»
Taking mobile networks to court for cashback paym...
(Page 1)
Welcome to MoneySavingExpert.com's Forums!
THE EASY WAY: All the Forum's best tips go in MoneySavingExpert's weekly E-mail Plus you'll get all the new guides, deals and loopholes. It's free & spam free
IMPORTANT! This forum isn't moderated. If you spot a spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post or PM please email abuse@moneysavingexpert.com
Remember, this is an open forum! Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info. Don't post links for personal gain. Except in the referrers section and always declare any interest.
If you have decided to take court action against your network provider over cashback problems please report them here so that others can learn from your experiences.
Last edited by MSE Wendy; 29-11-2007 at 10:58 AM..
Here is some info I got from the Which website that suggests Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the one to use against them. I have amended the content to make it specific to me and put it into a complaint letter to Vodafone, but the gist is fine as it is. I will post again when I have a result:
I have 2 phones purchased through Mobile Media Systems Ltd during July of last year. Both were purchased with a 12 month contract with Vodafone at £35 per month with a promise of 12 months free line rental. I was due to receive a total of £420 in cash back cheques during my contract period for each phone purchased.
I had sent my first claim form (which has since been returned to me by Royal Mail) when Mobile Media Systems Ltd trading as Phoneboxdirect went into administration. I have since been offered a half-price line rental by you on one of my contractswhich I have accepted without prejudice to pursuing the matter further. However, the unit set up to deal with this issue at Vodafone has failed to return my calls in relation to the other contract.
By allowing Mobile Media Systems Ltd to offer airtime contracts, I contend that Vodafone has represented to consumers that Mobile Media Systems Ltd had Vodafone’s authority to offer airtime on its behalf at certain rates including reduced rates through the use of cash back. As it was not specifically mentioned in the contract that the cash-back was provided by Mobile Media Systems Ltd and not Vodafone, I further contend, therefore, that Vodafone is liable to meet the cash back on the basis that the cash back forms part of the airtime contract.
In addition: Arguments under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
A “pay monthly” airtime contract is a credit agreement. Therefore, Vodafone is subject to the “unfair relationships” provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
I believe the airtime contract to be unfair, by reason of omission by Vodafone, as provided for in the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I contend that Vodafone failed to take reasonable steps to control the marketing of its services by Mobile Media Systems Ltd, so as to prevent customers from being induced to sign up for contracts by misleading or otherwise unfair cashback schemes, and its failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that Mobile Media Systems Ltd would remain in existence and have the financial ability to meet their cashback obligations.
I suggest that a court would have the power to discharge sums payable by me under the airtime agreement with Vodafone and to require Vodafone to repay sums previously paid by me, under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act, of a total of the whole amount of the cashback obligations of Mobile Media Systems Ltd.
I contend that the entire cash back cost of £420 per phone is payable by Vodafone under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as detailed above. I have experience of successfully pursuing claims in the Small Claims Court and will not hesitate to commence proceedings against Vodafone if a satisfactory conclusion to this matter cannot be reached by the end of February.
However, I am not an unreasonable man. Therefore, I do not expect the entire cost of this cash back to be borne immediately or, indeed, in advance of the end of my 12 month contract. I would accept a £35 per month per contract credit for the remainder of the current 2 contracts with the promise that the contracts will be renewed and the residual amount not yet returned (e.g. £420 - £140 = £280) be available at the end of the contract period to purchase new handsets and offset the cost of new contracts as a kind of ‘Vodafone Voucher’ and to retain my custom for the medium term. This proposal is instead of my claiming 2 x £420 from Vodafone (the anticipated minimum contract cost for 12 months) through the Small Claims Court. Please indicate your acceptance of this offer, or your suggestion of an appropriate alternative, within 14 days of the date of this letter.
Here is some info I got from the Which website that suggests Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the one to use against them. I have amended the content to make it specific to me and put it into a complaint letter to Vodafone, but the gist is fine as it is. I will post again when I have a result:
I have 2 phones purchased through Mobile Media Systems Ltd during July of last year. Both were purchased with a 12 month contract with Vodafone at £35 per month with a promise of 12 months free line rental. I was due to receive a total of £420 in cash back cheques during my contract period for each phone purchased.
I had sent my first claim form (which has since been returned to me by Royal Mail) when Mobile Media Systems Ltd trading as Phoneboxdirect went into administration. I have since been offered a half-price line rental by you on one of my contractswhich I have accepted without prejudice to pursuing the matter further. However, the unit set up to deal with this issue at Vodafone has failed to return my calls in relation to the other contract.
By allowing Mobile Media Systems Ltd to offer airtime contracts, I contend that Vodafone has represented to consumers that Mobile Media Systems Ltd had Vodafone’s authority to offer airtime on its behalf at certain rates including reduced rates through the use of cash back. As it was not specifically mentioned in the contract that the cash-back was provided by Mobile Media Systems Ltd and not Vodafone, I further contend, therefore, that Vodafone is liable to meet the cash back on the basis that the cash back forms part of the airtime contract.
