Mobiles.co.uk

Guys_Dad

athewitt wrote: »

Indeed. My view - the rep from Mobiles.co.uk is trying hard to be helpful, whilst you continue to pick an argument whenever you can.

Andy

And I am being persuaded of the same point of view as well. Quentin raises the point about not paying cashback if a/c not up to date.

"Ofcom say it is wrong for retailers to refuse to pay just because there is an outstanding balance on a customers phone bill. You won't pay cashback if the account is "not up to date" ".

Mobile.co.uk rep replies

If a customer stops paying their bills then the network will claw back our commission (which obviously funds the cashback). It's not fair to the business to expect us to pay cashback....

Then Quentin writes that "Its irrelevant to this discussion" . Well, you raised it old son !

Given that CPW in general with their other companies have a really lousy track record on MSE forums, then it does look like bothe Quentin and MobileJunkie are using their experience of the other CPW companies in the group to lambast mobiles.co.uk whose rep, I have to say, is giving very moderate and straight replies.

From previous posts, he did add -albeit not altogether clear - the additional bit about an extra 28 days on top of the 30 days as he said he would (has it been clarified today yet, Ben - it hadn't when I last looked).

I am afraid that the previous good work over the years and helpful posts from both Quentin and MobileJunkie are being somewhat negated by the contrast between the measured tones of Ben from mobile.co.uk and the invective from both of you, given that no one has yet contrdicted Ben's comment that his company are clean as far as cashback and ccj's go (possibly 1 in dispute from the posts).

Pretty damned good record for a company trading for 5 years.

Now if he can get the "up to 58 days" down to a reasonable timeframe and he writes that he is trying - and 30-35 days overall is not unreasonable - where's the beef?

RenegMC

mobilejunkie wrote: »

As for only changing their t&c twice in 5 years - apparently they have only been part of cpw for a fraction of that time - and it is that which should flag up caution.

"As part of The Carphone Warehouse Group since August 2007, we are able to deliver the best deals around while still, as an independantly operated business, offering great service and customer satisfaction."

Taken from the About us page on the website... must admit, the dates are a bit inaccurate and have been a bit out with regards to that on the website.

Having said that, despite I'm not involved in the cashback deals, nor have had to deal with them on such, I've found the rep helpful where possible; it's rather good that there is someone here to answer at all, and with such speed and frequency. But maybe that's because I'm a prospective purchaser, as opposed to a 'valued' customer! lol

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

Instead of using a post just as another cynical way to reply with some advertising, why not just answer the points raised?

Sorry, confused - you asked why not do automatic cashback, which we do, so how can I answer why we don't?

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Guys_Dad wrote: »

no one has yet contrdicted Ben's comment that his company are clean as far as cashback and ccj's go (possibly 1 in dispute from the posts).

Pretty damned good record for a company trading for 5 years.

14 years this October

I checked - the 2 CCJs were both undefended by CPW Legal, who obviously pick up SCC activity on our behalf since we were acquired. I guess it's their call to not defend them but we would have won, they were frivolous claims with no basis. Obviously you're not going to believe this but there you go.

I've asked that the unsatisfied one is looked into.

Now if he can get the "up to 58 days" down to a reasonable timeframe and he writes that he is trying - and 30-35 days overall is not unreasonable - where's the beef?

I have been working on this for a couple of months now, and the site should update shortly so customers know going in the absolute worst case for delivery of a cheque, so I'm literally doing all I can.

Thanks for your comment,

thommy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

And I am being persuaded of the same point of view as well. Quentin raises the point about not paying cashback if a/c not up to date.

"Ofcom say it is wrong for retailers to refuse to pay just because there is an outstanding balance on a customers phone bill. You won't pay cashback if the account is "not up to date" ".

Mobile.co.uk rep replies

If a customer stops paying their bills then the network will claw back our commission (which obviously funds the cashback). It's not fair to the business to expect us to pay cashback....

Then Quentin writes that "Its irrelevant to this discussion" . Well, you raised it old son !

Given that CPW in general with their other companies have a really lousy track record on MSE forums, then it does look like bothe Quentin and MobileJunkie are using their experience of the other CPW companies in the group to lambast mobiles.co.uk whose rep, I have to say, is giving very moderate and straight replies.

From previous posts, he did add -albeit not altogether clear - the additional bit about an extra 28 days on top of the 30 days as he said he would (has it been clarified today yet, Ben - it hadn't when I last looked).

I am afraid that the previous good work over the years and helpful posts from both Quentin and MobileJunkie are being somewhat negated by the contrast between the measured tones of Ben from mobile.co.uk and the invective from both of you, given that no one has yet contrdicted Ben's comment that his company are clean as far as cashback and ccj's go (possibly 1 in dispute from the posts).

Pretty damned good record for a company trading for 5 years.

Now if he can get the "up to 58 days" down to a reasonable timeframe and he writes that he is trying - and 30-35 days overall is not unreasonable - where's the beef?

you couldn't be more accurate in your appraisal. thank you for some common sense.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Then Quentin writes that "Its irrelevant to this discussion" . Well, you raised it old son !

The rep claimed he worked for the "fairest online retailer"

I point out that their conditions are considered unfair by ofcom (the independent regulator).

In answer to this the rep says that they consider ofcom are unfair as their contract with the retailer means they lose commission over outstanding balances.

But we as customers are not concerned about the contracts that mobiles enter into with the networks. Entirely their business. Ofcom have been saying for years that clause is unduly restrictive. It is up to CPW to take it up with them, not take it out of the customers!

And the other restrictive condition (they only allow 30 days to claim when ofcom says anything below 60 days is unfair) gets no comment at all.

(Even e2save conform with ofcom and give us 60 days! (currently!!)

