Britain’s crappy broadband infrastructure could be heading for a major shake-up, with Ofcom exploring the possible use of firing broadband at us using what are known as ‘white spaces’ – namely the unoccupied radio waves used as buffers between TV broadcast channels.

Introduction of white space use could prove to be an enormous boon for those in rural areas with little or no broadband access (and we’re always on the look-out for enormous boons). Other uses for the white spaces could include the ability for digital cameras to immediately transmit photos back to a chosen computer and the ability to control domestic appliances from miles away.

So when last orders comes around, you’d be able to heat up your pizza before you left the pub and have it ready and waiting for you when you got in. That, or your house would burn down after you forgot about said pizza in order to have one last round or go on to a nite klub.

There’s already been a frantic debate over white spaces in the United States Of Americana – Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have joined forces to champion their use but met stern opposition in the shape of entertainment legends Neil Diamond, Guns n’ Roses and Dolly ‘Tits, Teeth & Tech’ Parton, who claim that the new technology would affect the use of radio microphones in their shows.

For Ofcom, the key is to ensure that white spaces can be used safely and effectively without upsetting the likes of Neil Diamond. And that, dear readers, is one hell of an ask.

[Telecoms]

Lies and intimidation are hardly the proper way to go about business, but that hasn’t stopped T-Mobile trying to prevent customers complaining about increases in call charges. Bitterwallet has proof that consumers were deliberately misinformed by T-Mobile staff concerning their right to independent arbitration by the Ofcom-approved adjudicators, CISAS.

T-Mobile recently increased the cost of international roaming for all customers, and have maintained from the beginning that roaming is an “additional service” and as such excluded from the clauses allowing a customer to cancel their agreement without penalty. We proved that the charges are an inclusive part of a customer’s agreement, and earlier this week Ofcom confirmed to Bitterwallet that “if the increased roaming charges are genuinely of material detriment to a consumer then under General Condition 9.3, T-Mobile should inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty.”

From your comments and emails we hadn’t seen any evidence of this occurring, so we suggested how you could move your complaint forward. In situations where customers cannot resolve their complaint with T-Mobile, service providers are required to inform customers of their option to independent resolution through CISAS, an Ofcom-approved arbitration process. Except that wasn’t quite what was happening.

Customer correspondence sent by T-Mobile has been passed on to Bitterwallet, confirming attempts by T-Mobile to coerce the customer into not complaining to CISAS by:

• stating that other customers had already contacted CISAS about the increases in roaming charges, and that CISAS ruled in favour of T-Mobile 100 per cent of the time

• telling customers that any decision by CISAS was final, and as such any complaint could not then be contested in court

• in further conversations with two individual members of T-Mobile’s Complaints Investigations team, a customer was told that T-Moble had consulted with CISAS about the changes before they were announced

To summarise – T-Mobile told customers they had no chance of winning by going to CISAS, that they’d lose any right to take T-Mobile to court by going to CISAS, and that CISAS had rubber-stamped the changes anyway. The first statement is intimidation; we don’t think that’s what a service provider should be saying when looking to resolve a complaint through independent arbitration. The second statement is intimidation and a lie, since the CISAS website states “if you reject the decision, the company do not need to keep to it – you will still be able to take your complaint to court”. And CISAS are very clear that their role is to provide arbitration for resolving complaints independent of either party; not only would any prior consultation or agreement between the two contradict the role of CISAS as an independent adjudicator, but it would step well outside the remit agreed with Ofcom.

As an aside, one email from T-Mobile also stated that:

“I have also spoken with our legal department in relation to your previous email. They have confirmed OFCOM have advised that the forum you got the information from has misquoted OFCOM and they are looking at bitterwallet.com in relation to this.”

It was the first we’d heard of it so we contacted Ofcom about misquoting them, as well as the other statements T-Mobile made concerning CISAS. Ofcom have now told us that they contacted T-Mobile this morning to discuss our findings, and as a result have advised management that the statements made by their staff were not true, were not to be expected in these situations, and should not be repeated in the future.

As an aside, another email from T-Mobile has defined their interpretation of “material detriment” as the increased charges being likely to cause a 10 per cent increase in a customer’s overall payment. Our opinion would be that this should be contested by customers with CISAS. By including line rental, bolt-ons and VAT in the calculation, T-Mobile are making any increase appear less detrimental, since it will be a smaller percentage of the total. However, the changes in roaming charges are universal and so unaffected by a customer’s line rental plan or other additional costs. The point of material detriment is whether the increases will cause your call charges to increase, so as we pointed out, this calculation should be based on call charges alone, not the overall bill.

