Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

CerberusSco

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CerberusSco

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hello fellow Caggers. I am really looking for some advice here, not jst for me, but for others that are experiencing the same issue as myself too. This is going to be a very long story, but I will try and keep it as short as possible. I upgraded to a Sony Xperia Z5 in October via an early upgrade, through my mobile network, Three. The phone itself worked fine in a sense of using apps, calls & messages. However, all was not well with the camera which Sony Mobile claim is, "The Worlds Best Camera in a Smartphone." When taking some photos I noticed a blur on the left side of the photographs I had taken using the camera on the handset. So, as per the instructions on the three.co.uk website I arranged a return to Sony Mobile. I was without my new handset for a period of 7 days and Sony Mobile sent me a replacement handset back. However, the same issue existed in that photographs had a horrible blur on the left hand side of photographs taken using the handsets camera. It was at this point I did some more digging and contacted the Customer Service Director of Sony Mobile UK, Mr Gary Acors. What I found was a number of users had reported the same issue with a number of different models in the Xperia Z5 range (Z5 Compact/Z5/Z5 Premium) on the Sony Mobile forums. Not only that, but users on Reddit had also reported the same issue. XDA users have also reported the same issue here & here. Now after a continous 2 weeks of contact via email with the UK Customer Service Director, I was advised the following: Here in lies an issue for me. What methods are service centre staff using in order to test the functionality of the camera and trying to replicate this issue? To me, it doesn't seem they are doing anything near to the level of what other users (including myself) doing, or beyond, to identify/replicate this issue. The many people that have posted in other forums/blogs CANNOT be wrong. We aren't just seeing this or making this up, which says to me that the staff at the service centre (SBE Ltd) are incompetent and aren't doing their job correctly. My questions are as follows. I paid Three UK £102 so that I could upgrade early and as I was originally outside their Returns Period I was unable to send the phone back and swap for a different handset by a different manufacturer. What can I do further to get this issue resolved? I can't keep sending handsets back in the hope of getting a handset abck that doesn't suffer this fault. Some people have had 5 or so replacements and every single one of them has had the same issue with the camera. Can I start a small claims against Sony Mobile UK (or would it be wise to) to claim the cost of cancelling my contract so that I can upgrade to a handset from a different manufacturer. Whilst the issue isn't with the Three network itself, is there anything they can do to get this resolved? I have uploaded a couple of photos to online albums which show the blur issue. Others have done the same through various links on other forums too. I have also made Sony Mobile UK aware of these albums, so they've had a chance to look at them. The common consensus is that the handsets are suffering from a de-centred lens, which is resulting in causing the blur. Links to my albums Xperia Z5 E6653 - Blur/Smudge Camera Issue! Xperia Z5 E6653 Replacement - Blur/Smudge Camera Issue! -EDIT- I should add that the camera was one of the main reasons I upgraded to the Xperia Z5 as well as Playstation Remote Play. The handset replacement I received was refurbished handset and not a like for like replacement (new for new).
  2. Bit disappointing to read, but I assumed as such given the thread was an old thread anyway. Are there ANY circumstances which would warrant eventual court action against them?
  3. I have been reading the stickies at the top of this forum regarding charges/penalties being applied to a customers account for not paying by Direct Debit. I had a similar argument with Virgin Media, but rather than pursue it further with them, I cancelled my contract with them as I only had just over 30 days left to go anyway. However, my attention was then aimed towards my mobile provider, Three/Hutchison 3G, also applying a 'Payment method administration charge' of £4.08 each month to both of my contracts with them. Technically, the 'Payment method administration charge' is just a fancy name they give for the Non DD Payment Charge. I have politely asked Three to provide me with evidence that by not paying by Direct Debit each month causes them significant cost to process my payment. I have had one response so far. What is my next course of action? Is this worth pursuing and are these charges actually unfair? Thanks
  4. Thanks for the reply. No, no letter from GP. Also didn't contact a GP nor NHS24/101 as they would only give advice that any diabetic would normally do in that situation. So no point calling them to get advice I already knew about. Think I'll just call them in the morning an explain the situation as best as I can, but shame on ATOS for failing to mention on ANY letter that you can only cancel an appointment once. I still don't know where I stand in terms of being re-assessed anyway, which is irking me.