In addition: Arguments under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
A “pay monthly” airtime contract is a credit agreement. Therefore, Vodafone is subject to the “unfair relationships” provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
I believe the airtime contract to be unfair, by reason of omission by Vodafone, as provided for in the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I contend that Vodafone failed to take reasonable steps to control the marketing of its services by Mobile Media Systems Ltd, so as to prevent customers from being induced to sign up for contracts by misleading or otherwise unfair cashback schemes, and its failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that Mobile Media Systems Ltd would remain in existence and have the financial ability to meet their cashback obligations.
I suggest that a court would have the power to discharge sums payable by me under the airtime agreement with Vodafone and to require Vodafone to repay sums previously paid by me, under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act, of a total of the whole amount of the cashback obligations of Mobile Media Systems Ltd.
I contend that the entire cash back cost of £420 per phone is payable by Vodafone under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as detailed above. I have experience of successfully pursuing claims in the Small Claims Court and will not hesitate to commence proceedings against Vodafone if a satisfactory conclusion to this matter cannot be reached by the end of February.
However, I am not an unreasonable man. Therefore, I do not expect the entire cost of this cash back to be borne immediately or, indeed, in advance of the end of my 12 month contract. I would accept a £35 per month per contract credit for the remainder of the current 2 contracts with the promise that the contracts will be renewed and the residual amount not yet returned (e.g. £420 - £140 = £280) be available at the end of the contract period to purchase new handsets and offset the cost of new contracts as a kind of ‘Vodafone Voucher’ and to retain my custom for the medium term. This proposal is instead of my claiming 2 x £420 from Vodafone (the anticipated minimum contract cost for 12 months) through the Small Claims Court. Please indicate your acceptance of this offer, or your suggestion of an appropriate alternative, within 14 days of the date of this letter.
As I said, I issued a county claim court claim against T-mobile and they didn't respond within 14 days, so I requested that the judge decide and he decided for me. If they don't pay up now, I have the choice of sending in the bailifs!
It took a bit of time, but I finally have a cheque from T-mobile! Now I shall call them up and request a much better deal for the next 11 months or I'll sue them again!
The Following User Says Thank You to benjyf For This Useful Post:Show me >>
It took a bit of time, but I finally have a cheque from T-mobile! Now I shall call them up and request a much better deal for the next 11 months or I'll sue them again!
Hi benyjf,
I am taking Orange to court with my cash back contracts. Can you possibly post your arguments to the court?
hi, can you expand a bit on the suing of orange in county court,as i am pxxxxxd off with orange and their lack of help in my cashback problem with express mobiles! cheers.
In my particular case, the main (possibly only) reason I won was because T-mobile didn't bother responding to the claim, so the judge awarded the case to me (this is what happened in all bar one of the bank reclaiming cases.)
Having said that, I still believe I had a legal case.
The questions I would pose are the following:
If they can’t produce a contract from the time of sale, why can’t one simply cancel it?
Even if there was a contract, I would argue I thought I was ‘signing’ simultaneous contracts and therefore both should be void. Can they prove otherwise?
The networks pay a commission for each sale the shop makes. This commission is only paid after 120 days of the contract (an industry insider told me this.) If the company went bust before this, it means the network are not only getting your full monthly line rental, but also this commission. Trading standards thought this was probably illegal.
If you were to buy a similar contract with one of the networks, you are likely to be given a phone with an rrp of £600. As a result of the cashback deal, you might be given a phone with an rrp of £65.
The networks have a responsibility to check who they allow as registered sellers and therefore it is all their responsibility.
Hope that helps, feel free to ask any more questions,
benjy
I had a phone with 3 network, provided by mobile rainbow.
I had sent all the claims forms required by recorded delivery at the dates they specified, but did not receive any money back. the contact is going to end this month, in about 2 days time.
I have contacted 3, they said they don't take responsibility for the dealer., and rainbow mobile does not reply to the e-mail/fax or letter.
I wonder if you could give me some suggestion for what procedure I should take to get the money back (25x12=£300).
You can sue the network, lose and run up a higher loss. You have no case and if you can't extract payment from Mobile Rainbow it's end of story unless you desire to throw more money (and aggravation) after bad. Your mistake was choosing this dealer in the first place and not fully understanding how cashback deals work.
Wenxui - does Mobile Rainbow still exists as a company? If it does, then you are going to have to issue court proceedings against them, but if they went bust then you are going to be out of pocket I'm afraid.
Yes. People who repeatedly ask the same old questions without bothering to look for the answers first shouldn't expect repetition from those people who do the legwork. I gave them (and you) a clear and simple answer rather than guesswork or well-meaning suggestions without substance. What's there to talk about?
Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps. Take care over copyright. Use excerpts and links rather than copying long text. This site asserts copyright on all comments posted on the board.
Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.
Taking mobile networks to court for cashback payments
Linear Mode