The ongoing saga concerning T-Mobile has taken a surprising twist today. For six weeks we’ve highlighted T-Mobile’s refusal to deal fairly with customers, with regards to the service provider’s massive increases in the cost of international roaming. The charges form a legitimate part of a customer’s contract, but T-Mobile deliberately excluded them from the clauses allowing the right to cancel without penalty – even if they caused material detriment.

Ofcom has today told Bitterwallet that T-Mobile is wrong to do so, in that customers who are likely to suffer material detriment as a result of these increases should be offered the right to cancel without penalty.

On Friday we published correspondence between T-Mobile and Ofcom, which indicated they supported the consumer’s right to cancel without charge in this matter. We contacted Ofcom for clarification concerning this and their ongoing investigation:

Bitterwallet: When is Ofcom likely to conclude their deliberations and determine whether an investigation is required?

Ofcom: Ofcom has been monitoring complaints and has discussed the issue with T-Mobile. T-Mobile have confirmed to Ofcom that if customers feel that they are genuinely affected, to their material detriment, by the increase in certain roaming charges then they should call T-Mobile to discuss their account. Customers should ask that their inquiry be escalated to a Customer Service Manager who will discuss the available options. If customers are not content with the outcome of those discussions they can use the Dispute Resolution Scheme. T-Mobile is a member of CISAS.

On this basis we do not intend to open an investigation into T-Mobile on this issue.

Bitterwallet: What is meant by the final line of the statement (published here)? It indicates that Ofcom believes if the changes cause will impact on a customer’s bill, then T-Mobile cannot hold them to the existing terms and conditions.

Ofcom: It is our view that if the increased roaming charges are genuinely of material detriment to a consumer then under General Condition 9.3, T-Mobile should inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty. If T-Mobile and the customer are in dispute over whether or not the increase in charges is of material detriment, then the customer can use the Dispute Resolution Scheme.

So Ofcom have determined T-Mobile should have offered the right to cancel without penalty, but also decided there will be no investigation into the service provider’s actions. What does that mean?

First, Ofcom is saying that if you will suffer material detriment – if your bill will increase as a result of the new charges – then T-Mobile should have given you the right to cancel. How do we define material detriment? That’s a little trickier – Ofcom told us “there is no set percentage to determine “material detriment” – it is assessed on the particular circumstance of each case.”

That’s very unhelpful, but because it’s so ambiguous we’d suggest it allows two ways to prove the new charges affect you:

• have you been abroad in the past three months? Check your bills – if 10 per cent (or more) of the total call charges are as a resulting of roaming charges, it’s reasonable to assume you will suffer material detriment in the future (we’re suggesting 10 per cent because this is an unofficial figure that has been suggested by Ofcom and other service providers to customers in the past)

• have you made plans to travel abroad in the next three months, or for a significant amount of time while under contract? If so, it’s reasonable to assume the new charges will be of material detriment to you

Follow the procedure as stated by Ofcom above, since T-Mobile have told Ofcom they will follow it. If T-Mobile refuse to resolve the issue then contact CISAS for arbitration. Include copies of your bills or travel arrangements that prove the likelihood of material detriment in the future, and a copy of this post too. Therefore, you’re providing a) proof of likely material detriment and b) a statement from Ofcom stating that T-Mobile should have offered the right to cancel without penalty in this particular instance. We’re not sure how CISAS can rule against you in this situation since Ofcom has clarified its position concerning T-Mobile, but no doubt we’ll be surprised. Let us know the outcome – we’d be interested to know what To-Mobile or CISAS define material detriment.

The second point is fundamental to this whole affair: according to Ofcom, T-Mobile should have informed customers of their right to cancel without penalty. But did they? Since material detriment is wide-open to interpretation, how did T-Mobile interpret it? In other words, were there any customers informed of the increased charges and their right to cancel?

Our posts on this story has received several dozen emails and several hundred comments over the past two months, and we don’t recall anybody who mentioned this happening. Perhaps nobody at all had travelled or worked abroad recently, but that’s very unlikely. Ofcom refused to clarify whether T-Mobile had notified customers, stating “the substance of our discussions with T-Mobile is confidential”.