  5. I have been on ESA since 2011. In 2012 I had a WCA with ATOS, failed the WCA and successfully won my appeal against them in 2013 with ESA re-instated and placed on support group. Earlier this year (January) I received a ESA50 form. This was not long after the DWP recently decided to defer routine repeat assessments until further notice. Anyway, I completed it, sent it back and called the DWP to clarify that repeat assessments were deferred, to which I was advised that they were and I shouldn't need to be re-assessed until at least 2015. However, imagine my surprise when I received a letter asking me to attend an ATOS medical in late August. This despite no sudden change in my condition (DWP still refer cases where there has been a reported change in condition, typically where someone’s condition worsens.) and also being told by an advisor at the DWP I wouldn't be re-assessed. Where do I stand on this? Should I be re-assessed despite it being widely reported that ATOS have decided to defer routine repeat assessments and also being told by the DWP telling me I wouldn't be re-assessed? What is my next plan of action or what should I do now? Also, My first appointment for the WCA I had to re-arrange due to a prior appointment with my support group. It was then re-arranged for yesterday morning (29/08/2014). However, I succumbed to food poisoning and was in no position to go anywhere. The food poisoning had an adverse effect on my diabetes. I called to re-arrange bang on 9am, but was told I was only allowed to do this once. The trap being, it fails to mention this on the appointment letter. So now, this is going to go back to the Decision Maker at the DWP. I am to believe they will send out a BF223 form. Would I be wise in calling the DWP first thing tomorrow and trying to appeal to their better nature and explain the situation whilst apologising? Thanks in advance
  6. 1. I actually logged into the mobiles.co.uk website last night and checked what I got with my order. My package contained my Note 2, Microsim & mobiles.co.uk welcome pack (of which I have a pdf copy). I certainly did not receive a copy of any T's & C's (yellow copy) from O2 which I would of normally got had I of upgraded in an O2 store or other store. I certainly do not recall anything on their website at the time of upgrading regarding price rises. Even if it did mention it, which I'm pretty sure it didn't, then I intend to use the following as per my original post. 2. Maybe not, but RPI is not recognised as a measure of calculating inflation and as you may be aware the government use CPI to calculate this as it is more accurate. Current CPI is at 1.7%. I can't see how O2 can justify using RPI to hike up prices and it is another point I wish to contest. 3. I have been on the O2 forums and every user has had an email regarding the price rises. I have never received anything regarding them and I first learned about the price hike initially on a forum and then the BBC website (if I recall). I have mentioned this in my initial complaint to O2, who have failed to answer as to why I haven't received it. Any other emails from O2 go straight to my inbox, especially about my bills. By not emailing me or sending me a SMS or letter they have failed to give me 30 days notice regarding their price increase, which I pretty sure OFCOM's rules state an operator has to do. Another question that sits at the back of my mind is why are PAYG customers of O2 not having a price hike? Obviously it is because if they did do that, then people would more than likely get a giff gaff PAYG sim. I am more annoyed at OFCOM regarding this although my utter contempt for O2 is plain to see. OFCOM should of closed these loopholes so that providers cannot exploit customers in the way that O2 have done. It seems a case of the very people that are there to protect consumers are in fact all for the company. The fact that I am either left to pay the increased hikes each month or the remaining monthly line rental to cancel my contract to me is an unfair term. Having informed O2 back in September-ish that I had lost my job and was experiencing financial difficulty and then O2 putting me on the lowest tariff available at the time was a good thing for them to do. However, I hardly ever used my mobile after that as even at £23 per month I couldn't really afford and especially as I needed to call premium and local rate numbers all of which are outside the contract bundle. The price increase for these is a little over 14% putting them over their 10% material detriment rule. It works out as getting a 2.7% baserate rise + a further 14.3% rise on those calls. However, I would expect that given the fact I rarely used my contract phone after experiencing financial difficulty and as such avoided dialling these numbers and used my landline to make such calls to these numbers more often than not, that I probably won't be able to argue material detriment for this. I'm caught between a rock and hard place here, but I think O2 have played dirty here and I think they are wrong in what they are doing. Hence why I want to take this matter to court. My partner has home insurance which I am sure has some form of legal cover on it, so I may try and look into that, explain my circumstances and see what else I can do. It seems pretty adamant from the replies here that my case is weak and I am desperately trying to strengthen it. Unfortunately, I find the law very confusing sometimes. Especially SuperVillain's reply:
  7. So it may be in my best interest to look into this part of the schedule and approach from that angle as opposed to the angles I have been looking at?
