Mobiles.co.uk cashback problems

llykstw

Yes, I read that thread. I think his claim that they've never been taken to court over a cashback claim might be killed off if I don't get somewhere in the next day or two!

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

Their rep (who actually claims to be their "senior manager") boasted to us that he considered them to be "the fairest online retailer".

I'm not going to revisit old ground, as I think I've done my best to show where you're wrong on all your other points and yet you still go out of your way to portray the company in the worst possible light as a result of your failure to understand some very simple facts, and out of a personal vendetta against CPW.

However, a) I made no such claim as to my position within the company and b) I would never boast, it's not very appealing - I voiced an opinion in trying to communicate our attitude to how the company runs.

Anyway, to the OP; we don't accept signed-for post on Saturdays as this would complicate our staffing rotas (only certain people are authorised to sign for deliveries); I'm updating the site (tomorrow) to clarify absolutely that we can't accept signed-for post on Saturdays which will avoid this happening in future.

Because the site is arguably not yet clear about the Cashback Team not working Saturdays I'll ask that your cashback claim is authorised as an exception, if you could email ben at mobiles.co.uk?

Thanks,

llykstw

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Anyway, to the OP; we don't accept signed-for post on Saturdays as this would complicate our staffing rotas (only certain people are authorised to sign for deliveries); I'm updating the site (tomorrow) to clarify absolutely that we can't accept signed-for post on Saturdays which will avoid this happening in future.

Because the site is arguably not yet clear about the Cashback Team not working Saturdays I'll ask that your cashback claim is authorised as an exception, if you could email ben at mobiles.co.uk?

Thanks,

Thank you, Ben. I completely understand that you may have very good reasons for not accepting Saturday signed-for post deliveries, but as you say, the site isn't clear on the point which is why this problem's arisen. I'm grateful for your response and offer of assistance, and I'll drop you an email. I'd encourage you to update the cashback guidance on the website though, both to explain that:

• email submission of claims is acceptable (which obviously avoids this sort of problem) and
• Saturday deliveries aren't accepted, so claims must arrive at your offices by Friday for deadlines on Saturdays or Sundays (or alternatively, you could treat deadlines that fall on Saturday or Sunday as falling on Monday).

Hopefully that would save both you and your customers a bit of work, and everyone will know where they stand and what they need to do.

Thanks again, and I'll take this to email, and update here once things are concluded.

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

, a) I made no such claim as to my position within the company and b) I would never boast, it's not very appealing - I voiced an opinion in trying to communicate our attitude to how the company runs.

a) This is what you say in your profile:

Biography: Here to answer questions from Mobiles.co.uk customers, as well as general mobile phone industry ones. Location: Watford. Occupation: Senior Manager

b) This is what you actually said:

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

Some would agree it sounds a boast. It definitely isn't true with regard to your attitude to ofcom's code regarding restrictive conditions for cashback.

And in this example, you interpret the "restrictive" 30 days to actually mean only 28, and only after all this effort by the op and the resulting mud stirring you say you will make an "exception"!

Sorry, but I'd expect the "fairest retailer I could find" to have accepted the claim as soon as it was apparent the ts + cs had been complied with, rather than climbing down after all this dirty washing aired in public!

And why not now bring your ts + cs into line with what ofcom wants and the rest of cpw does, and give us 60 days to send you the claim in?

You repeatedly have posted falsley various accusations about me (this includes accusing me of calling you "rude" (I haven't, though another has for which you have apologised!), and now coming into this thread with the same attitude (as shown above, you do claim to be the senior manager), expect to be corrected!

llykstw

Quentin wrote: »

And why not now bring your ts + cs into line with what ofcom wants and the rest of cpw does, and give us 60 days to send you the claim in?

This will become academic next month, as General Condition 23 will make it mandatory:

http://support.t-mobile.co.uk/resources/sites/TMOBILE/content/live/DOCUMENTS/0/DO189/en_GB/Summary%20of%20obligations%20for%20website%20210709.pdf

Quentin

I know, but it would have been a good opportunity for him to gain some points, and justify his (not boastful) claim! Instead his true colours are on show.

Anyway glad you got a result. Shame about the hassle needed to make him see sense!

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

I know, but it would have been a good opportunity for him to gain some points, and justify his (not boastful) claim! Instead his true colouts are on show.

Anyway glad you got a result. Shame about the hassle needed to make him see sense!

What hassle was needed to make him see sense? He comes on here, explains why his company does not accept mail on Saturdays - like most office based companies - agrees to accept the claim, agrees to clarify his t&c and you are already aware that the window will be 60 days next month.

I said before in a different post that the red mist seems to come down over your eyes as soon as anything to do with a CPW subsidiary arises making you appear to be blind to when someone from the company is trying to be helpful and to any neutral observer seems to be the good guy.

If he is not, then be assured that he is outplaying you completely on this forum.

Quentin

He comes here and explains they don't accept mail on Saturdays! But that is irrelevant.

And that would not have been necessary had they been a truly "fair" operation and just accepted the customer was right (which he was - the customer complied with the conditions to the letter).

They are the ones that make us used signed for mail! They cannot hope to get out of paying someone who uses their requested form of delivery which proves the letter was posted in good time, and delivery attempted within the timescale.

The hassle needed (in case you overlooked it):

The OP spends a lot of money on special delivery.

The OP gets his claim rejected.

The OP gets his appeal rejected

The OP posts a thread in public, explains he is a solicitor, and quite prepared to issue a county court claim.

Then he gets a result, but grudingly just an "exception", even though the company must realise they are at fault and grossly unfair to reject the claim!

How many others have they managed to reject on these grounds who weren't solicitors, and weren't MSE members?

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

only after all this effort by the op and the resulting mud stirring you say you will make an "exception"!

Sorry, but I'd expect the "fairest retailer I could find" to have accepted the claim as soon as it was apparent the ts + cs had been complied with, rather than climbing down after all this dirty washing aired in public!

I've only just become aware of this thread, unfortunately.


Regards,

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

The OP spends a lot of money on special delivery.

Because it was posted on day 29 of 30, which was a Friday.

The OP gets his claim rejected.

The OP gets his appeal rejected

To be fair to those who expect to make every last claim, and to run a financially viable business, we have to stick to our T&Cs, which in this case were not met (receipt within 30 days of bill date).

How many others have they managed to reject on these grounds who weren't solicitors, and weren't MSE members?

As I keep repeating, a miniscule percentage, and this is the first time I've ever been made aware of this particular situation occurring - and I have updated the site to avoid it happening again.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,