So it’s over to you – have you travelled abroad in recent months, and have roaming charges account for 10 per cent of your recent bills? If so, did T-Mobile contact you? At the moment, judging by all of your comments and emails, we can only conclude that nobody was informed of their rights by T-Mobile, that T-Mobile refused customers with valid reasons for cancellation of their right to do so, and that T-Mobile broke Ofcom’s General Conditions – in which case, the regulator should reconsider opening an investigation.

It may seem like the T-Mobile debacle is but a fading memory, with the mobile operator stonewalling any customer who pointed out their behaviour over increasing international roaming charges was, in a word, wrong. Their terms of service deliberately tied customers up in knots, and despite roaming charges clearly been included in a customer’s agreement with T-Mobile, they were excluded from critical termination clauses by clever penmanship.

But here’s something of interest – an official response from Ofcom sent just a few hours ago, to a Bitterwallet reader who used the letter templates we provided last month. Yes, it’s still rumbling on – especially at the top of the food chain:

“We are aware of these changes and are looking into the matter to determine whether any further action is appropriate.

“In relation to your specific individual complaint, if you believe that the changes will cause a substantial increase in your bill (and thus a ‘material detriment’); you should raise this directly with T-Mobile.

“T-Mobile should consider this complaint and, if they agree that it will result in material detriment, should allow you to leave the contract without penalty. If T-Mobile refuses to offer this and you still believe material detriment will occur, you should follow T-Mobile’s complaints procedure in their code of practice. This is available through T-Mobile’s website at: www.t-mobile.co.uk/help-and-advice/our-brochures/corporate-information/.

“If the changes will not impact on your bill i.e. you rarely travel abroad, T-Mobile can hold you to the existing terms and conditions.”

A couple of points to take from this:

- the regulator is still investigating the matter, even though it’s well over a month since T-Mobile announced the increases in roaming charges. Why so long, Ofcom?

- the inference in the final line is that if the new charges will cause material detriment, then in Ofcom’s opinion T-Mobile can’t hold you to the existing terms and conditions.

Does this mean the regulator is on the side of those who will be screwed into the floor by the changes? A decision over the possibility of further action would no doubt clarify matters. We’ll be in touch with Ofcom shortly and let you know.

There’s almost nothing as infuriating as some idiot ringing you up when you’re having your tea and trying to sell you tat. The only thing that grinds my gears more is when it’s some automated service – especially that one with the foghorn and the sea-captain.

Like all automated things, they often don’t work, and instead of hearing a badly recorded message, you get absolutely nothing, giving the impression that a robot has rung you up and forgotten that it isn’t able to do the whole heavy-breathing thing.

Concerning the latter, companies that pester us with these silent calls could be facing eye-watering fines of up to £2m under government proposals unveiled today.

So what causes these silent calls? Well, basically, call centres use machines to ring large numbers of people in one swoop. Numbers are dialled automatically and customers are meant to be connected with a human when they pick up. However, if all the lines are busy, the line is silent.

Ofcom gets around 400 complaints a month about this and, worryingly, it seems that these people are targeting pensioners, as Ofcom found that 35% of over-65s had received silent calls in the six months to June.

As it stands, Ofcom can fine companies up to £50,000 if they persistently make silent calls, but the government is proposing the maximum be increased to £2m.

A few years back, Carphone Warehouse got slapped with a fine of  £35,000 for irritating everyone and last September, Barclaycard got the maximum fine of £50,000 for the same thing. There is a solution too. To reduce silent calls, you can register your telephone number by ringing 0844 372 2325 while the Telephone Preference Service on 0845 070 0707 allows people to opt out of receiving unsolicited sales or marketing calls. I hope they don’t sell your information on to other companies…

[The Guardian]

An Ofcom representative yesterday. It's not really.

One of the most common complaints from mobile phone users is the absence of reception, something that is fairly integral to, er, having a mobile phone.

Now Ofcom have called for mobile providers to allow new customers to enjoy a ‘try before you buy’ period, allowing them to discover just how good the coverage is in the places where they need it most. As opposed to giving their postcode to someone who is desperate to sell them a mobile phone and believing them when they say ‘Yes, great reception in that street of which you are speaking’.

