The Mobile Outlet: any good? (merged)

Cobra_3

.
It's a damned site more convenient (and cheaper!) than using Recorded or Special Delivery, that's for sure.

oggsy

Hello, have received a payment for cashback of the correct sum of £192 from TMO after issuing a moneyclaimsonline form a couple of weeks ago (Re my other posts) . This I am very happy about albeit short of the £30 paid to MCO which i will claim through default. So yes, persist with it and you will get there.When my cheques clear i will post again and will put together a timeline to illustrate the sequence to help others achieve what is fairly theirs. Highest regards Paul

mar<

I'd just like to say Cobra, to even the balance, although it may be a very unpopular opinion on a website of this nature... almost heretical even, but I have followed this thread fervently for quite a long time, and I disagree that the concusion one would get from doing so would be the negative conculson you drew. I re-itterate that yours will be a populist viewpoint, but I beg to differ. I have been publically harrassed in the past for saying so, but I see TMO responding to genuine enquiries on here and actually being more than generous in meeting people over the half way point, be that for their own percieved status or whatever reason.

Tarquin_2

I can only add to the tales of woe. I got cold feet due to the lack of email responses and inability to answer a phone and sent my phone back unwrapped on the first day. TMO sent an email to me in pidgen English saying that I could not cancel the contract as I did not have a returns number (waiting for this would have taken me outside the returns period). They have returned the phone to me and I have refused it and referred them to distance selling laws which are clear that I was well within my rights. It is pretty obvious that this is not a customer service orientated business.
I'll keep you all posted if I hear anything more!!!

Cobra_3

mar< wrote:

I'd just like to say Cobra, to even the balance, although it may be a very unpopular opinion on a website of this nature... almost heretical even, but I have followed this thread fervently for quite a long time, and I disagree that the concusion one would get from doing so would be the negative conculson you drew. I re-itterate that yours will be a populist viewpoint, but I beg to differ. I have been publically harrassed in the past for saying so, but I see TMO responding to genuine enquiries on here and actually being more than generous in meeting people over the half way point, be that for their own percieved status or whatever reason.

Ah, Mar<

(Interesting name you choose to use, by the way; the “<” at the end of it confuses a lot of forum sites’ search engines - to the extent that they can’t find you and your postings when it’s entered into their search box. But there are workarounds to that, if one uses a bit of ingenuity and determination. And, needless to say, I’m sure it isn’t a deliberate ploy by you…)

Anyway, as one who had been following this thread silently since last autumn - long before your first posting - and who was immediately struck by it when it came (and was then followed by others from you in a similar vein) because it stuck out like a pig at a bar mitzvah - to describe it as “differing from a populist (sic) view” doesn’t exactly do it justice - in this thread, I have been wondering just how long it would take you to emerge from quite a long silence and leap to the heroic defence of The Mobile Outlet once I registered on here in the search of some constructive information.

Longer than I was expecting, actually.

But I do agree with your own characterisation of the extent to which you are out of kilter - almost to the same bizarre degree as The Mobile Outlet itself - with the general mood on here which has been set by others (and not by me) who have been persistently denied their cashbacks by this wretched company after filing their claims diligently.

Not everyone - dare I say not anyone - else here shares you view that when one complies to the letter with the convoluted Terms & Conditions that this company has hatched up, and it then fails to comply with them itself and issue the cashback that it has agreed to pay, within the period that it itself elected to specify, that this is perfectly acceptable behaviour and that it is then quite reasonable for the innocent and unpaid customer to have to send the company begging emails, spend hours telephoning them on a 0870 number and post messages to it on a public forum in order to obtain the money that he or she is legally owed by it, after a delay of several weeks (or months).

Particularly when this company has earned a notorious reputation for being absolutely ruthless in denying customers their entire cashback if they themselves file any one of their five claims even one day late.

Why on earth should anybody have to put up with this treatment? Why should people have to devote hours of their time and effort chasing up money that they are owed by such an uncompromising company?

Kindly give us your opinion as to why these double-standards should apply and why you think people should have to grovel and cajole for what is legally and rightfully theirs.