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

mobilejunkie wrote: »

The rep states " So in fact, people are getting their cheques within about 15 days of claiming currently." This is blatantly and utterly UNTRUE - and exactly what I have come to expect from a cpw organisation.

This goes for people submitting a claim now, I'm still interested in how long it will be before your cheque arrives. Obviously you have only your experience to go on and it's not true for you but I'm trying to separate "worst case" (what is on our site) from "real world", which I genuinely believe is about 15-20 days currently.

As for only changing their t&c twice in 5 years - apparently they have only been part of cpw for a fraction of that time - and it is that which should flag up caution.

2 years now, and we obviously had to change when we joined and CPW Legal became responsible for our T&Cs, and we haven't changed since.

I had dozens of contracts with E2Save and Onestopphoneshop also; dozens more for a few people I guide through the maze. Two of them were forced to sue because cpw tried to wriggle out of legitimate claims with absurd "justifcations" - easily proven to be false. I was on the point of suing but they coughed up during a delay in the court papers being filed.

I'm sorry you've had this experience, but I'm nothing to do with these companies other than getting a payslip from the same owner.

I have threatened to sue Mobiles and certainly will if I deem it necessary (they are already pushing the envelope in other areas). This is not proof of them doing their job well - it is simply the case that I follow my own guidelines and do expect to have to sue whenever I embark on any cashback deal with any dealer - and prepare accordingly from day 1.

For the 3rd time, let me know what problem you're having either here or in private and I can investigate. Otherwise it's hard to believe you're not just trying to damage our company's reputation by bringing this up.

In the early days I neither recommended nor criticised Mobiles when they became more active on cashback deals - the jury was out. My main concern was that they were a cpw company - and THAT is always a red flag for what to expect. On the plus side their t&c were much clearer and not ambiguious.

We offered cashback deals for 3 years before we joined CPW.

In view of all the comments and outright LIES now coming from their rep on here I am coming down on the BEWARE side of the fence. Instead of taking fair criticism on board they bat them away, saying they are NOT part of the t&c (when they plainly are) MISREPRESENT the timescales for payment IN the t&c and now LIE about how long people tend to wait for payment. I gave a clear example (which is typical in my experience) of about 58 days - NOTHING LIKE THE "15" quoted by this rep.

Whenever a company starts to behave this way beware. It is a sure sign of things to come. As for the disreputable companies giving them a bad name - THAT is absolutely hilarious. One of the WORST company in the last two years which has given the industry a bad name is, in fact, E2Save (now also Onestopphoneshop) who are blatant liars and cheats. Since they are part of the SAME organisation AND still trading I guess the rep must be pleased to be associated with them!

I'd say the worse ones are the ones who sold multiple, expensive contracts and then wound up their business, the shops in Birmingham spring to mind and I'm surprised you aren't aware of them - Dial A Mobile, I believe?

If you are so convinced that Mobiles is such a risky proposition then why did you take a cashback deal from us? You've already successfully claimed your first redemption, correct?

Thanks for your feedback, sorry that we were unable to convince you that we are trying to do the best for our customers. I don't think 100 posts in 2 days is someone trying to avoid discussing these matters but I can't continue this forever so I think we have to agree to disagree.

Regards,

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

I checked - the 2 CCJs were both undefended by CPW Legal, who obviously pick up SCC activity on our behalf since we were acquired. I guess it's their call to not defend them but we would have won, they were frivolous claims with no basis. Obviously you're not going to believe this but there you go.

You must agree it's asking a lot for us to swallow.

These exchanges started when you asserted "If you took CPW to court over a Mobiles issue the case would be dismissed as you would have the wriong defendant."

If these claims which resulted in ccjs were "frivolous", why didn't "CPW Legal" get them set aside?

It seems very strange for a company so keen to project a ccj free image would accept the stigma of ccjs on the register for a "frivolous claim with no basis".

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

You must agree it's asking a lot for us to swallow.

I do, but I'm honest and this is the truth.

These exchanges started when you asserted "If you took CPW to court over a Mobiles issue the case would be dismissed as you would have the wriong defendant."

If these claims which resulted in ccjs were "frivolous", why didn't "CPW Legal" get them set aside?

You'd have to ask them, but I'd hazard a guess that the cost of sending a member of staff to court for a day is greater than not defending the action.

It seems very strange for a company so keen to project a ccj free image would accept the stigma of ccjs on the register for a "frivolous claim with no basis".

I didn't bring up CCJs - somebody else found the 2 we had (which I wasn't aware of, hence saying "zero"). CPW Legal aren't exactly in the same office as me, and I'm not exactly their boss

It'd would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge that 14 years with only 2 CCJs, both fairly recent, demonstrates something.

Anyway, I'm moving on now, thanks for your comments these past few days.

Regards,

mobilejunkie

So who would we sue cpw or you - you seem to have changed your mind on that too!

As for the "real world" - I would have thought that was what you DO (i.e. 58 days) and not what you say (14 days!).

The reason I use you is that I am completely aware of what I may need to do in order to get my money - and am perfectly prepared, willing and able to do it. Others (like many very loyal customers of E2Save) go unsuspectingly into these deals based on a "big name" company (a name you associate yourself with as it suits and dissasociate yourself with in similar fashion) and/or good service in the PAST. Having spent a lot of my own (UNPAID) time helping many who found themselves in that situation (some of whom previously had ignored my warnings about E2Save when they started to play foul) I think it should be a clear warning notice for others who may fall into a similar trap with Mobiles.

I won't be giving you my personal details to attend to any of the other issues; I don't give them to liars after the company itself has batted them away.

If I am merely concerned with painting a bad picture of your company, why do I constantly praise your main competitor - who currently really DOES set the standard for the industry?

No doubt many will feel comforted by what they want to hear; there will at least be some who can objectively see beyond the hype.