Mobiles.co.uk have recalled the HTC Hero - What are my rights?

mobilejunkie

Then why is it that cpw companies have pages of threads of people with problems and Mobiles2yourdoor/Phones4u do not? I am being fair!

nafe

I dunno, are there reps for mobiles2yourdoor/phones4u on this site?

Hey, I'm not saying they don't provide an awful service, I've no idea either way but I can imagine it's easy to get a distorted idea about a company if most of your info comes from this site. After all, it's a consumer revenge site, not consumer happy with their provider site .

888eyeball

nafe wrote: »

To be fair, people with problems are always far more vocal than those without.

Your right there, how else would we let others know the hassle we get from these companies if we weren't vocal. You would normally expect them to at least have the decency to tell me they are not going to honour my order, but no, had to chase them to get a response, and even that was a hassle to do.:mad:

Remember we will be paying these companies for their service, and that how they stay in business.

mobilejunkie

nafe wrote: »

I dunno, are there reps for mobiles2yourdoor/phones4u on this site?

Hey, I'm not saying they don't provide an awful service, I've no idea either way but I can imagine it's easy to get a distorted idea about a company if most of your info comes from this site. After all, it's a consumer revenge site, not consumer happy with their provider site .

No; they don't need to because they don't dish out the kind of customer "service" which creates the kind of experiences reported en masse on here by cpw (in its various guises) customers.

I don't have a "distorted idea" about a company. I do, however, have far more experience of cpw than most of the people who post comments on here. It is that first hand (and substantial) experience on which my posts are based. I would equally give praise IF it were due - sadly it most definitely is not! I also have no requirement for the rep's "services"; I will sue as and when required. However, most people dealing with these companies do NOT have the experience and knowledge that I have. I believe my warnings and criticisms are not only well founded but badly needed - especially when the company comes on and paints a nice rosy picture which is blatantly untrue. He is paid for his time on here - I am not.

Guys_Dad

mobilejunkie wrote: »

................... I do, however, have far more experience of cpw than most of the people who post comments on here. It is that first hand (and substantial) experience on which my posts are based. .

Very true - and your help an comments have been very helpful to MSE contributors. But as you write above, your experience has been with "cpw companies" in the generic sense.

But as far as mobiles.co.uk goes, and keeping the question to (a) that particular company and (b) your personal experience (not other people's gripes on here) just what is their record with you and the people you look after?

In particular,
(a) how many times have they tried to get out of one of your cashbacks
(b) what is the longest time that you have had to wait for a stage payment
(c) roughly how many contracts have you and yours had with this particular company

This would be really helpful as people are interested in specific cashback sites rather than composite cpw companies as a whole.

Quentin

There are a number of threads in this forum regarding problems with mobiles uk.

eg.It has been reported they tried to get out of paying cashback by telling a customer his cashback claim arrived late (when in fact this was because they wouldn't accept it on the last due date, as unknown to the customer they won't sign for mail that arrives on Saturdays!) So although the claim arrived in time, and they refused to accept it, they then used their ts + cs to repeatedly tell the customer the claim had failed due to late arrival.

Only when the customer publicised this on MSE, revealed he was a solicitor, and was quite prepared to sue them for his money did they eventually back down.

In other threads you will see they give poor service, change their ts + cs on line from the original agreed ts + cs, and have up to now refused to comply with ofcom over an unfair cashback redemption condition (when the rest of the cpw companies have come into line some time ago)

For whatever reason, you are sympathetic to this company, and continually post support for them. So are your questions above truly "genuine" ones?

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

There are a number of threads in this forum regarding problems with mobiles uk.

For whatever reason, you are sympathetic to this company, and continually post support for them. So are your questions above truly "genuine" ones?

Absolutely genuine. The reason is that for some considerable time both you and Mobilejunkie have posted comments about various CPW companies that have undisputedly renaged on cashback claims, have been taken to court, have settled at the last minute. MJ's advice on how to sue is excellent and I have every respect for your tenacity in pursuing these less-than-honest companies.

