Coolnewmobile, merged threads

Neillgb

Stu,

I would be interested to know the outcome of any complaint you make to the Royal Mail with regard to loss of letter.

Thanks,

Neill

sinjin_smythe

Alltheloginsaretakenappar wrote: »

Hello again, I'm after second opinions please from some of you lovely cashback experts on here...

I've just received a letter claiming that I sent the second claim in too early, but I'm certain I didn't! Please tell me if I'm right or wrong:

• Connection date 21 March 2007
• Claim 2 "Send us the claim form and original monthly bill showing your name, address, mobile number and tariff you are connected on, dated 180 days (6 months) after connection"
• 180 days after connection I work out as 17 September
• I sent the bill dated exactly 17 September

Thanks in advance

Alltheloginsaretakenapparently

I know from my T-mobile bill - the bill is generated the day after your usage is summed up. I would say that your bill would be from 17th October to 23:59 on 16th September, so if you need to show that you were actually connected to the tariff on 17th September you might be a month early. If you are on a vodafone tarriff, they are billed a month in advance. If you are early, they will probably charge you a stupid admin fee, but you should be able to claim next month without your claim file being closed.

mobilejunkie

If the date on the bill is 17th that is as defined by the t&c:- "dated 180 days (6 months) after connection" They have defined it quite clearly.

sinjin_smythe

If you read the wording of the first instalment on the claim form "...showing you have been CONNECTED for 4 months" technically, the bill doesnt show you have been connected to the tarriff for 120 days if it was printed on the 120th day and bills you for the previous 119 days usage. What's to say you didnt cancel your contract or change to a different tarriff on the day it was printed?

This is probably why they have told him he sent his bill in too early. Im glad you think its clear anyway!, with mobile affiliates theres always two ways of looking at something

mobilejunkie

Not really. There's the legal way and numerous others. I prefer the legal. The bill in question shows they are connected on that day. There is also the question of whether the day of connection also counts, which would give an extra days grace. The t&c say two different things. I doubt a court would have much difficulty agreeing the bill in this case is correct!

[Deleted User]

Update

---

CNM phoned my wife and said cheque is on its way. Did actually recieve 1st installment as well. This was after sending them a final warning letter. Oh well, better cash it quick.

Unfortunately, my account is still the same. Not even sent me a cheque or refusal letter so I've sent them a final warning before action letter.

Looks like they're beginning to suss that people are sueing for the whole amount if they try it on with the first installment and its costing them money. So they're paying out the installment if they think you're serious !!!!

Quentin

As long as the summons has been issued (for the full amount), then it is too late for them to just pay any overdue instalments.

And if they ring you after you issue the summons, don't negotiate with them!

That way the only way they can avoid a ccj is to pay you the amount claimed on the summons in full.

RajaStyle

what is the period under the t&c's to post them the bill from the date it was printed ? Anyone ....

Lynsey

Raja, it should state on your claim form - mine states "1 calendar month"


Lynsey

buster1970

:beer:

Success at last. After fighting with Mobile Media Systems ( phonebox direct, cnm etc) for nearly a year they finally paid out. My advice is do not keep threatening legal action, give them one chance then start court proceedings with Moneyclaim while this company are still in business. My case wasn’t the strongest as I couldn’t prove disputed claim was sent but gambled on their own unfair T & C’s. They said they would defend the claim but bottled out after 3 weeks. Received chq’s for disputed claim + court fees & another contract that I hadn’t even started court proceedings with yet. Paid £460 for a £30 gamble. Chq’s were banked before the postman reached the gate & gave it a week before writing this as I thought they might bounce as soon as I withdrew court action. Although I knew I might lose I thought it was an opportunity to drag someone from MMS out of anonymity to face some abuse but I am happier with the money. Don’t think I could bear to pay their costs & expenses, but they really do not fancy court.

The letter denied blame on their part, gave payment as gestures of goodwill, told me not to inform 3rd parties & said I could no longer use their company but would I like to recommend friends .CHEEKY B******S!. The only hope for others is that it looks like somebody has been employed to resolve some issues to keep the company trading & they have invested in chq printing facilities, although this may have been done to help one of the directors Joanne Slater with her handwriting problems that should have been corrected at Primary school.

In edition to previous info on MMS ( post No: 755/756) Manager :- Jo Whipp & Ann Bond 01785 236201.

Thanks to all those for their advice & experiences on this site.