Mobiles.co.uk cashback problems

Guys_Dad

TREVORCOLMAN wrote: »

I took out a contract with E2Save. I printed all the details including from their own Web Site which stated the cashback claim windows.

Time came around for first claim.

I sent everything off, including a covering letter (which I always send) AND a copy of THEIR dates from when taking out contract.

Claim was rejected.

I looked on line at my account details on their Web Site - they had changed the cashback claim window dates!

However I had print of original dates.

Sent them Letter Before Action stating that if I did not receive my money within a set time I would take legal action.

No reply.

Took legal action.

They denied to court that they owed me money and at same time emailed me offering to pay cashback plus court costs.

Got my money - eventually. They try all sorts of tactics including asking you to sign a letter they have prepared to send to the court saying they have paid promising to send you cheque in 28 days. I ignore this and inform them I will NOT stop court action till I have money.

So for those of you who say the only people who have problems are those who are not organised - this is not true.

I am VERY organised - but that does not stop them trying to get out of paying.

They hope people give up when obstacles put in their way.

They underestimated me!

Sorry you had all this bother with E2Save and well done for getting your result in the long run, but what exactly has this to do with mobiles.co.uk cashback, apart from the fact that they are in the same group of companies?

I previously had problems with Onestopphoneshop but that would not stop me dealing with mobiles.co.uk if they had the deal I wanted.

mobilejunkie

thommy wrote: »

i was actually appreciating your info until, once again you bring it back to the argument between you and the rep and then try to qualify your argument with another glib comment. i'll just let myself slip down to your level again and reply that it is you that created this playground.

Well, you definitely fooled me!

re what you say about e2save - you still have a responsibilty not to misinform - they are currently very similar in their description/definition of bill patterns to those of Mobiles and your statement leads one to believe that they are not? yes or no? please give me an answer.

Apart from the fact that there is no relevance to your question in respect to the point I was making you ignored my question so I will respond in kind. You might also note that it was you who invented the playground.

mobilejunkie

jase951 wrote: »

MJ If the T&C direct you to the how to claim page then you could argue both ways, until you find a lawyer. See what OFCOM says about this. As you would know, T&C aren't allowed to change and if they do you must be informed of them changes first...technically what Mobiles.co.uk refer to as T&C has not changed, it's a page that is linked to that has. What if the T&C including contact details and a link was provided to a contact us page does this mean that the firm aren't allowed to change its contact details or indeed the look on that web page?

Actually it directs you TO the t&c relating to how to claim, payment timescale etc:-

For cashback and discounted line rental T&Cs please click here

It can't be argued both ways - unless you're a cpw rep trying to pretend the t&c aren't the t&c or someone who actually believes such nonesense. The deal on the website is an invitation to treat; your application is an offer and the t&c are the ones on there at the time - the ones above! They accept your offer and are therefore bound by those t&c - whatever rubbish they may come out with afterwards. E2Save did this frequently once they made a conscious decision to lie and cheat their way out of paying so many successful claims. This was often the crucial difference between forcing E2Save to pay up or losing out on what was quite rightfully and correctly theirs; a lesson many didn't learn until after the event - when the t&c had changed and they could not prove what they were at the point of sale.

The t&c here as such don't actually give any cashback t&c; they simply say you have to refer to the ones current "on the date of ordering" (via the link - hence that way too what the link provides are the cashback t&c - and these are the ones relevant to a cashback contract). Any judge is highly unlikely to agree that these are NOT the t&c provided YOU can produce them.

One of the problems with all this is that MOST people simply do NOT print out the t&c at the point of sale - the rep claiming these aren't t&c and changing them without highlighting the old/new ones simply means that you might as well not have any t&c as far as the dealer is concerned.

Forget Ofcom; they are (like most regulators most of the time) a complete waste of (your) time. In all of this the only person you can rely on when embarking on any cashback deal with any dealer (not just this one) is yourself. If you really do want something for nothing (which is what many of these deals represent) then you need to really cover yourself at every stage so that you CAN prove that YOU have followed the LEGAL t&c (the ones at the point of sale!) and that the dealer has not. E2Save's biggest mistake was to be SO blatant about it's total disregard for its own t&c AND to try to change them part way through. At least, it was a huge mistake when dealing with people who HAD printed out the t&c as suggested AND covered themselves properly. My concern with this rep's answers is that people are saying how hard he's trying and how genuine he is etc - even though he is doing something similar in his answers to other cpw counterparts. I also repeat that when you sue ANY of dealers - including this one - you are suing cpw (even the rep admits that now rather than saying it was wrong originally). There is one thing people who haven't had to sue or almost got to the point of suing may not also appreciate. Cpw do everything they can to bully you into not pursuing your case. Most people WOULD give up - they (almost probably successfully) relied on that with the majority of customers they stiffed.

