Coolnewmobile, merged threads

Lynsey

Well done Bob, you well deserve for your preseverence.

"Just MAYBE there will be less problems in the future."

If there is a future, they will do well to continue trading with all the bad press they have had.

lynsey

Quentin

Of course it's good you got a result.

As a general rule it is better not to negotiate with a Defendant once the summons has been issued.

In your case they clearly had no defence, (otherwise they wouldn't have volunteered the £50) and if you had stuck to your guns they would have paid your claim and you would now be finished with the cashback saga with them.

mobilejunkie

I'll believe them when they stop delaying payments with totally dishonest clap-trap and actually start paying in a reasonable time. Does anyone REALLY think they'd have paid up on this occasion if they weren't faced with an embarrassing court appearance?

As always, it is actions and not forced words which count. Being gullible is what gets a lot of people into difficulties in the first place.

bobstheboy

Quentin

I would have obviously liked the total cash back. You insinuate that I should have stuck to my guns and gone to court. Do you really believe any judge would have given me judgement for the total amount when the defendant has made a reasonable offer and reinstated my contract ? I would have run the considerable risk of losing everything.

Bob

Neillgb

Folks,

Same as Bob, got my cheque today for first claim and cashback claim reinstated in full. They settled 'out of court' Only 4 more claims to go!!

Don't hesitate to use the moneycliam system. It works. They do not want to go to court. This means that they cannot get away with their 'lost' and/or 'missing' tricks.

Bob,

I agree with your last post. Chisel away at them. No mercy though if the next cheque is late. I will be gining them written notice with my next claim that if I have not received my cashback cheque by post on the day following the due date that I will be online at the moneyclaim site again without further reference to them.

For those considering a summons for 'lost' claim keep your details in the summons simple. Give the reference number and the amount due for the first claim. Don't elaborate.

Good luck,

Neill

gromituk

bobstheboy wrote: »

The lady I spoke to was obviously in a senior position in the company.

I'm sure, because there's no evidence to suggest the company consists of anything beyond its directors!

She was very apologetic and even asked for my advice on how they could avoid problems such as mine.

Erm, how about starting by not lying about missing pages? What an unbelievable pronouncement. Perhaps she should look up the phrase "crocodile tears"?

She stated they were abiding by the new OFCOM conditions, 60 days to post the claim and allowing photo copies of bills. This applied to every customer.

Not that she would have had any choice. Indeed the website seems to have been updated, grudgingly:

"Copy Bills
If you send photocopied bills or web bills, we reserve the right to request originals or network copy bills if we suspect that the detail shown on the photocopied bills or web bills has been altered or obscured in some way. In order to avoid delays in receiving your cash back we always recommend that you provide origional bills."

But some dork has left this behind nevertheless:

"We do not accept copies or (sic) online bills."

Just MAYBE there will be less problems in the future.

Possibly, but probably not with this setup - I think by offering 100% cashbacks they've bitten off far more than they can chew and I would not be the least bit surprised if they don't just go belly-up, now that their dirty tricks campaign has had the rug pulled from under it.

bobstheboy

gromituk

You like to pull my posts apart, and have the last word.

I was just repeating, for those that have followed my problems and supported me with PM's, my conversation with the lady at CNM.

If they go under you'll be able to say "I told you so" and have the last word yet again.

Bob

gromituk

bobstheboy wrote: »

You like to pull my posts apart, and have the last word.

I think you have a knack for taking things the wrong way. I wasn't "pulling your post apart", I was just "translating" what the woman told you. The criticism was of her, not you, and I appreciate that you told us all the drivel you had been told. Moreover, if you care to peruse some of my other posts you'll see that you're far from having the honour of being singled out for special treatment! Quite why you take that as some sort of attack baffles me.

If they go under you'll be able to say "I told you so" and have the last word yet again.

What's it got to do with "having the last word"? You obviously see a precedent, so I look back and find that you're reacting the same way as you did to an earlier response of mine - you somehow turn it into a contest which one of us has to win. That was never my intention.

bobstheboy

Do I need a "translator" ? I think not.

It's not a contest, but yes you do annoy me with some of your comments.

Let's leave it at that.

Bob

gromituk

bobstheboy wrote: »

Do I need a "translator" ? I think not.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you, so I can only conclude that you have a fatal mix of the propensity to take offence and the propensity to miss the point. (Explanation of the obvious: the translation was not for you - it was for the type of person who reads the last couple of postings in a thread and draws the wrong conclusions from it.)