Ofcom have found the 36% of mobile users have experienced ‘not spots’ – areas where they are completely unable to get a signal, with 18% experiencing it regularly. A passer-by we spoke to rated the chances of Ofcom’s suggestions becoming standard practice as: “Fucking zero mate. You’ve got more chance of painting a set of tits on a bishop.”

Use the comments section below to tell us how you feel about it. Would you prefer to have good reception or bad reception? Is reception even an issue for you or do you just like to hold, stroke and lick your mobile instead of using it? Is this one of the most pointless paragraphs you’ve ever read in your life? What about that new Dr Who? He’s a bit young isn’t he?

The T-Mobile cancellation saga is still rumbling on with the mobile provider still refusing to allow customers to cancel their contracts following the recent steep hike in international roaming charges, even though it seems blindingly obvious that the T-Mob don’t have a frigging leg to stand on.

Some of you have been using our template letters and are being stonewalled by T-Mobile’s refusal to back down over this one. If you’re serious about trying to cancel your contract, it’s probably well worth digging in and locking horns with them.

Out of the blue, we’ve received a fresh quote from a spokesperson at communications regulator Ofcom, which should help clarify how you can escalate your grievance with T-Mobile. Ofcom said:

“We are aware of the changes to T-Mobile’s roaming charges and we are looking into the matter to determine whether any further action is appropriate. In the meantime, you may find it useful to know that Communications Providers in the UK are required to implement and comply with an Ofcom approved independent Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme (ADR) for the resolution of disputes between the Communications Provider and its domestic and small business customers, in relation to the provision of public electronic communications services (where a small business is one with 10 or fewer employees/volunteers).

T-Mobile is a member of CISAS which is based at:

24 Angel Gate
City Road
London EC1V 2PT

Email: info@cisas.org.uk

Tel: 020 7520 3827
Fax: 020 7520 3829

If you have exhausted the T-Mobile complaints procedure and you remain unhappy, you should request that T-Mobile sends you a letter which outlines their final position. This is known as a ‘deadlock’ letter. Once you have received this, you will be able to take the dispute to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme, in this case CISAS. You are also able to take your dispute to an ADR scheme if it remains unresolved after a period of 8 weeks after the date which you first complained.”

So there’s some fresh advice straight from the people who should ultimately be able to decide whether or not T-Mobile are going back on the complicated wording in their contract. We’ve got a feeling this one’s going to rumble on for a while longer yet. Keep us up to speed with how your battles with T-Mobile pan out…

Last week we provided everything you needed to cancel your T-Mobile contract, after the company announced charges for international roaming would increase sharply. We talked you through T-Mobile’s own Terms and Conditions that clearly state their roaming service forms part of your contract, and looked at how T-Mobile play with the wording of the terms to deny customers the right to cancel without charge.

Since then, T-Mobile seems to have succeeded sweeping any trouble under the carpet. Nobody is brave enough to take on a mobile phone operator, and why should they be? Who wants to risk their credit rating over a phone contract, even if they are being treated unfairly? Despite both consumer law and Ofcom conditions appearing to back the consumer, T-Mobile are blatantly ignoring it, justifying their decision by stating international roaming is not a core service.

Speaking of Ofcom, let’s remind ourselves of the regulator’s general condition 9.3 which all mobile operators must adhere to. You’ll note it doesn’t distinguish between core and non-core services, but considers changes to any condition in a contract:

Where the Communications Provider intends to modify a condition in a contract with a Consumer which is likely to be of material detriment to the Consumer, the Communications Provider shall:

(a) provide the Consumer with at least one month’s notice of its intention detailing the proposed modification; and

(b) inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Consumer.

There’s nothing whatsoever left to interpretation in that wording. We contacted Ofcom and asked for their thoughts on the matter:

We are aware of the changes to T-Mobile’s roaming charges and we are looking into the matter to determine whether any further action is appropriate. In the meantime, whilst Ofcom does not deal with individual consumer complaints, customers may be interested to know that they can contact Consumer Direct for assistance.

Consumer Direct is the government-funded telephone and online service offering information and advice on consumer issues funded by the Office of Fair Trading and delivered in partnership with Local Authority Trading Standards Services. They are able to look at individual consumer complaints.

So Ofcom are already considering an investigation; hopefully if enough customers contact Ofcom and make their feelings known, it’ll help the regulator reach the appropriate conclusion. We’ve drawn up a letter template for you to send, or you can call Ofcom on 0300 123 3333. In the meantime, if you have any communcation from T-Mobile explaining, please let us know in the comments below.