Rogue dealers specialise in muddying the waters; this dealer has a reasonable degree of clarity in its written t&c - but if they deny that they ARE t&c there is something seriously amiss with anything they say!

In essence, cashback deals should be kept simple - BUT it is NOT simply a case (as some suggest) of noting claim dates in your diary and being organised. THAT is the fundamental easy part ANYONE should do (even though some don't) so hardly rocket science. If anyone thinks that is sufficient they are treading a dangerous path and simply relying on/expecting the dealer to pay up. If and when the dealer doesn't they are floundering because they didn't see it coming. It is VERY necessary to follow the groundrules - STARTING WITH THE T&C AT THE POINT OF SALE - to protect yourself - and definitely not putting any creed to misinformation such has been given repeatedly by this rep. IF people do that (and very few do) they should be safe even if it's necessary to sue. In order to sue you need to prove your case - and that's what the groundrules are about.

In simple terms, any attack on the t&c of the contract is the root of all evolving evil which can follow. Whenever it occurs you SHOULD be firm AND wary - those with half a brain who have read these threads will note just how quick the dealer is to DENY a claim which (they say) is just one day late (THAT can be disputed but I haven't commented on that) whilst in the same breath on here proclaiming themselves to be one of the fairest dealers on the net and denying their own t&c with regards to payment dates (in fact, simply denying their t&c full stop - EXCEPT when they're on their side!).

Just how many warning flags do people need?

thommy

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Apart from the fact that there is no relevance to your question in respect to the point I was making you ignored my question so I will respond in kind. You might also note that it was you who invented the playground.

ah , once again you have taken the bait....funny how once again you immediately seize on someone else not answering one of your questions. yet this thread is littered with you cherry picking the arguments you wish to purse and avoiding any questions that require you to back up your accusations and criticisms, inaccurate info....



''I assume that means you now accept that these are, in fact t&c and not merely "FAQ" as the rep insists?''

- is this the 'question' that you require an answer to? I assumed it to be somewhat rhetorical and therefore not in need of one.....

your tunnel vision has prevented you from seeing the relevance of my question. let me spell it out for you.

you cannot accuse others of twisting information and misrepresenting facts (as you have openly done throughout this thread) if you, yourself, cannot back up your arguments with accurate, up to date information. you have been asked to do this by others and i am merely asking you to confirm, in this instance, that you have not compared the 2 companies accurately as part of your argument.

mobilejunkie

Ignore my question then. If I am "twisting information" it wouldn't make any difference as far as you're concerned. You swallow the rep's weaving and swerving hook, line and sinker. I don't believe you can see clearly and your only concern is attempting to discredit me. I will leave it to the people I am trying to help to make their own judgement as to your success and stick to my task - which if you go back to the start has always concerned itself with the dealer's despatch of their own t&c. I'm afraid you won't be able to despatch me quite as readily, which should please you no end because it seems to be your sole purpose on this site!

thommy

it makes every bit of difference if someone twists information. how dare you presume that it doesn't on my part. you miss the point again, don't you. the fact that i disagree with some of the things you say does not mean that i am out to get you ( please don't flatter yourself into thinking that i am only on this site to discredit you - believe me, there are happier times to be had elsewhere on other forums ) i have as much right to express an opinion as you do. i will not let you bully me off this thread as, for example, you seem inclined to do when someone posts a positive experience with one of companies that you have a beef with.
you know something? i don't want to discredit or dispatch you. you've done some great things on this site as a whole. you've helped and supported people and yes you've spent a lot of time and i applaud you for it. that, however, does not give you the right to castigate, or subtly belittle anyone who has an alternative point of view or seeks to challenge something you have said. you see, i think you actually have stopped allowing people to judge things for themselves. you seem to have summed it up perfectly - you see it as your 'task'.
well, there are plenty of us who are quite capable of making decisions and weighing up the consequences of them, without needing your blessing. hey we have our own opinions. it is not slight on you if we disagree with you. people don't need to be told they only have half a brain if they haven't heard your advice - it is rude and disrespectful. if you throw out a challenge, you should expect to have to take the odd one back.

jase951

I think for anyone who signs up to cashback contracts should know of the problems and accept the risk with them.

It would seem that that how to claim page http://!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/free-gift-hplr-post-aug-23-2008.html is part of the terms and MJ you are right in saying that only the original (at time of sale) terms, which a consumer agreed to, apply - same for all contracts.

