Mobiles.co.uk

Quentin

You still dismiss the fact that summonses get correctly issued against the CPWplc for money owed by their subsidiary companies. In fact CPW doesn't do much in the way of "cashback". All done in the name of e2save/mobiles/osps/phonespot.

TREVORCOLMAN

You cannot claim to be part of a large company (i.e. solid) and then say that their CCJ are nothing to do with you.

You cannot have it both ways.

I managed to get a CCJ against CPW (E2Save).

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

TREVORCOLMAN wrote: »

You cannot claim to be part of a large company (i.e. solid) and then say that their CCJ are nothing to do with you.

You cannot have it both ways.

I managed to get a CCJ against CPW (E2Save).

Our company number is 06320783 - as displayed on our website - and look us up at Companies House. I'm afraid you're both wrong, there are no CCJs against CPW relating to Mobiles because we are a wholly-owned subsidiary, not a trading style so any SCC activity would have to be registered against Mobiles.co.uk Ltd, not the parent company.

Anyway, this has gone waaaaaaaay off topic so going to leave it here.

Thanks,
Ben

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

You still dismiss the fact that summonses get correctly issued against the CPWplc for money owed by their subsidiary companies. In fact CPW doesn't do much in the way of "cashback". All done in the name of e2save/mobiles/osps/phonespot.

Not correct - see above.

Regards

Quentin

What is "not correct"?

1) The CPWplc does accept (and defend) summonses relating to money owed by it's subsidiary's.

2) Talk to any individual part of the company regarding problems with another (eg take an online trading company cashback problem into a CPW store and they will say they are nothing to do with us!)

3) Plenty of us have CCJs against the CPW following them "stalling" on paying out cashback (which comes on CPW cheques, not e2s/mobiles etc) via their on line stores (operating from their own premises!)

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

What is "not correct"?

1) The CPWplc does accept (and defend) summonses relating to money owed by it's subsidiary's.

Not correct in our case, as we are a separate legal entity as per the above. If you took CPW to court over a Mobiles issue the case would be dismissed as you would have the wriong defendant.

2) Talk to any individual part of the company regarding problems with another (eg take an online trading company cashback problem into a CPW store and they will say they are nothing to do with us!)

Correct, except that CPW stores will handle warranty issues on our behalf.

3) Plenty of us have CCJs against the CPW following them "stalling" on paying out cashback (which comes on CPW cheques, not e2s/mobiles etc) via their on line stores (operating from their own premises!)

Not via Mobiles you do not.

Regards

mobilejunkie

All that from just ONE example of cpw treatment of its customers. I could give quite a few others.... one targetted specifically at Mobiles itself. Not much point though - as with all cpw companies, t&c get changed after the kick-off (except I printed the legal ones out at the point of sale and will sue if your company takes the mickey a step too far), the truth gets stretched (or snapped) and customer service is left to someone on here to deal with rather than at the end of a phone at the company itself - presumably because people not using feedback sites won;t be able to make known bad practices to a wider audience.

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

mobilejunkie wrote: »

All that from just ONE example of cpw treatment of its customers. I could give quite a few others.... one targetted specifically at Mobiles itself. Not much point though - as with all cpw companies, t&c get changed after the kick-off (except I printed the legal ones out at the point of sale and will sue if your company takes the mickey a step too far), the truth gets stretched (or snapped) and customer service is left to someone on here to deal with rather than at the end of a phone at the company itself - presumably because people not using feedback sites won;t be able to make known bad practices to a wider audience.

I think I've already covered each and every one of your points, including offering to help you with any problem related to Mobiles.co.uk; thanks for your feedback.

Regards

TREVORCOLMAN

Mobiles.co.uk Rep.

You may wish to comment on:

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Reviews/mobiles_co_uk__87437

Including:

http://www.ciao.co.uk/mobiles_co_uk__Review_5844705

Others may be interested to read the reviews.

mobilejunkie

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Asking for a cheque to be raised is the last part of the process, and is done within 30 days (actually within 7 at the moment). We have no control over the fact that it *can* take up to 21 days for the cheque to go into the post so the very best I can do is try to make this faster (which I'm doing) and advise customers of this (which I'm doing).

I'd think the most important T&Cs to a customers are the ones that determine whether or not a claim is valid, so the fact that we're discussing whether a cheque arrives in 4 weeks or 6 weeks I'm taking as a good sign

Interesting how "facts" work. I received this email recently:-

"We can confirm your Cashback has been authorised and the cheque has been requested from Carphone Warehouse Head office.

Please allow 28 days for your cheque to be generated and dispatched to you."

Now, isn't it strange that THIS one says a) 28 days, b) "has been requested from Carphone Warehouse Head Office" (i.e. NOT from some external organisation as you previously made a point of stating to try to deflect the argument) AND arrived 7 days after the one stating the claim had been processed (i.e. not 4). Further, the "processed" stage was actually FOURTEEN days AFTER your email confirming receipt.

SO - where does YOUR stated timescale have ANY relevance to what you are ACTUALLY DOING? My cheque is obviously going to be arriving nearer two months after you received it rather than one. If you don't think that is "relevant" to people enquiring on here about the reliability of your company or what the meaning is of the words you produce then you really should go back to school - or continue working for cpw (your ultimate employer whatever you may claim).