Could this be one of the most powerful men at Ofcom?

If you’re looking to enjoy the high life, you should try working your way into a position of influence at broadcasting and media regulator Ofcom. Their staff have enjoyed over 700 free meals and drinks over the past two and a half years, according to cold, hard facts released under the Freedom Of Information Act.

Around 10% of those soirees were funded by the BBC, with the bills for others being paid from the purses of the likes of ITV, Channel 4, Yahoo, the US Embassy, Vodafone and Harry Ramsdens. Except for that last one.

Not only that, the Ofcom executives have also had a regular stream of gifts coming their way from various sources. The lovely pressies range in quality from the useless (a book of poetry, some stamps and a tie) to the brilliant (malt whisky, a jar of sweets and a Nepalese hat.)

We’ve approached Ofcom to see if any of their high-ranking officials would like to come for a kebab from Fat Alan’s in the precinct so that we can get to the bottom of this whole T-Mobile cancellation thing, but they are yet to respond. If they don’t fancy it, we’ll gladly send them a doner that they can reheat in the office after returning from a lunchtime piss-up.

In the week when we’ve uncovered a way that T-Mobile customers can get out of their contracts early, it seems that Ofcom have finally decided to tighten up the mobile phone market with some new regulations.

Introduced on Wednesday of this week the new rules focus as much on third party sellers as the core network providers and follow a large increase in the number of complaints about cashback plans that are almost impossible to follow.

You know the sort of thing we’re talking about – take out a £30 a month price plan, but every time there’s a full moon, send the supplier a photocopy of your latest bill, a pinch of ground ginger and a drawing of a horse’s shin and you’ll get £25 back.

Ofcom say they have no authority over third party sellers which has resulted in the arrival of various ‘cowboy’ firms arriving in the marketplace. Now the onus is on the network providers to carry out diligent checks before getting involved with third party sellers.

Mis-selling is also covered in the new regulations – for example phone retailers who promise a signal in an area where there isn’t one could be hit hard from now on. The phone providers themselves will face heavy fines, forcing them to keep a closer watch on who they associate their services with.

Have you been stung by a bullshit cashback deal? Maybe you were sold a phone but can only get a signal if you climb on to your roof and cling to the chimney while chanting the Lord’s Prayer backwards. Come on, it’s Bitterwallet’s National Mobile Phone Provider Hate Month again, so let’s get a’namin’ and a’shamin’…

So T-Mobile, then. We’ve promised you some answers and we’ve delivered. Last week the service provider told you it was increasing the cost of international roaming by up to 120 per cent, and then told you roaming charges aren’t covered by your rights to cancel without charge, meaning you don’t even have the right to complain, let alone cancel. We disagreed, and got to work sifting through contracts and talking to folk far more clued-up than us. Trust us when we say we’ve had off-the-record conversations with the right people on this matter.

What are T-Mobile up to?

T-Mobile are claiming you have no right to cancel your contract without paying a penalty – even if the changes will cause your bills to increase (often referred to as financial or material detriment) – because the proposed increases fall outside the terms of your agreement. That’s not strictly true; in fact T-Mobile have created an artificial loophole in your contract to prevent you having any rights in this instance, one that no ordinary customers would be expected to spot.

If we go back to T-Mobile’s Terms and Conditions, your Agreement is defined as:

• The contents of the Terms and Conditions themselves
• The “What it Costs” Booklet for the relevant Price Plan
• The “What it Costs” Booklet for Non Standard Charges

Charges for international roaming are in the Booklet for Non-Standard Charges, so they are clearly part of your agreement with T-Mobile. There’s no question of it whatsoever – so what’s the problem?

In clause 2.11 T-Mobile says it has the right to change the Terms, while in 2.11.2 states the customer has the right to cancel the Agreement without a cancellation charge if there is a change that will cause material detriment. This is where the definitions come unstuck – the Terms are treated as a separate entity to your Agreement, and while the Terms are part of your Agreement, your Agreement isn’t part of the Terms. By using the word “Terms” instead of “Agreement” in the clause above, T-Mobile are restricting the cancellation right to the Terms themselves.