In terms of Mobiles.co.uk, remind me of when they changed their conditions such that someone has failed to meet the deadline (other than the case to do with weekend delivery). The email claim would no doubt resolve all issues to do with timing, correct?

In my opinion, the easiest way is to always review the conditions before a claim (ignoring whether or not it is legal to change them and which apply to you) AND claim as soon as you get your bill.

Only if the claim is unsuccessfully does scrutinising of the terms and conditions happen.

It's important to realise that they do have to make money, and like I said earlier; someone has to lose out for others to gain...that's how crude it is - otherwise such website/deals would not exist.

Anyways I do believe that Mobiles.co.uk is doing the best it can.

mobilejunkie

jase951 wrote: »

In terms of Mobiles.co.uk, remind me of when they changed their conditions such that someone has failed to meet the deadline (other than the case to do with weekend delivery). The email claim would no doubt resolve all issues to do with timing, correct?

To answer your question (if I have read it correctly) I have never known any dealer NOT give a deadline for making a claim - this one included. The only exception is (I believe) cpw itself (as opposed to its clones) where at various times I believe they did not put a timescale on a claim.

I agree that people should send off every claim at the earliest opportunity. The email should help a lot provided confirmation of receipt and processing is received back. It does have another benefit (you have a copy of exactly what you sent - something most people also fail to ensure).

I disagree strongly with the idea that you should "Only if the claim is unsuccessfully does scrutinising of the terms and conditions happen."

In my view this is a fundamental error. All too many people do just that (judging by the volumes who have appeared on various threads over the years asking for help and not understanding the t&c months long after they took out a contract and now in difficulty or with a refused claim). It is my VERY strong opinion that someone considering any cashback deal with any dealer SHOULD scrutinise AND understand the t&c well before they take the plunge. Trying to shut the door after it has (sometimes) been replaced several times (all after the horse has long bolted) isn't much use - as many have found to their cost. You rightly point out the completely obvious - that in order for some (like me) to get all their money a lot of others must fail) so complacency for any such deal is a non-starter in my book. Another reason I am unwilling to take a cpw clone rep's statements at face value - and am very particular about it when they actually ignore their own t&c when it suits them.

Whether Mobiles.co.uk is doing the best it can or not is still a big question mark in my mind. They have certainly been doing the best they can to paint a rose-coloured picture of themselves and plug the holes appearing publicly on these threads. However, they also appear to be doing the best they can to deny their own t&c and make promises they don't always keep.

Guys_Dad

Contained in Mobilejunkie's last few posts has been a great deal of good advice re cashbacks and his "cashback for Dummies" should be essential reading.

But it would be a much better reflection on his objective advice if he were to concede that he has no substantial evidence of mobiles.co.uk failing to accept and pay out a legitimate claim, whereas he has ample evidence of other CPW companies having failed so to do.

Mobilejunkie himself warns that Pnones4U internet companies are fine but their shops are not, so the precedent of all companies in the same greou being tarred with the same brush is already in the forum.

mobilejunkie

Hardly. There is virtually zero negative feedback during the last two years on Phones4U and mobiles Direct as far as their internet cashback schemes and service is concerned. There are volumes of negative feedback on both cpw shops (e.g. their "repair" service) AND their internet dealerships. That is a massive difference!

As far as the evidence on claims on Mobiles.co.uk is concerned, there is more than substantial evidence to show that they treat their own t&c as not binding and yet apply the t&c to their customers on as strict a basis as they can. In my own experience they definitely do not pay on time and there is another issue which is likely to come to the for in a few months time which I will not go into on here since it would be detrimental to my own claims. In the case of E2Save I was warning several months before it happened that people would have problems claiming with the (then) stolen t&c they introduced. Although this is not the same, the problems did arrive a few months later as I warned. I maintain that it is dangerous to put much credence on a rep's words when they disown their own t&c. I am not suggesting people avoid using them - but I most certainly think they should definitely NOT trust them and make sure they cover themselves fully so that they are in a position to sue if necessary.

As far as previous cases are concerned, since most with E2Save were settled just before they got to court and some were lost the number of customers who actually sued will never be known - but the statistics of judgements made against the company must be a mere fraction of the number who took legal action. That in turn must be a fraction of the number of customers who were stuffed by the company but didn't actually sue in order to recover their money.

I have no way of knowing how many people have actualled sued any cpw company; I do know that one of my claims with this dealer wasn't paid as it should have been and I would have sued had the company not coughed up. I have also decided not to sue on another matter - although I may do just that later when something else which is likely to happen occurs.

I do not mean to be cryptic, but I absolutely refuse to give details which would be detrimental to my own interests - just as I know details of others on here but would not announce them on these threads.