Inflation rises are a sham. If they really needed to increase the price they would increase the new contracts in line as well, but the bastards don't. It's just to pad their already healthy bottom line.

Ban political parties in power who cause inflation!

That's all of them.

Political parties don't cause inflation silly. Things costing more causes (rampant capitalist greed) inflation coupled with the behaviour of banks and monetary policy.

I know they've never been the cheapest but I pretty sure I've never seen a price rise from A&A since 2014. In fact, last month the price dropped by £10 as I've migrated to FTTP.

I'm an A&A customer and I've had both a price cut and a quota increase during my time with them.

Oh A&A do put their prices up !

I seem to recall them increasing their monthly line rental on VOIP lines (SIP Number service) from £1.00 to £1.20 per month.

Mind you it was their first price increase in over ten years and if you contrast them with the grasping main players (BT/Virgin et al) I consider their SIP services a bargain.

It's amazing isn't it, Ofcom rules allow phone contracts to increase by a maximum of CPI + 3.9%, and they're surprised when everybody increases their contracts by CPI + 3.9%

In truth, the general principle of raising prices by the current CPI does make sense to me; after all, costs for the telco will be rising in much the same way as for everyone else.

On t'other hand, I'd be more impressed if more of those price rises filtered through to their employees.

And as I've previously ranted, one thing that really annoys me is that if you have a "handset + airtime" contract, most telcos[*] apply the price hike to the combined cost of these, despite the fact that the handset has already been paid for and delivered .

Quite how the logic for that works (other than "Because money") is beyond me...

[*] O2 is the exception to this rule, and has maintained free EU roaming, to boot. Methinks I'll be switching, come the next contract expiry...

O2 wont tell you when your contract has expired and let you stay paying whatever.

If you do say anything, their new price is complete crap (about £10 less)

Had it recently where someone here (MiL's other half) had a 5/6 year old phone and was still paying £40 odd quid for it. He eventially spoke to them and got a "good deal" of £25 after he bought a Galaxy tab. No idea why, he has no broadband and being ripped off again (but he does this a lot).

We have been telling him for years to get a new phone or contract or move to one of the SIM only deals - he never bothers. Any to make it worse, he has 2 contacts. One for him and one for the MiL !

(they have now upgraded to the latest iphone and Galaxy, so not quite so bad - but he was still ripped off for years)

Was that direct from O2 or from a reseller? Direct they lock you in for 3 years but then drop the device part of the pcm when paid off. Reseller it doesn't change after the lock in period unless you ask.

Pity the poor mobile phone providers. Since the rise of buying hardsets separate to airtime contracts and the drop in roaming fees, they've got to keep the trough filled up with cash somehow.

Ofcom have made it clear that saying

Cost go up by cpi = bad

Cost go up by 2.50 = OK

So I expect the near future sales focus to be on low cost contracts say 20pm that increase at only 2 pm each year over the 5 year contract term.

You can bet your bottom that if this goes through, all the providers will raise their fees max amount 1min before new regulations take effect!

Its really not that arduous to figure out these terms ahead of time and either not sign up or sign up in full knowledge that there will be an unpleasant surprise mid term.

Same thing for mobile contracts with the cost of the mobile built in that keep going at the same level after the minimum term. You didn't take out a plan to buy the phone separately from the airtime, you took out a contract for airtime that throws in a phone for free.

Work on the basis that everyone is out to rip you off in one way or another. Its your responsibility to PAY ATTENTION. Who do you think is paying for those big budget TV ads?

Let the down-votes begin...

The flaw with that argument is simply that you cannot escape it, everyone is doing it. There is nothing wrong with wanting to pay the same contracted price you signed up for, for the duration of the contract. Or do you think it's OK for someone to just extort more money out of you mid way through and have to go through the hassle of moving to someone else who is just going to do the same?

Yes you could go pay as you go, just to get ripped off there too.

As for contracts, anyone who was paying attention as you say, knows they just don't get a phone for free, especially the operator who will just cream off the pure profit from those suckers who keep paying when the contract period has ended.