So when you reach clause 7.2.3 where T-Mobile explains the customer’s right to cancel without penalty, you discover this is restricted to changes in Terms or Price Plans only. Nothing in your rights applies to changes to the charges in the “What it Costs” Booklet for Non-Standard Charges, even though are undeniably part of your contract since they’re included your Agreement.

Is it legal?

The bottom line is that T-Mobile are trying to use legal penmanship to confuse you and restrict your right to cancel, even though the proposed price increases affect your contract with them. So the question isn’t whether the contract gives you the right to cancel without charge – T-Mobile have deliberately engineered it so it doesn’t. The big question is - is your T-Mobile contract unfair and against the law? That’s obviously a matter for the courts to decide, not a couple of daft lads in an office like us. However, in our opinion this behaviour falls foul of both Ofcom guidelines and consumer law, specifically the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). We won’t go into the reasons here – you can read those in in the letter templates we’ve provided below.

General stuff on cancelling contracts and the law

If by this point you’re full of hell and want to cancel your contract, a note from us – you’re a big boy now, the decisions you make are your own. We’re not telling you to terminate your contract – we’re happy to offer advice and tools to take your fight further, but ultimately you are responsible for your actions. Got it? Good.

• you don’t need T-Mobile’s consent to terminate a contract. You can always terminate a contract and stop your direct debit by informing your bank. The issue is whether or not you’ll be liable for damages for breach of contract or other charges, and whether these costs would be unenforceable and declared as unfair under the UTCCR.

• the law and not the contract governs, so unfair and artificial restrictions in the contract will be unenforceable under the UTCCR. Again, consumer law beats a contract every time. The ultimate decision is for the Courts – not T-Mobile. The supplier’s opinion is not determinative and nor is that of the regulators. Only the Courts can say whether a term is fair or not.

• ultimately, if you refuse to pay termination charges on the basis they’re unfair, will T-Mobile be prepared to sue you for a Court Order? If they do –you have a defence. No summary enforcement is allowed where there is a genuine dispute so they cannot collect disputed sums as debts.

What you need to do if you’re going to terminate your contract

• If you do nothing you will be treated as accepting the changes and will not be able to change your mind later

• Check the date of any text or other advice to you – if you do want to terminate you must do so immediately and within 30 days of the notice given to you of the increase

• we’ve prepared a Termination Template letter (well, a friend prepared it) -  just add your details and select from the options and post. Keep a copy and send it by registered post.

• The contract requires that you must terminate by telephone, so do this as well. Remember, you are telling and not asking them.

• You need to pay for any items/use for the last 30 days—not included in your advance monthly payment. If you’ve incurred such charges, call and find out what they are.

• You can cancel your direct debit and send any final payment for any extra charges for the last 30 days by a cheque marked “in full and final settlement of all obligations.” They may try to charge you a Payment Handling Charge for this.

• If you are still within the minimum term, you might like to take individual legal advice and/or at least find out what T-Mobile would claim from you in charges, so you know your potential exposure if the court found the term was fair in your case.

• If you want to complain to Ofcom, that’s certainly a very good way to pile the pressure on T-Mobile – see the Ofcom Template letter below.

• If you also wish to complain to the Office of Fair Trading, we thought of that too.

Finally, just so we’re we fully understand one another – please don’t take any of this as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. We assume no duty or liability to you – if you’ve been out drinking with us, you’ll know we can barely assume duty or liability to ourselves.

T-Mobile Termination Template Letter

T-Mobile Ofcom Template Letter

T-Mobile OFT Template letter

[UPDATE 16/9 - we've now published a full guide to help you cancel your T-Mobile contract. You'll find it here.]

It’s interesting to compare the reaction to T-Mobile’s planned changes to roaming charges, to that when Orange attempted to proceed with charge hikes. The difference (aside from the nature of the changes) seems to be a lack of preparation; Orange were entirely inconsistent when customers asked to cancel without fee – if one operator said no, you phoned back and found another that said yes. Success stories galvanised customer resolve and ultimately forced Orange to reverse their decision.

Perhaps T-Mobile saw how Orange floundered in the face of customer backlash, because they’ve gone about matters very differently. Every operator to date has stuck to the script – “the customer has no rights in this matter” – and refused to enter into a dialogue. This lack of acknowledgment seems to have led customers to the inescapable conclusion that T-Mobile must be correct and able to increase roaming charges by up to 120% without retribution.