Mobiles.co.uk are part of that group and, naturally, have to comply with some overall CPW policies. I believe that all the CPW companies probably use the same cashback procedures and are, therefore caught up in the extended payment period fiasco. There is absolutely no administrative need for repayments to take from 30-58 days.

However, and this is where I take issue with both of you, is that in the areas directly under mobile.co.uk's control - and that primarily includes the actual agreeing of claims - I believe that their record seems to be pretty good. I also note that when Ben has been asked to consider specific cases he has generally taken on board the problem and has done something about it.

Now when he was asked to make his t&c clearer and agreed to do so, it hardly seems fair for both you and MJ to then throw back in his face that mobiles.co.uk have changed their t&c! That's just one example.

And I do not believe for one minute that the reason he agreed to settle the claim to which you refer because the poster indicated he was a solicitor - his reply was that he agreed his t&c were not specific and it was a good bit of PR, if nothing else, to concede the point, whist at the same time shutting the door by changing his t&c to inform future customers that no receipts on Saturdays would be accepted.

On the contrary, it is not my sympathy to this company that provokes my contribution - it is the way in which neither you nor MJ can even contemplate that CPW may just have one decent, honest individual in some position of power working for a subsidiary whose intent is to carry out their business as ethically as their corporate policy allows and your comments that seem to attack Ben personally on the 3 current mobile.co.uk threads (re-read them and you will see what I mean) offend my sense of fair play.

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

However, and this is where I take issue with both of you, is that in the areas directly under mobile.co.uk's control - and that primarily includes the actual agreeing of claims - I believe that their record seems to be pretty good. I also note that when Ben has been asked to consider specific cases he has generally taken on board the problem and has done something about it.

Hi Guys Dad,
Out of interest have you been reading the thread regarding the waiting time ?

Guys_Dad

Silk wrote: »

Hi Guys Dad,
Out of interest have you been reading the thread regarding the waiting time ?

Yes I have and I am not impressed with the service you have received. I think that for an organisation to promise to ring back, do something and then fail - repeatedly is unacceptable.

Where I have a certain sympathy - with both of you is that I run an I T department that provides a service to some 500 people and at present, with some support guys on holiday, 2 down with swine flu and another off with some other medical problem our SLA is well down on what we normally provide and our backlog is growing! Frankly, I am surprised that Ben has taken as much time out to answer comments as he has, but I guess he is looking at the bigger picture.

I do hope that you get a satisfactory solution to your gf's phone situation.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote: »

On the contrary, it is not my sympathy to this company that provokes my contribution - it is the way in which neither you nor MJ can even contemplate that CPW may just have one decent, honest individual in some position of power working for a subsidiary whose intent is to carry out their business as ethically as their corporate policy allows and your comments that seem to attack Ben personally on the 3 current mobile.co.uk threads (re-read them and you will see what I mean) offend my sense of fair play.

Before the issue over the wrongly rejected claim came to light, the rep used this forum to claim "we are the fairest online mobile phone retailer you'll find".

Using the forum to make that sort of blatant promotion is bound to get some reaction, not just because it breaks the rules on advertising, but it is patently untrue.

In particular, they have blatantly refused to comply with ofcom on their condition allowing only 30 days from the date of the required bill to be submitted, when the rest of the CPW group altered this some time ago.

And the case highlighted is again patently unfair - the customer got his claim to them ontime, yet they repeatedly rejected it, despite his appeal.

When the customer went public here, they had no choice but to accept the claim - it was submitted in accordance with the conditions, delivery was attempted in time, but they wouldn't accept it! Had it ended up as a moneyclaim in front of a judge, the outcome isn't in any doubt.

It was not just because the customer is a solicitor, (and I didn't say that)!

You say I seem to make personal attacks on their rep. Not so.

But if you read his posts you will see many personal attacks on me, including calling me a liar, (in so many words), when denying posting matters which I have quoted from him. (eg. He denied claiming to be a Senior Manager, I proved he did, so he cynically edited the "Senior Manager" out, replaced it with "Rep", but made no apology for the false accusation. Indeed throughout you will see he chooses what to ignore!