Coolnewmobile, merged threads

analyst_2

paulfoel, I think you need to be a bit more emphatic than that

Keith_F

Andyblizz wrote: »

Yeah i get what you are saying. But there it was the same with OSPS when i took my contract out and i had no probs with them.

Deal with them at your peril.

A year ago there were few complaints about CNM.

The number of complaints has gone up dramatically recently, never do business with somebody who is delaying paying the bills, it is the first sign they are in trouble.

Keith_F

Money_Maker_Shaker wrote: »

Could somebody be so kind as to email me a copy of the CNM claim form. I do have 1 which I've copied but as they sent it via post and not email I don't have an electronic copy. My contract id from June so before they added the requirement for the dispatch slip.

Many thanks

You have a pm

Neillgb

Whilst I would be the last one to discourage any one from whacking this lot I think, on reflection, I would urge a little caution with regards to the 'you have beached the t&c once(late chq probably) so I want the whole cash back paid' route.

From the CNM point of view the consequences of creating a precedent by capitulaing to such a demand could be dire if it became widely known. Therefore they might go to Court and fight. They might defend the case on the grounds that they have been reasonable in offering to bring the cash back up to date and refund any court fees.

Now, if you as a judge, just looked at the last sentence in my last paragraph would you say they have been unreasonable? They would say they had made a genuine mistake, delays due to this that or whatever.

I am not saying you would lose they case but , as I say, I would urge caution.

Money maker, I think Keith has probably sorted u out but if not give me a pm. I think I have what you want.

Neill

Quentin

If they only make an offer to settle only part of a claim after a summons (claiming that as a result of their fundamental breach the whole cashback outstanding is due) has been issued, then a defence that "they have been reasonable in offering to bring the cash back up to date and refund any court fees" is not a defence against a significant breach.

If you are claiming the whole cashback, then you will have paid the appropriate fee for the sum involved, and there is no reason why you should drop the case and accept any offer to pay you only the missing instalment.

Ask yourself if it was the other way round (and you had missed a deadline to which you had agreed to send in your claim), would they relent and still pay you?

Money_Maker_Shaker

I've got Watchdog on the background and it looks like they will be running a feature on mobile phone cashback deals - I wonder if our CNM friends will be featuring?

Neillgb

Quentin,

Quantify 'significant'. 5 days late with a chq perhaps, 5 weeks maybe? There again it does not matter what you or I think. Its what the Judge thinks. They may well pay up but there is a small possibility they may fight. Bear in mind that you are asking for money that, they will say, is not due to you yet.

Of course they should pay cash back due to date plus ANY Court fees paid.

No they will try not to pay you. then you go down the 'Unfair Terms' route.

Neill

Lynsey

bobstheboy wrote: »

Well they are trying it on again. They received my claim on 19th September and it has been accepted. They are saying it will be paid "within 45 working days because of the high volume of cheques at this time." I have reminded them I signed a contract which stated payments would be made within 28 working days. They say they can change them if they wish. I have told them I will sue if I don't get my money within the 28 working days.

Watch this space. Yes I should have held out for the whole amount .....


Bob

Unbelievable after all the hassle you have had. I don't like to swear willy nilly but these [EMAIL="b&5t@rd5"]b&5t@rd5[/EMAIL] are taking the p1$$ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lynsey

Neillgb

Ref Watchdog

In a nutshell, with 3 at least, retailers are told that 40% of claims should fail for one reason or another. Basis of retailers business is that this is the case. 80% claim = oh dear for retailer and, possibly, customer.

VERY negative on cash back schemes which is not good news for future of cash back companies and people owed money by them.

Bob,

In view of the above I would definately stick to the 28 days. Get cash ASAP. My 3rd claim in the post tomorrow with written notice that unless payment is received within 28 days as per contract that online summons will be issued without further Notice. Have expressed concerns on forum about going for whole cash back due recently if they do not comply. However, in view of the above, I feel it may be a wise move now. Same Court fee anyway.

Neill

Quentin

Neillgb wrote: »

Quentin,

Quantify 'significant'.....

You misunderstand.

A "significant breach" is a legal term, and doesn't require quantifying.

If they commit a "fundamental breach", (legal term), of the contract, then the breach is one which is so fundamental to the original contract that the hurt party can claim the full amount due under the contract.

Cashback contracts are only about money.

eg. One party makes a correct claim for money, and the other agrees to pay the money on receipt of correctly submitted claims. If the money is not paid, then the contract has been breached in a "fundamental" way.

Alternatively, if the contract says the money will be paid direct to your bank account within 30 days of receipt of the valid claim, but they send you a cheque, then the contract has still been breached (by sending a cheque rather than direct payment), but this breach wouldn't be seen as a "fundamental" breach - as they did send the money as agreed, and although they defaulted on the method of payment, the money arrived on time.

As far as deciding how long a delay is deemed significant, in these contracts just one day's delay is highly significant, as (according to the conditions) if you miss the claiming deadline by one day, then you lose your money.

In practice, if you decide to take legal action to recover unpaid money, then you can start the process if the cheque is one day late - by the time the letter before action has been sent, and the days allowed to pay have elapsed without success, necessitating a court summons to be issued there would be some 6 or so weeks before the case came to a hearing (should they not pay up on receipt of the summons), so your scenario of 5 days or 5 weeks as a delay is covered!

You suggest using "Unfair Terms" route, but this is a different matter to a claim for a fundamental breach of contract.

If you have not been paid because you fell foul of a term you consider unfair, then you ought to get legal advice on how to proceed.