We don’t agree. Later today, we’ll talk you through their contract and how it stands up to consumer law – consumer law trumps a contract on any day of the week. We’ll also provide letter templates and advice so that if you wish to, you can take your fight further.

For now, we need to get the attention of Ofcom concerning this matter – if the regulator becomes involved, T-Mobile will have to take notice.

• have you used roaming services while in your current contract? If you have, then you have grounds to argue that any significant increases will cause financial detriment. If you haven’t but are due to use your phone abroad, there’s still an argument the charges are unfair.

• call T-Mobile customer services and say you are cancelling your contract

• if they say there’s an early cancellation charge, tell the rep you believe their T-Mobile’s behaviour may be unfair as cited by The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Ofcom guidelines. Ask for the name of the operator and their duty supervisor.

• call Ofcom on 0300 123 3333 and speak to their advisory team. Make a complaint giving all the details you have; ask what action Ofcom will be prepared to take.

[UPDATE 16/9 - we've now published a full guide to help you cancel your T-Mobile contract. You'll find it here.] We’ve had a veritable stack of emails and comments from readers asking when we’ll have more information concerning T-Mobile’s plans to increase international roaming charges. The changes, which will see the cost of some calls rise by 140%, are set to be introduced on October 26th. Last week customers began receiving texts alerting them to the new charges.

We initially picked through T-Mobile’s Terms of Service and came to the inescapable conclusion that current customers were well within their rights to cancel their contract without penalty. T-Mobile don’t see it that way and are insisting that international roaming is an additional service, meaning they are free to dictate whatever charges they see fit without argument. Worse still, unlike our recent dealings with Orange where terrible internal communication meant the provider failed to show any consistency in behaviour, T-Mobile are very well organised and, seemingly without exception, are denying all requests to cancellation without penalty.

This is a pretty complex issue so we’re taking our time reading up on the relevant consumer law. This includes the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), as well as guidance on unfair charges from the Office of Fair Trading and Ofcom. Some of the most interesting stuff comes from the OFT (page 57), which says:

Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has become bound to pay is obviously objectionable. That applies particularly to terms allowing the supplier to charge a price on delivery of goods that is not what was quoted to the consumer when the order was placed. It also applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where consumers are ‘captive’ – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel… such a clause is particularly open to abuse, because consumers can have no reasonable certainty that the increases imposed on them actually match net cost increases.

A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways:

Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within narrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. As such they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer’s attention.

Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are free to escape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free to cancel, they must not be left worse off for having entered the contract, whether by experiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture of a prepayment) or serious inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences.

T-Mobile’s changes to international roaming and subsequent refusal to allow early termination without charge go against both the wording and the principles of this guidance; a customer cannot continue to use their phone as they have previously without incurring financial loss (nor can they use it as they had previously agreed to), or they will suffer serious inconvenience by not being able to use their handset abroad as a result of the increased charges. There seems little doubt that in this situation, customers are captive in their contract and vulnerable to abuse.

T-Mobile’s continued insistence that a customer’s ability to make roaming calls is an additional service – despite their own definitions, terms and website stating otherwise – makes the matter difficult to resolve easily. We will have more information for you through the week, including letter templates and in-depth advice.

In the meantime, if you have any dealings with T-Mobile concerning this matter, tell us about it in the comments below. And if you are a T-Mobile customer and feel strongly about this, contact Ofcom as soon as possible to register your complaint – let us know what they say.

UPDATE: Orange has now scrapped the ToS change following consumer upset and cancellations. Read full update and official statement here.

As promised, an update on our requests for statements from both Orange and Ofcom. So far, the service provider have told us they are “looking into it”, but the regulator has been in touch. All of you who commented that Orange representatives told you Ofcom had approved the changes to their Terms of Service? That appears to have been a bare-faced lie. This is what an Ofcom spokesperson told Bitterwallet this afternoon:

I’ve looked into this and can confirm that Ofcom hasn’t approved any changes that Orange has made to its prices. We are in fact now talking to Orange to stop their customer service advisors from telling that to consumers.

This is where we are on it. General Condition 9.3 is one of the rules that all communications providers have to adhere to. Orange can charge for 087 numbers but if it makes changes to customers’ contracts it has to comply with GC9.3 which says:

GC 9.3 Where the Communications Provider intends to modify a condition in a contract with a Consumer which is likely to be of material detriment to the Consumer, the Communications Provider shall:

(a) provide the Consumer with at least one month’s notice of its intention detailing the proposed modification; and

(b) inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Consumer.

