Coolnewmobile, merged threads

agentsmith

ahem, sorry. I ditched the quote entirely now.

I've already bitten the bullet earlier this afternoon - moneyclaim in progress...

moneyclaim details:

CLAIM 2 of 5. The Company in question claims tariff page was missing.
Under dispute:
A) the claim form submitted to them (copy held) only requires tariff charges to be shown.
The time from identifying a 'missing' document and then informing was over 2mths - outside of claim window
C) By their own admission they 'missed' this fact (B) during their check on 26/6.
D) Ts Cs state incomplete claims result in 10GBP Penalty, the only reason it is higher is because of their delay
E) As a result of their inability to inform me of a problem within a reasonable time (over 2months) all subsequent claims are invalid. Meaning a shortfall of £336
Claim was sent the same day the bill was received (11/6) and MA signed for this on 12/6, that left nearly a full month for any subsequent comms to solve the problem

Tab1984

I just received a letter saying that my 3rd cashback claim hasnt been accepted because i "identified the wrong claim month on the form.You crossed out months 4,8,10 and 12, leaving 6 available" . I have completed the form many times for other contracts iv had with PBD, and im sure i did not do this on my CNM for. I am now uneligible to claim the remaining 252 pounds line rental. Is there/ has there been any similar cases in which CNM were scared into revoking such a n isssue and reinstating the claim?

Lynsey

YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! finally received my first cheque today.

Neil, it was printed on a Natwest cheque and dated 8th August.
I've pm'd you the other details you may need.

Best of luck everyone.


Lynsey

bobstheboy

The judgement in the case against Phones 2U at Tonbridge Couty Court on 6th August is very encouraging for those of us at odds with CNM regarding the "missing page" scam.

"District Judge Christopher Lethem ruled today in Tunbridge Wells County Court that part of Phones 2U Direct's Terms And Conditions are in breach of The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I would have considered this to be a hugely significant victory for the consumer even without the bonus of Phones 2U's representative telling the court that it could have an effect on many hundreds of other claims and that he wanted permission to appeal. This was refused of course by the formidable and impressive District Judge Lethem whose ruling took 42 minutes to deliver and contained a thorough analysis of the law in this area. Congratulations also to the brave claimant who took on the big boys at Phones2U Direct and won- She had no legal training and relied on her honesty and integrity. The District Judge described her evidence as "highly impressive" and he had no reason to doubt her contention that the appropriate documentation had been sent to Phones2U Direct.
District Judge Lethem relied on UTICCR '99 Regulation 5:

Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

and Schedule 2 (n)

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-


(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

During oral argument he told the Phones2U Direct representative:
" You created a scheme whereby the consumer cannot retrieve the situation and cannot even check within the designated period whether you have received the documentation. I am not comfortable with that"

and in his judgment, the District Judge ruled:

"The difficulty I have with this clause [in Phones 2U direct's T + Cs regarding the onus being placed on the consumer to post it but without the means to verify whether it has been done] is the rigour and the inflexibility of the requirements...There is no opportunity for a customer to provide duplicated authenticated documentation from the provider. If the letter is lost or destroyed, the consumer has lost any chance of rectifying the situation"

The clause was struck down and declared unlawful and the consumer obtained her whole 12 months' Cashback plus costs.

One final word on this matter-The District Judge refused to hear any evidence regarding postings on this or other sites. Imagine how damning his judgment would have been if he knew just how unprincipled and devious Phones2U Direct are when dealing with complaints. I shall be contacting the OFT to provide them with copies of the judgment and my transcript of the hearing. I think Martin Lewis, our mentor and hero, should make it clear that judges can rely on the authenticity of those posting here. Martin is scrupulous in removing those messages that he considers to be defamatory. It is worthy of note that Phones2U Direct has never taken legal action against Martin or those posting here. It is to be assumed that they know the complaints are genuine and wholly justified."

I shall quote this ruling when I submit my claim through Moneyclaims next week.

Bob

I should add that the words in qoutes are not mine but lifted from the Phones 2U thread.

Neillgb

Bob,

Great news!

The only danger now is if they go into liquidation.
They delayed me an extra 14 days by acknowledging service.

Neill

alnsv1000s

I agree about the liquidation.

As stated earlier another company has just been started up called MOBILE MEDIA SYSTEMS & MOBILE AFFILIATES LIMITED.

There are now at least 3 companies trading in relation to the same company.

Whats to stop them closing down the oldest one and continuing trading as MOBILE MEDIA SYSTEMS & MOBILE AFFILIATES LIMITED trading as Phonebox Direct or CoolNewMobile.

yabbas

Just received a correspondance to my letter - Trading Standards haven't been in touch with me yet - things are at a standstill!

Where do I apply for court proceedings? My other 4 claims STILL haven't been received and it's been way beyond their 28 day grace period! I've decided to claim for ALL tariffs.

The jokers KNOW the score, that much is obvious...

bobstheboy

Yabbas

The link for online claims is www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

Go for it and quote the judgement I posted above. The T&C's are unfair and unlawful.

Bob

Asiya_2

Hi Yabbas,
I received a similar letter today as well but the only difference is they did not say in my letter that page 3 of tariff bill is not received whereas they have stated clearly in your letter that page 3 was not received. Also they said that they do not destroy any pages either. I am going to court now and will ring OFT

trevorh

Dear All
Can anyone advise what is the best company name and address for the court action.

I assume I should name Mobile Affiliates (although my letter before action was to Mobile Media Systems as advised by Mobile Affiliates)

The address could either be Opus House as per Yabbas letter header or The Ropewalk as the footer although the latter seems to be the registered office.