They're sharp business practices and they're getting away with it because they can. Not because they need the money. Do their staff see the same percentage pay rise every year I wonder?

knows they just don't get a phone for free,

It's often much cheaper to buy refurbished phone outright and a sim only contract.

What a load of BS. To avoid this predatory behaviour, the only answer is not buy any of the services offered? You do realise they're all doing this?

But you said "let the downvotes commence," so you're just begin disingenuous anyway.

Offer me a contract for 1,12, 24, 36 months - and I can choose what I'm willing to pay over that time period.

Short contracts are likely to be more expensive - there is some fixed cost for setting up a new customer.

Long contracts should have an element of security for both parties in the contract - the consumer gets a predictable cost, and the supplier gets a predictable income stream.

Long contracts with "oh, but we'll increase by more than the rate of inflation" are bad (and the current volatility in inflation has highlighted this). You could write long contracts to have an "increasing by 2% each year on the date of the contract".

Or if they really don't want to raise the cost by more than inflation, just don't offer longer contracts...

What they do now is offer a rate that is then upped in April, even if you only bought the contract in March...

a lot of people get confused by maths, exspecially percentages, and how do you know what the increase will be. Before Truss, inflation was low, post Trussonomics mini budgets, it was and still is, high

It was 10% when she took office. Personally I don't regard that as low.

"planned increases in price in pounds and pence, and the date which these would take effect."

So the providers will just pull an amount out their ar*es that is guaranteed to be above inflation with a bit on top.

Just ban mid-contract price increases

The only thing this is going to achieve is that they hike the price from the start, so you will end up paying even more.

“All telcos are struggling to generate new forms of revenue."

That's not my problem. Turn the heating down or chuck stuff on eBay like the rest of us have to. I enter into a contract for a fixed price, and one that has some random "we want more money" increase halfway through is not acceptable. I don't get the luxury of reducing my payment, they should not be able to do the reverse.

"...I don't get the luxury of reducing my payment, they should not be able to do the reverse..."

Agreed! The whole point of a contract is both parties are aware of what it costs. Even a fixed % increase would be better than this bollocks.

It should act as a break clause. They can increase by say 2% each year. Or they can increase by inflation but the consumer has a right to cancel at that point at no penalty.

I think it is a break clause. I believe you can exit the contract without penalty if they change the price in the middle.

The contract break exists if the Telco increase prices above a certain percentage (can't be bothered to look it up) without sufficient notice. As ever there is a loophole here as they learned the hard way that people would terminate contracts and the Telco lost money on the deal because a rumour would get out they were putting up prices. People would go and take out contracts with the most expensive phones then 2 weeks later get a letter or email saying the prices are going up and as such you have the right to cancel your contract - you then got to keep the phone with the only cost being to get it unlocked for other networks.

The loophole is that this only applies if you are not informed prior to taking out the contract. If they tell you we will put the price up by CPI + 3.9% every year and you then sign the contract you can't leave because that cost occurs as you took the contract knowing that would happen.

The problem, as other have mentioned, is that all the companies do this, the regulator lets them, and there is no downside as 'where do you go?'

I don't accept that operational costs rise by CPI + 3.9% for a Telco every year so can only assume this is price gouging and they get away with it year on year. Telcos should have to demonstrate their increased costs to justify increases to the consumer and Ofcom should review these and have to sign off on them before they can come into force.

At least you didn't have your contract arbitrarily replaced with a completely different one.

The telcos entered into long term contracts for supply of network equipment.

Then the government then decided a certain supplier wasn't politically acceptable and caused those contracts to be cancelled.

As the pool of suppliers was then smaller, the replacement kit was more expensive.

And more money had to be spent to remove the existing equipment.

Who did you think would be covering those costs?

I changed my contract with EE January this year, for a less expensive SIM only deal (I have only had SIM only for the better part of 15 years now)

At the same time, I added an extra SIM for my son. I was told, and read the details, that I could gift him any of my [unlimited] data up to a maximum of 100GB per month.