  8. I appreciate your input andydd, but I intend to use the arguments above to back up my case against O2. I'd already, some months ago in fact, informed O2 that I was currently suffering hardship due to loss of employment and they kindly lowered my tariff to the very lowest tariff they could put me on. How can they then justify an above inflation increase (if we take the use of CPI & not RPI) and not expect that to cause me material detriment? I'm not doubting your knowledge in anyway at all andydd, but there must be something that I can do to stop this. Unfortunately, O2 have responded with the same copy & paste stuff they sent out to customers the last time they raised their prices (March 2013 I think) and have blatantly used 2 loopholes to raise prices following OFCOMS decision to say fixed means fixed. The Ombudsmen as always are on the side of the company and not the consumer and despite all attempts to resolve this in an amicable matter, small claims is the only way to go at this stage. When I upgraded with mobiles.co.uk in November 2012 I wasn't informed at the point of sale that any price increases would take place during the term of my contract, nor was I sent any contract with my new handset or anything like that to state the same. Also, O2 has stated that they have effectively communicated the price increase with their customers. No they haven't. I haven't received any form of communication to state that O2 will be increasing prices. Not a text, email or letter. The cost of out of bundle prices do cause me material detriment in my eyes and especially the increase in costs to make international calls. I now have relatives that live in Canada and I was going to use my monthly contract to call them and to keep in touch. Unfortunately, due to the increases this won't happen. The whole sorry scenario stinks to high heaven.
  9. The below shows any future price rises was not clearly and adequately drawn to my attention when ordering via mobiles.co.uk in November 2012. The O2 website openly admits that prior to January 2014 their advertising DID NOT reference price rises!!! I am also intending to mention the following: 1. The contract, point of sale material, and the salesperson did not make it clear that a price rise would or could occur during the contract. 2. Raising prices in line with the Retail Prices Index causes me material detriment because (a) my own income has not risen by 2.7% and/or (b) in March 2013 the Office for National Statistics said RPI is no longer a national statistic which can be relied upon. The official measure of inflation is the CPI which rose by only 2%. 3. Therefore I am free to leave the contract without penalty under EU law. I also intend to claim the price rise was unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. As they protect people where a company imposes a term which limits the customer's rights but retains similar rights for the company. So it is free to raise prices but the customer cannot leave without paying a large penalty and is thus trapped into paying the higher price. That seems the essence of a one-sided and therefore unfair term. Also, from 23rd Jan they only apply RPI to the airtime part of the contract - not to the phone. Conclusive proof that by charging RPI on the full cost of my contract including the provision of the phone (which can't possibly have inflation applied to it as they had already paid for the phone), then they have used RPI to increase their profit line and not to reflect the increase in their costs as they claim!! If O2 are going to try to say that I agreed to the price rise by ticking a box (when I ordered online), then I also intend to argue the following: I also contend that the price variation clause is not compliant with the UTCCRs and is therefore unenforceable. A summary of the reasoning and relevant sections of the UTCCRs and the associated OFT guidance groups is below. Under the UTCCRs and the associated OFT guidance on variation clauses, price variation clauses are unfair and unenforceable if: The Price variation clause is discretionary (Schedule 2 Para 1 (L)) Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (J) and OFT Group 10 guidelines especially Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3b It has been used for a purpose other than stated in the contract (Schedule 2 Para 1 (J)) Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (L) and OFT Group 12 guidelines especially Paragraphs 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 It is transferring a risk that a provider is better able to control or anticipate than the consumer Group 18b of the OFT Guidelines especially paragraphs 18.2.1, 18.2.3 and 18.2.5 and 12.3 Has not been clearly and adequately drawn to the consumers attention Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (i) & (L) and OFT Group 9 guidelines especially Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.4 and Group 12 especially 12.4 The contract in relation to the price variation clause and its reasoning are not transparent and therefore are unfair and unenforceable Group 19 of the OFT Guidelines (Regulation 7) especially Paragraphs 19.7, 19.8, 19.9 and 19.10 Because of all of the above does not comply with the overriding principles of good faith. Additionally O2 rely on the provisions of GC 9.6 as a source of power to give it the right to increase prices. However O2 would be aware that GC 9.6 is supposed to be the embodiment of Universal Service Directive (USD) into UK law which allows consumers to exit their contracts without penalty if any modifications to the terms are made. By not having due regard to the source and ultimate meaning of GC 9.6 EE has relied on my ignorance (at the time) of the protection offered to me under the USD and this goes against the principle of acting in Good Faith.