I’m sure that nobody here will suggest that your lone campaign in support of The Mobile Outlet’s discredited practices is motivated by any desire to ingratiate yourself with the company and obtain without problem your own cashbacks for those two ‘phones you bought from them last December.

Or even that you are associated in any way with the company itself.

And as for claiming that you “have been publically harassed” (sic), when we all saw for ourselves, in Posting #592 from “fitzgerald99” (and your reply to it - Posting #596), on Page 30 of this thread, that it was you yourself who had actually been doing the harassing by sending people offensive and aggressive Private Messages, I think you are being totally disingenuous.

If that is the sort of behaviour that The Mobile Outlet’s only champion can muster, it doesn’t say much for the company.

What I do think I can say with absolute confidence is that for you to pop up and write, “I see TMO responding to genuine enquiries on here and actually being more than generous in meeting people over the half way point” immediately after a succession of its dispossessed customers have posted that the company is defaulting on paying even court judgements awarded to them by the SCC for its failure to pay correctly filed cashback claims, robs you of any credibility whatsoever.

“I have followed this thread fervently for quite a long time, and I disagree that the concusion one would get from doing so would be the negative conculson you drew.” (sic) Yeah, right, Mar<.

These people are posting that they’re having to send in bailiffs to obtain their money from this company.

How does that square with your professed view that it is “actually being more than generous in meeting people over the half way point”?

- - -

mar<

@Cobra

I've been out of circulation a while yes, I'll not fill you in on the reasons as I don't feel I owe you an explanation.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but then I also think you are taking rather a one sided look at this forum thread.... is what i'm saying - why can't you just accept the point that others may not see things the way you do? I must be in error - there's no other way of looking at it is there???

"Particularly when this company has earned a notorious reputation for being absolutely ruthless in denying customers their entire cashback if they themselves file any one of their five claims even one day late."

That's hillarious! - you think that if you fail to meet the conditions of the agreement that somehow you should still be entitled to your cashback!!! - That would explain your views then! - of course no company could ever look good if that was what we all expected of them!!

I'd be very interested in a poll on the topic, to try and quantise opinion. Obviously, this being a place where people come to vent anger, and one would expect a negative swing.

Your trying to insult me doesn't do much for your credibility. I am hurt by your comment - you do me no justice by it. I can only infer you're taking the same twisted viewpoint with MO.

I, along with a lot of other posters, try to state how the facts appear to me - as presented on this thread. I did a lot of research before purchasing my phones, and came to the conlusion that purchasing through MO was an acceptable risk - after reading this thread, and elsewhere.

Instead of taking sides, I wish you'd be more objective. I'm sure people are grateful, as am I, for your input on your particular beef.

Of course I don't like to hear if people have have problems, and am genuinely sorry that things have gone wrong for them.

MO's Ts & Cs were at fault at one point, and they took steps to correct those. Creating a worse problem they then started on applying the new Ts & Cs to customers signed up to the old Ts & Cs. If you look at all the problems made public on this error though, you will see that MO have made good on all those contracts. They have proved that they are willing to correct mistakes, even though, with this error, they compounded it in the process.

I think it wise and proper to always treat businesses with a healthy dollop of scepticism and mis-trust. Lets not turn on each other though and lose sight of our intention.

Kindest regards to you.

Moyo_2

I have read through the last few pages of this forum as I am a Mobile Outlet customer. I just received my first cashback cheque this week. However, it was not for the full amount. It was around £90 short of what I am owed. I have, of course, dispatched a letter asking for full payment which I will pursue through the courts if necessary (I work in the legal profession). Is this normal? I got the impression that Mobile Outlet either paid up or found a reason to deny the claim, not that they only provided part payment?

mar<

Your payment should be 1/5 of the total cashback moyo, and not proportionate to the number of bills you have sent in - so say others recently.

(see post #695 on page 35 by Cobra)

Moyo_2

Thanks. I think I will still harass them for the extra amount as a quick read of the contract shows that they do not set out the one fifth procedure there. Any ambiguity in the contract will be construed in my favour.

mar<

Interesting!