What they didn't say. What their own helpdesk didn't know, was that any data out of the first 100GB per month that I personally used, was taken off of the 100GB I could gift.

So, for example, if I used 10GB, I would only have 90GB left to gift...

I complained. I showed umpteen screen shots and emails that showed beyond all doubt that this wasn't made clear at any point nor was it clear in the contract (read: didn't exist in it).

I was told, repeatedly, by both the ombudsman and EE that it was very clear that I could only gift 100GB of data a month...note that wording. At no point was it clear that this would decrease.

So EE got away with (and I assume still are) misselling to customers and the ombudsman are ok with that. They completely failed to understand the core problem that I raised - either on purpose or simply because the were too stupid.

In fact, EE's own web pages STILL make no reference to this con: https://ee.co.uk/help/mobile/manage-use/pay-monthly/data-gifting

Oh and to top it off, the ombudsman allowed a terms and conditions document to be used as suitable evidence by EE that was dated more than 3 months *after* I signed my contract... not the one that was actually in force at the time.

No... I don't believe that any mobile company, or the ombudsman, give one toss about their customers and will use every possible method in their arsenal to rip us off. Just look at roaming charges, how long they kept charging people the same for a contract + phone despite the phone part being paid off, etc etc...

and the ombudsman are ok with that.

You are discovering that most UK services are only a facade and we pay a fortune in taxes for this *unpleasant organic matter*-show.

Yes and no.

I once had recourse to complain to the FCA - FSA as it was then.

They seriously kicked arse. Long story short, but it was Alliance and Leicester at the time. I was working in Europe, on a secure site. So secure that you couldn't take mobiles onto it so I was at work before they opened and still there when they closed and they refused to use their secure messaging service, saying (quote) that "emails aren't secure..." eh?

Anyway, once I had complained and still got nowhere I went to the FCA and they took no prisoners. Not only did I get the complaint sorted, a written apology but a pretty chunky sum of compensation - which I hadn't even asked for.

Ditto Ofgen. I've had to go to them twice over the past twenty or so years. The first time, we moved into our new build house just as one energy company sold to another (might've been Elf to EDF I think) and somehow our meter never existed on the system.

After regular emails and even letters, I went to ofgen. Amazingly within around a month, they found the meter. Ofgem wouldn't let them backdate more than that month because I'd been trying for over a year to get it resolved. I'd even put the money into a savings account, just in case, so that was a nice bonus. Oh and again, they made them pay a bit in compensation to boot.

I had to go to Ofgen about two years ago, but I can't recall why. I do know it was, once again, sorted pretty quickly in my favour.

I will say that the FCA are brutally on the side of a consumer. To the point it costs an FCA registered company the moment you make a complaint to the FCA. I worked for an insurance company around 15 years ago and they would do everything to avoid it because it was something like £250 just because they got a complaint.

When I worked for a large bank anything that went the Ombudsman cost £250 in fees, so the complaints team had that level of authority to credit accounts. Cheaper in the long run.

If It's got "Of" in the title of the Authority, you know you're going to get "Ripped Off"

Of Wat

Of Gen

RIPPED OFF

Only Fans...

Wait, somebody's still getting screwed. Carry on as you were.

While I understand that mid-contract price rises are inconvenient - there is an ability to terminate the contract without penalty when it happens.

That said, price controls never result in the intended effect.

What is going to happen is that telcos will have to factor in possible inflation to the starting price of the contract and very likely we will be paying more that we are currently paying.

I wonder if OFCOM entered a contest with CMA on which is the most useless organisation.

"..While I understand that mid-contract price rises are inconvenient - there is an ability to terminate the contract without penalty when it happens..."

Yes and no.

Yes if the price rise is not in the contract when you took it out.

No if it is in the contract.

Ok, I could kinda see an inflation-based rise could be justified. But inflation plus 3.9%? Where's the justification for the above-inflation rise?