Mobiles.co.uk cashback problems

thommy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Thommy, I agree with you.

I previously posted that in my view MJ was becoming a troll and his previous helpful posting record was being taken over by a vendetta. I found the following URL that describes what a troll is and I leave it to you to agree or disagree.
http: //curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

i agree - trolls live in another world....

Guys_Dad

thommy wrote: »

i agree - trolls live in another world....

If they did, I wouldn't mind. It's when they start inhabiting ours that gets me riled!

thommy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If they did, I wouldn't mind. It's when they start inhabiting ours that gets me riled!

let's hope they don't breed!

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

I still can't believe that you are honestly saying that the time it takes a cheque to arrive (after a claim is confirmed within the 30 days that the site has always stated is the timescale for CONFIRMING and SENDING, not delivery) is a fundamental part of any T&Cs and that this is comparable to a dealer who doesn't pay valid claims, changes the T&Cs relating to claim validity, is deliberately misleading customers about claiming etc etc.

Of course the time it takes to get paid forms an enforceable part of the contract. Reneging on the contract ts + cs by late payment is as equally frustrating to the customer as any other breach of the deal.

If cashback arrives late it then wasn't sent within the timeframe. That is a breach of the ts + cs. The county courts are there to help get money out of late payers!

And what happens when customers cashback claims arrive outside of the timeframe stated in your contract?

mobilejunkie

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

MJ,

I still can't believe that you are honestly saying that the time it takes a cheque to arrive (after a claim is confirmed within the 30 days that the site has always stated is the timescale for CONFIRMING and SENDING, not delivery) is a fundamental part of any T&Cs and that this is comparable to a dealer who doesn't pay valid claims, changes the T&Cs relating to claim validity, is deliberately misleading customers about claiming etc etc.

This is the root of my problems with your ongoing posts - you seem unable to even comprehend the MASSIVE difference between the two. You don't like waiting for a cheque - I get it - but really, you're treating us like BCCI or Enron because of nothing.

I offered you the chance to review our cashback update that's occurring shortly, and I'll be explicit here about this not being a PR piece etc; we'll never mention the fact that you've had input into our update; I really, genuinely don't care about perception, I'm trying to make a part of the industry that is a real pain for everyone as painless and transparent as possible and I don't think you want to appreciate that; we're evil, you're the knight in shining armour etc.

Regards,

You'll have to believe it while I'm around - but it's what a judge believes that counts.

As for the rest; your t&c clearly stated "sent within 30 days". Clearly that is ignored. It doesn't take another two - three weeks for the Post Office to deliver ONCE POSTED. It is a complete lie that it is "sent" by then. Strange how one minute it IS part of the t&c as long as you can twist the precise wroding (it didn't say it as you said either!) and the meaning (which clearly also is untrue as I have repeatedly explained).

As for the red herring of my contributing to your new t&c - there is zero point contributing to any t&c when the dealer chooses which parts they honour and which they don't!

I also do not believe for one second that you "can't believe" etc. It's taken you two weeks to finally answer my first and most fundamental of questions - but then you change your mind about what is and is not a t&c constantly.

mobilejunkie

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If they did, I wouldn't mind. It's when they start inhabiting ours that gets me riled!

Sorry to disappoint you two, but it's "our" world and not "yours" so you'll just have to grin and bear it.

mobilejunkie

thommy wrote: »

let's hope they don't breed!

Why not? You seem to be doing your best to do just that with Guy's Dad!

Edinburghlass_2

Thread closed and referred to abuse.