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?

[ChrisAO]

No! You are again trying to pick what Ts&Cs you think should apply. As posted by @pwalk earlier (who started this thread btw) he said "No to defend Three, but their specific Data Reward SIM Terms overrule the general terms:"

Did you make your complaint to Three back at the time and get any compensation? A lot of people did and got something, it seemed from several posts that those who went at things like a bull at a gate got very little, if anything!

I  suggest you consult a lawyer before giving advice to others. As I've already said in my reply earlier today, in this specific case if you can show you lost/used some credit as a result of not being told the 200MB (and the 3-2-1 tariff) had been removed then you ought to get some compensation.

I also noted that from the way many posted about the way they used the Sim (I include myself in that) it was hardly a "money spinner" for Three, so I'm frankly not surprised it was withdrawn!

[Monstromart]

I am not picking specific terms; two sets of terms are relevant here: Pay As You Go and Data Rewards SIM. Since Data Rewards SIMs were Pay As You Go, the standard Pay As You Go terms should also apply. These terms are conflicting, and the Consumer Rights Act applies in this context yet you never seem to comment on this. Do you actually understand the Consumer Rights Act, given your apparent expertise on the matter?

I am advising that Three be reported to Ofcom and Trading Standards, which I believe is appropriate given how the situation was handled. For anyone looking to take further action, approaching the Ombudsman is the next logical step. However, I am not disclosing details of my specific case here.

Whether or not the offer in question was a 'money-spinner' is irrelevant from the customer’s perspective; Three should have considered the impact on their business more carefully.

I have better things to do on a Monday night than reiterate myself here. Have fun!

[ChrisAO]

It seems you have "better things to do" than even put your theories to the test. You made a formal complaint to Three since January did you? Doesn't sound like it. If so you'd then have been able to go to the Ombudsman and having proven your case got a ruling for Three to compensate you, I guess not as you haven't said the Ombudsman has supported your case just "I'm not disclosing details of my specific case here".  We don't need "details" - simply "did the ombudsman support your case?" Yes or No?

As has already been said by @pwalk the Data Reward Ts&Cs over-ride the General Ts&Cs (and note, as they were at the time, not as they are now), so nothing else comes into it, whilst the Consumer Rights Act obviously applies there was NO conflict at that time. The newer PAYG Ts&Cs now mention not only 30 days notice BUT also conditions about making a chargeable event every 180 days which were not there before.

As for my remark about "money-spinner" that was purely a personal opinion about why Three chose to get rid of it, NOT whether Three went about it in the right way - which they didn't as we've already said. In fact I suspect it was a bit of a loss-leader. It was the way they went about getting rid of it that might have damaged their reputation. Clearly it upset a number of users using smaller amounts of payg broadband.

[Monstromart]

Firstly, tone it down a bit because I fell you are being extremely rude and I do not owe you any explanation. I am not willing to continue this exchange with you being aggressive. Drop it.

I formally complained, I went to the ombudsman, and I reported Three to Ofcom and Trading Standards.

The ombudsman agreed that terms were conflicting and awarded compensation.

The 30-day notice has always been in the pay as you go terms. The consumer rights act applies.

[ChrisAO]

Jolly good, now that you've explained what happened instead of just giving a load of hot air 🙄

[Monstromart]

And here you go again with the same passive-aggressive attitude... I did not owe you any explanation and I only responded to your questions out of courtesy, but I am glad I could bring a bit of joy in your life.

[SparklySilver]

I have reported to Ofcom. I haven’t yet done Citizen’s Advice (for Trading Standards), but will tomorrow. 

I don’t know who is right about the 30 days’ notice, but if you are right then I’m doing right reporting it. If you’re wrong all I’ve done is wasted some of my own time and a minute of whoever is reading at Ofcom etc. Ultimately probably nothing will happen even if they should have given 30 days’ notice — it’s a year in the past now and most people will have chucked their SIMs by now.

[ChrisAO]

As stated in my other reply the Ts&Cs have changed since then. I, like a number of others, haven't chucked their SIMs, I've got credit and a data pack on it and use it when I'm away/out as required. Usage is very sporadic but it's a better more reliable signal in some locations where I wish to have internet connectivity.

[SparklySilver]

Thank you, I will report to all three of them. It’s just a shambles, and I can’t believe they thought it acceptable to just quietly stop them a year ago. 

[ChrisAO]

See my reply above.