Mobiles.co.uk

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

mobilejunkie wrote: »

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

No, the fact that CPW Legal picks up our legal affairs doesn't make any difference to who the correct defendant would be.

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!).

Do you have any examples of it taking 58 days? Your own claim was confirmed in 21 days so even if the cheque takes 28 days to arrive (which I'm fairly sure it won't) then that's not 58.

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.

Just to be clear, it's "Mobiles.co.uk Ltd".

I won't be giving you my persoanl 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 paining a bad picture of your company, why do I constantly praise your main competitor - who currently really DOES set the standard for the industry?

"If I'm so keen on harming your business why do I praise your competitor?" - I don't think I understand your point.

Who is that, by the way? I'd be interested in what you think they do better than us (and why you didn't use them).

Thanks,

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

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

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.

The truth about claims is that the defendant should enter a written defence (no need for a court hearing). The court then passes the defence to the claimant for their comments.

Then the court looks at all the papers and decides whether or not the case warrants a hearing. The claimant has to then pay more court fees for the hearing (in the knowledge that if the case is thrown out, all court fees are payable by the claimant).

If you are saying that they preferred to end up with ccjs on their record rather than bother defending them, then why let it get so far? Even though they chose not to attend court, the judge would still look at the case and require the claimant to state his case before issuing the judgement.

Your company could have simply paid the claimant what you owed them on receipt of the claim, and the matter would have been closed without the necessity of the stigma of the ccjs on your record - and thereby would have saved paying the cost of the undefended hearing on top!

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Like I said, I can't speak on behalf of CPW Legal and have no idea of the specifics of how these cases were handled (but I'm disappointed that these CCJs exist, yes).

On the other hand, if you were completely unable to find one single CCJ for us then I highly doubt you'd take that at face value either

mobilejunkie

Previously YOU made a great point about needing to sue YOU and not cpw - now you say it doesn't matter.

The example of 58 days was set out for you a way back. You ignored it at the time and I have no intention of wasting my time re-writing it.

As far as I'm concerned it's cpw - though your new concern for the exact title means I should write Carphone Warehouse Ltd. If that's an attempt to deflect geniune criticsm and experience it is typical of "mobiles.co.uk Ltd".

You never understand any points - despite raising them yourself in the first place.
If you don't know who's better than you it's hardly surprising you don't know how bad you are in comparison. As before, I have already given THAT answer pages back. Again your assumptions are crude and totally incorrect; I do use them - much more than I use you! As to the what they do better - just about everything. They don't find it necessary to come on here to put up false claims and praise themselves - they do everything properly and follow their own t&c (including timescales) AND actually answer their phones!

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Previously YOU made a great point about needing to sue YOU and not cpw - now you say it doesn't matter.

Again you misunderstand what I say and ask me to defend your wrong interpretation, which is why I'm backing out of this thread other than to answer genuine questions about dealing with Mobiles.co.uk (like the first post).

They don't find it necessary to come on here to put up false claims and praise themselves

I came here to help our customers, nothing more.

Thanks for your comments, and have a good weekend.

Regards,

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

On the other hand, if you were completely unable to find one single CCJ for us then I highly doubt you'd take that at face value either

You keep expressing things like your doubt about me taking you at face value/your suspicions about why cpw have got ccjs/your accusations that I have been abusive to you/your personally abusive posts that I don't know what I am talking about/various statements that turn out to be contradicted etc.

Despite all this, I have always given factual responses - backed up with evidence (you chose to selectively counter the ofcom contradiction concerning your claim to be the fairest company going, and totally ignore the fact that you only allow 30 days for a claim (despite seemingly wanting to break your 30 day payment condition) when even e2save give the minimum 60 days ofcom says is "fair".

And you have steadfastly ignored many other salient points throughout these exchanges!

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

I came here to help our customers, nothing more.

Another "hard to swallow" post.

You forget you went far beyond that to come out with various claims bound to generate responses/discussion.

eg:

I happen to think we are the fairest online mobile phone retailer you'll find

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

Another "hard to swallow" post.

You forget you went far beyond that to come out with various claims bound to generate responses/discussion.

If you feel I am touting for business then feel free to report me, as per my sig.

I'm here for our customers, and have already helped dozens of them.

I also happen to know quite a lot about the industry so thought it would be interesting to try and address some of the incorrect assumptions, common mistakes and questions about it. Obviously yourself and MJ have quite strong opinions and of course I respect that, but I don't think we're adding anything to the MSE community at this point. Lots of heat, little light.

Have a good weekend,

mobilejunkie

It's a similar pattern to E2Save (although that was by illiterate idiots and very short-lived) and Vodafone currently; when a company starts to fail on the basic through normal channels (in this case not answering the phone for hours) it sends someone on here to deflect the most public criticism rather than doing things right in the first place.

In this instance I was reasonably impressed by the more serious attempt to put up a convincing mouthpiece - but when the facts start getting twisted, words put in my mouth which are completely different to the ones I am actually using and t&c start becoming unimportant and selectively employed any good work done is immediately blown to pieces as far as I'm concerned. Mouthpieces should be open to fair criticism and admit where they are not doing as they should - as opposed to trying to cover it up with inaccurate statements such as the 14 days for receiving cheques. Has ANYONE received a chweque from this company within 14 days of the claim receipt??? All those who defend the company based on the answers and statements provided are naturally entitled to their opinion. Where my own money is at stake I will come to my own conclusions - however, having seen just how bad cpw companies have become my own cynicsm is not reduced by the answers given on this thread. That is a pity - because (believe this or not) - it could have been.

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Obviously yourself and MJ have quite strong opinions and of course I respect that....

Please show where my posts have merely expressed an opinion?

You tell us you are the fairest company on the net (in your opinion).

I point out that even e2save has a fairer contract.

You steadfastly refuse to comment on this, even though your 30 day window to make a claim is said to be restrictive by ofcom.

Making misleading claims isn't necessarily "touting for business" but it is cynical misuse of your posting privileges, and sounds suspiciously like an advertising slogan!