will we see them move on price or is this part of a longer move away from handset subsidy?