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

Guys_Dad

Keep posting as your previous one. It just goes to prove the point.

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

888eyeball wrote: »

l placed an order for a HTC Hero on Vodafone only to be told by Rebecca Story at Mobiles.co.uk that Vodafone are no longer able to supply a tariff for my order. Why is this, since you say that this has been approved for sale on Vodafone.
This only came to light when l sent an e-mail to chase Mobiles.co.uk for an update, even though l received an confirmation last week that l had been accepted by Vodafone, otherwise l wouild have been left in the dark thinking that my number was waiting to be ported and my phone sent out after.:mad:

Hi,

Vodafone approval for the Hero (product testing, range planning etc) was only finalised yesterday, unfortunately we released the product onto our website early and this caused us and our customers problems.

I'm sorry that we didn't update you earlier, this has been an exceptional problem and it did cause some issues with how our Order Processing staff handled these orders.

Hopefully your handset has now been despatched? If you'd like to PM me your order number I'll make sure a car charger is sent to you as an apology for the delays.

Thanks for your patience, and apologies. Enjoy your new phone.

Regards,

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

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.

Hi Quentin,

This wasn't advertising, it was me saying how we try to operate. Fairness to customers is a key part of our philosophy.

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.

I honestly don't know which way this would have gone in front of a hypothetical judge, because receipt of the bill is the key qualifier and we didn't receive it until 2 days after the deadline. Obviously we refuse delivery on the Saturday and this fact wasn't (it is now) on our website, so to be fair I over-ruled our cashback team (who obviously just process in accordance with the T&Cs - they initially had no way of knowing a delivery was refused on the Saturday).

(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!

I never identified myself as a Senior Manager in the threads we were discussing, and I had forgotten that I had entered this into my profile under Occupation - hence my denying that I had "said" that.

Once you showed where I put that I edited it to fit in more with this profile's non-person-specific role here (at some point I will be delegating this profile to somebody else).

I'm sorry that I don't have the time to discuss each and every one of your claims, but this isn't through a lack of disagreement with them.

Cheers,

Quentin

So are you in fact a senior manager? (You know I pointed out I had posted the truth, but till now chose to suggest I lied, yet were happy to edit your occupation!)

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

This wasn't advertising, it was me saying how we try to operate. Fairness to customers is a key part of our philosophy.

Nevertheless you wrote it in the style of an advertisement, as opposed to how you "try to operate".

we are the fairest online mobile phone retailer you'll find

Irrespective of whether or not it was an ad, it was bound to be challenged!

How do you see it as "fair" to say a claim will be rejected if it happens to arrive on a day your staff don't take in mail?

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

So are you in fact a senior manager? (You know I pointed out I had posted the truth, but till now chose to suggest I lied, yet were happy to edit your occupation!)

Hi Quentin,

I didn't suggest you lied, I already explained the editing.

Regards,

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

Nevertheless you wrote it in the style of an advertisement, as opposed to how you "try to operate".

The actual quote is getting smaller and smaller I see, and is by now completely out of context - "I happen to think" is the latest bit to go.

I think we're the fairest online retailer, you disagree.

Thanks,

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Silk wrote: »

To be honest this excuse has been banded about for about a month or so saying it's swine flu and staff shortages. When I spoke to Daniel yesterday he said that there was just over 70 staff in at the moment and reading some posts on the net it seems to be about right for a full compliment.

Hi Silk,

Our returns department is currently under-staffed through a combination of illness, recent staff departures, training courses and holiday; I agree entirely that you have not had a good experience and I'm speaking to the Operations Manager to investigate what happened and come up with actions to stop it happening again.

Either myself or the Operations Manager will be emailing you with a fuller explanation, a detailed apology and we shall also of course be considering how we can make it up to you.

Regards,

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

The actual quote is getting smaller and smaller I see, and is by now completely out of context - "I happen to think" is the latest bit to go.

I have previously quoted you in full in discussion over the "fairest" retailer claim. The contraction is space saving, nothing more. Why not answer the points raised regarding where this fairest claim isn't true rather than merely try to discredit the poster?

Your claim in full (from this thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1860299 )

I happen to think we are the fairest online mobile phone retailer you'll find and there's abundant evidence of this just in this thread

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Quentin wrote: »

Why not answer the points raised regarding where this fairest claim isn't true rather than merely try to discredit the poster?

Hi,

Fairness is subjective, so proving it would be difficult..

For the purposes of closing this discussion, the quote in full (emphasis added);

"Thanks for your input, obviously we disagree about certain things and there's not much to be gained by continually going back and forth about all this.

I happen to think we are the fairest online mobile phone retailer you'll find and there's abundant evidence of this just in this thread, but you're of course welcome to your opinions."