  10. Thanks for that, much appreciated. Basically I filled in the Particulars of Claim when making my claim against them using MCOL. Upon reflection, I thought that it was good enough and should of given a bit more detail or better detail. However, if they (O2) defend and it goes to court, then I am happy that I will be able to submit more evidence to support my claim against them.
  11. Admin, can this be moved to the legal forums please? Thanks.
  12. Hi all, just need some advice. I've filed a small claim against O2 Telefonica using MCOL. My current claim status is as follows: How long do O2 have now to respond? My second query is, if the need arises in the future that I can add more information to my claim? When submitting my claim I was limited (by characters) to describe the reasons for my claim. My reasons for the claim are: 1. The contract, point of sale material, and the salesperson did not make it clear that a price rise would or could occur during the contract. 2. Raising prices in line with the Retail Prices Index causes me material detriment because (a) my own income has not risen by 2.7% and/or (b) in March 2013 the Office for National Statistics said RPI is no longer a national statistic which can be relied upon. The official measure of inflation is the CPI which rose by only 2%. 3. Therefore I am free to leave the contract without penalty under EU law. 4. The cost of certain out-of-bundle texts and calls in O2's recent price rise, as well as international call costs are of material detriment to me. 5. At NO TIME has O2 informed me of any RPI increases by email, text message or by post. Also, the price rise is unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This law protects people where a company imposes a term which limits the customer's rights but retains similar rights for the company. So it is free to raise prices but the customer cannot leave without paying a large penalty and is thus trapped into paying the higher price. That seems the essence of a one-sided and therefore unfair term. By O2's own admission on their own website, it states that "Our advertising has also said 'tariff prices may go up' since January 2013, which wasn't advertised prior to January 2013. As I took out my contract in November 2012 neither mobiles.co.uk nor O2 had informed me of the above. Thanks
  13. Well, I've filed a claim against them using MCOL. I take it, if the need arises in the future that I can add more information to the claim? When submitting my claim I was limited as to what to put for the reason for my claim. My main reasons for the claim are as follows: the unfair terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - according to your T's&C's O2 are free to raise prices but the customer cannot leave without paying a early termination penalty/higher bills, so technically I'm trapped into paying the higher price = unfair contract term. Ofcom - at time of sale the O2 salesperson or mobiles.co.uk did not make it clear that a price rise would or could occur during the contract (this applies to all pre-23/01/14 contracts). EU regs - Directive 2002/22/EC Of the European Parliament and of the Council, Chapter IV – End User Agreements, Article 20 – Contracts (4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed modifications in the contractual conditions). I also wish to cancel under OFCOM's General COndition 9.6. The cost of certain out-of-bundle texts and calls, as well as international call costs are of material detriment to me. The price increase is over CPI and I believe this triggers my cancellation right under GC 9.6, REGARDLESS of what my contract says. Not only that, but the Ombudsmen have not been impartial. They have dealt with some of my friends complaints, yet they have refused to deal with me, even though the complaint has been for exactly the same reason as theirs.
  14. I despise B&W for that reason. I didn't want to link to the press for obvious reasons. I managed to find the ATOS blog about it in the end though. Made me chuckle how the B&W link went to Disney's site though, quite apt really.
×
×
  • Create New...