Ofcom has not made any ruling on whether the current alteration to the charges are of material detriment, such a determination would be the result of an investigation.

We’re monitoring the complaints we’re receiving at the moment to decide whether to open an investigation into this. In the mean time, if a consumer wants to terminate their contract and are unable to, we advise them to follow the usual complaints procedure. This is set out in this booklet here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/guides/complain.pdf.

UPDATE 12/08: Orange has now scrapped the ToS change following consumer upset and cancellations. Read full update and official statement here.

UPDATE 10/8: Ofcom have now responded to Bitterwallet’s request for a statement on the current situation. You can read it here.

What’s going on, then? Can you cancel your Orange contract or not? By their own terms and conditions, the answer is yes. If you call them however, the answer will be yes, maybe or absolutely not – although this may change throughout the duration of the call. There’s no consistency in the reasons given either way. The whole thing is a mess and Orange are tying themselves in knots as they try to fob off their customers.

We’ve spoken to the Executive Office at Orange, and were told that customers must be eligible under specific criteria if they wish to cancel, although the office wasn’t aware of what the criteria were. They said the retentions department are working off a spreadsheet that states whether a customer is eligible or not. When we asked where these criteria were recorded in the customer contract or Orange’s Terms of Service, we were told they weren’t, although that we should be aware that while customers are eligible to cancel under the terms and conditions (!) Orange are simply raising their call charges in line with other networks.

So on the one hand customers are eligible to cancel, but on the other it’s only if Orange wants to let them. That pretty much sums up where we are at the moment. We’re waiting to hear back from Orange for an official statement, and we’ve also asked Ofcom to comment too, given that operators are telling customers that Ofcom have rubber-stamped the changes.

We’ll let you know when we hear back from either one, but in the meantime there is action you can take now. If you want to cancel but have so far been refused, please take note:

• it’s approximately three weeks since Orange first began advising customers of the changes. As per their terms and conditions, after 30 days it will be presumed that customers accept the new charges. Even if you haven’t been successful in cancelling your contract, you should formally state you refuse to agree to the new terms. Bitterwallet reader Lewis Roberts sent a great email to Orange (more below) – use this as your template and send it via this page on their website. Also send a copy to executive.office@orange.co.uk and customer.services@orange.co.uk, and by registered post to Orange Customer Service, Correspondence Department, PO Box 10, Bristol, BS32 4BQ.

• if you’re getting nowhere with customer services, call Orange’s executive office on 08000 790 134. Explain that regardless of your current usage, the changes Orange are making are outside of your plan, therefore you have a legal right to cancel and you are formally stating your refusal to accept the new Terms of Service. The customer service team here cannot help you – they’ll refer you to the retentions department – but it means you are formally stating your refusal to agree to the terms (thanks to Kernal). As always, remain calm and polite.

• call Ofcom’s advisory team on 020 7981 3040 or 0300 123 3333. They will only offer advice on the matter, give you a reference number and most likely refer you to CISAS – an independent dispute resolution service. Regardless, register your complaint with Ofcom – they are more likely to investigate the matter if they feel there is a widespread issue.

• if you have the time and inclination, you can ask Orange what’s going on via Twitter. They may not repsond, but it again raises the profile of the issue.

Meanwhile, here are four questions we’d like Orange to answer:

Why did an Orange spokesperson go on the record and say all customers have the right to cancel?

Orange seemingly has a very short memory. Mobile News reported on this story at the end of July, which included this quote from an Orange spokesperson:

“Orange has increased its minimum call charge from 5p to 15p. So what this means is that if you go over your inclusive minutes, the first minute is now 15p and any other minute of that same call is as per your current out-of-bundle rates.

“Whilst our terms and conditions do allow customers to terminate their contract as a result of this change, we are confident that the majority of our customers will not be affected by this because of the nature of their talk plans and their usage.”

So let’s be clear on this: an Orange spokesperson told the press the majority of customers will not be affected because of their usage, but that the terms and conditions allow them to terminate their contract as a result.

We’ve spoke to Mobile News, and the quote is solid – these are Orange’s own words. Are they attempting to reverse course because the changes have been highlighted by the likes of Bitterwallet and MSE, and so many people are attempting to cancel?

(more…)