Used to have the free 200M data sim but it stopped without notification?

[pwalk]

For the last couple of years, I've had an active free 200MB monthly data sim.
Recently after the online account and app has been updated, I couldn't see my allowance or refresh date. The SIM continued working fine (data and incoming calls as well).

I chatted to support and the agent appeared a bit clueless and claiming this has stopped. I didn't see how this could have been stopped since it was working fine and I haven't heard anything about it from Three. When I confirmed that I can still use data on it (while roaming as well, as it used to), the agent's reply was basically "that's great".

After coming off the chat, it has suddenly stopped.
Now, I understand that the service might have stopped and it was a free service, but to cut it off just like that, without notification and after chatting to support who didn't appear to know abut it, is strange to say the least. For all purposes, this was a normal working SIM from Three, albeit for data only. I'm sure something's wrong here?

[Monstromart]

On the same terms they also say that the offer is for life...

[ChrisAO]

Well excuse me. Too many people like you post such vague information (as you did initially) and "opinions" that are not necessarily legally correct and it just causes confusion. YOU were "passive-aggressive" in your initial responses, and two of us have said we don't agree with your interpretation of the Ts&Cs as they stood at the time. The only thing about the situation then, was that it WAS confusing, and as you have now said, the ombudsman has correctly agreed with you. However if you read back through all the posts many got totally different responses from the Ombudsman!.

I've said several times, if people can demonstrate that they've used or lost credit as a consequence of not being told of the changes, then they'd be entitled to compensation.

As far as I'm concerned that is the end of the matter.

[Monstromart]

The tone of my posts was only matching your tone. Unfortunately, this is a forum and each of us is sharing their own opinions, which can be right or wrong. Luckily we have some enlightened members like you who can spread the Gospel and educate us. You are the one saying people are wrong or asking other members if their first language is English, because, according to you, they cannot understand what you are saying. I would suggest reading back a few of your past contributions and see how they sound.

The Terms ARE still CONFLICTING (not confusing, I am sure you know the difference). And, because the consumer is the weaker party in this contract, the Consumer Rights Act can help.

As you are well-educated on this topic, you must be aware that the outcome of one Ombudsman case is not binding for other cases, see their Terms of Reference. It is not surprising that different cases had different outcomes. Perhaps it depends on the way you present your case or how convincing your arguments are. Well, I was suggesting a few valid arguments for other users who wish to take their cases to the Ombudsman or court.

[ChrisAO]

It's clearly a waste of time trying to say that the Ts&Cs at the time were different and I'm not the only one who disagreed with your interpretation. Oh, and your "passive-aggressive" was before I initially responded to you. Endof.

[Monstromart]

That is your opinion. Thank you for sharing. Oh, and your 'passive-aggressive' was also with other users before and not limited to our interaction. You cannot clearly accept that there are views other than yours.

You see, Ombudsmen and courts are a lot about different interpretations and the way facts are presented.

[ChrisAO]

And that is YOUR opinion, and your accusations are starting to get a bit much now. 

You even stated on 09-01-2024, quote "the official ombudsman position on this is that Three had the right to withdraw the offer. I disagree because terms are conflicting - .........." having previously said in the post "The ombudsman are paid by Three." another statement that gives a misleading interpretation. They aren't "paid" by THree. When someone takes a case to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman CHARGES any company a fee (circa £500 iirc) for having to consider the case - that's why a lot of companies will settle complaints so people don't need to go to the ombudsman.

On 28th November you claimed that Three MUST give 30 days notice. After which came my first response to you which you've chosen to claim as passive-aggressive because I didn't agree that this was the case suggesting that some recent posters (which obviously included you) hadn't read all the previous posts (where all the Ts&Cs had been discussed many many times). You've honked on since about "your" interpretations which even the thread starter had since disagreed with you, and you've even suggested that complaining to the regulator (OFCOM) and Trading Standards will help get compensation. Well I believe a number did at the beginning of the year and it seems to have had no effect (maybe because Three had the right to withdraw the product?). It's virtually a year bar a few days since they withdrew the product. Can you link to any decision and fine by OFCOM or Trading Standards etc. AFAIK there's been no such decisions or is there even an open case, so that's that. I have even suggested at this stage how best people might get some compensation, which I will repeat -

The only way you are likely to get any compensation is if you have proof of having lost/used credit as a result of not being aware that the 200MB Data Reward had been removed. (That btw includes the 3-2-1 tariff).

It's obvious we will never agree, so this continues to be a totally fruitless exchange.  I've said Endof once, so maybe this time that's the end of our exchanges.

[Monstromart]

Your opinions were starting to get 'a bit much' in the past days. I reiterate that this is a forum and we are all exchanging opinions. You do not seem to accept that there could be another valid opinion different from yours, and you clearly always want to have the last word. Please go check your other messages and think if you were polite or respectful.

The Ombudsman are paid by Three when you have a case against Three. The fact that you use the verb 'charge' does not change the fact that the Ombudsman are funded by Three. What I said was not misleading. We are talking about Three here, and it is obvious that each of the cases that could be raised from this group of users are all against Three, and it is Three that are paying the Ombudsman for cases against them. It is you instead who do not seem to be aware of how the Ombudsman works and how each case is assessed independently.

I suggest you go read carefully what I said. I have never suggested that complaining to Ofcom and Trading Standards would help anyone obtaining any form of compensation. Only the Ombudsman and eventually the Court is the way to obtain compensation.

Do you know exactly how many people reported Three? If it is only a handful nothing will happen. Perhaps it is not that Three could do what they did but there are not enough reports for Ofcom to start any investigations.

The one you are stating is not the only reason to use to get compensation. It depends on how you present your case.

You keep saying 'Ednof' but you cannot resist the temptation to pick every single word I write and twist it as you like, a bit like the pick and mix you were accusing me of doing. I am flattered by your dedication.