Coolnewmobile, merged threads

fagun

Neillgb wrote: »

You would think that in this modern day and age that email would be acceptable in legal proceedings, perhaps a little inconvenient for organisations like CNM though. I'm not a tech head, is there a way you can be sure that your email has been opened/received by somebody?

E-mail is an acceptable means of communications under the E-Commerce Directive. You don't need to prove that they opened it, as long as you use their publicised e-mail address (either as publiciised at the time of the contract, or as per current details on their website).

analyst_2

samba wrote: »

Personally it is my understanding that, if the mobile industry have deemed certain T&Cs to be unfair and unreasonable with reference to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999 No.2083, then any contracts which contain those unfair T&Cs that came into force after the above Regulations will also be unfair under those Regulations. . . .

That is broadly correct.

However, to clarify, regulations are regulations whatever they relate to, and are binding on anyone to whom they apply from the date they came into effect. You don't need to have an industry deem certain T & C's unreasonable, the courts will do that in their interpretation of the regulations.

Codes of Practice are NOT binding.
However, a court may take an established code of practice into account in testing the reasonableness of a company's actions, if the code indicates an industry standard.

In plain words, whilst the code is not legally binding per se, you'd be an idiot to appear in court not complying with it, because the court is almost inevitably going to take a dim view of that and it would seriously weaken your case.

It would be perfectly correct to point the court to a given code of practice as an industry guide to good practice.

But remember, the Regs precede and supersede the Code of Practice, and they made unfair contract terms illegal a long time ago. So applying the code to "new customers only" would be folly, because you expose yourself to prosecution for all your unfair practices on the old customers.

bobstheboy

I agree with analyst's summary.

I have spoken to CNM. They say they are abiding by the new COP's for all customers. I told them I had sent them an email and would like that in writing in case of any problems in the future. Whether I do get it confirmed in writing we will see. However my view is that if they did not conform and disallowed a claim under old T&C's regarding (i) time allowed to submit your claim or (ii) photo copies of bills, I would confidently take them on through MCOL.

Bob

AP

bobstheboy wrote: »

I agree with analyst's summary.

I have spoken to CNM. They say they are abiding by the new COP's for all customers. I told them I had sent them an email and would like that in writing in case of any problems in the future. Whether I do get it confirmed in writing we will see. However my view is that if they did not conform and disallowed a claim under old T&C's regarding (i) time allowed to submit your claim or (ii) photo copies of bills, I would confidently take them on through MCOL.

Bob

What is the name of the person you spoke to and what position in CNM is he/she in?

gromituk

The cheek of it. On pushing for my cheque (second time I sent the email) I have just received this semi-literate piece of illogicality:

"Hi,
Thank you for your email. as (sic) stated in our Terms and Conditions, We (sic) reserve the right to amend these terms at anytime (sic). On placing your order you agreed to this, (sic) since then we have lengthened the time to about 45 working days. as (sic) you stated, we have not changed the contract that you placed with us, just the amount of time it takes us to issue a cheque, which, as agreed to by yourself we reserve the right to do.

Regards,
Media Claims"

Oh by the way, there was no such clause in the T&Cs I signed up to. And you can't not change a contract you have just changed...

samba

gromituk wrote: »

"We (sic) reserve the right to amend these terms at anytime (sic)"

Don't worry about it - that piece of meaningless legal mumbojumbo is exactly the sort of thing the Unfair Terms and Conditions in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 were drawn up to combat. It will not stand up in court.


If you read through the Regulations, you will find it in there

StorminNorman_3

Hi I've just had my 1ST claim turned down for "no claim month was advised". I claimed for my entire last contract with no problems and am pretty sure I filled the relevant detail on the claim form correctly this time, but as I have no copy of the claim form I can't be 100% sure. I sent another claim form after 21 days had expired but within the “new” 60 day cut off period but they weren’t interested. Should I call their bluff telling them that I have a copy of the claim form, assuming that they are lying, and inform them that I will pursue the full years amount through the small claims court? If they produce a copy of the claim form proving I did omit the claim month, is that then the end of the matter or could I then sue claiming "unfair contract" or within the new longer claim time? My contract started in April by the way. Any advice would be much appreciated

gromituk

samba wrote: »

Don't worry about it - that piece of meaningless legal mumbojumbo is exactly the sort of thing the Unfair Terms and Conditions in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 were drawn up to combat. It will not stand up in court.

Thanks Samba - yes, I've already quoted that back at them, and also helped them out by sending them the terms that I signed up to, which contain no such clause anyway! :rolleyes: I really just thought I had to pass on their comments for sheer amusement value.

Neillgb

Thanks for that Fagun, very interesting. I will email MCOL to try and establish their position. What about documents then, surely as I was emailed my cash back claim form as an attachment it is not unreasonable to return it in the same manner duly completed. Also, it seems as copy bills are acceptable then why not send them electronically. Fax or email.

I'm sure CNM will be looking into this as well. Think of the excellent customer service it would provide for their customers if they gave them the facility to deal with their cash back claims without the hassle, expense and risks of using the postal service;)

Neill

fagun wrote: »

E-mail is an acceptable means of communications under the E-Commerce Directive. You don't need to prove that they opened it, as long as you use their publicised e-mail address (either as publiciised at the time of the contract, or as per current details on their website).

Neillgb

Stormin,

No copy equals 'unfair' route. CNM seem to be using 'incorrect' or 'no' month excuse for non payment a lot at the moment.

You will get nothing if you don't issue proceedings via MCOL so you may as well just send them a 7 day LBA ASAP and get things rolling.

Neill

PS Keep a copy and send it recorded!!!