mobiles.co.uk Any Good??

OneADay

7000 a week thats 364000 a year - and a company that bad still survives?

And are you asking to be paid - plain argung with this rep chap is getting nowhere.

mobilejunkie

Your turn to not answer. If you have no contract with them how can you constantly question my motives etc. when my comments ARE based on knowledge (despite the rep saying I have none!) and experiences directly with THIS company (APART from other cpw companies, that is!)?

You obviously believe the rep has 7,000 customers a week who are happy. I don't. As for very bad companies surviving - many do (for quite some time). Have you seen all the problems people have with Vodafone? Are THEY a good company? They too have resorted to appearing on this site in an attempt to paint over the chasms appearing in their day-to-day customer "service".

It's very easy to sit on the sidelines passing judgement without dipping your own toes into the water. I reserved judgement on this company for quite some time (which you might be able to find if you delve back just over a year when it first became noticable on here and comparison sites) until I actually HAD the experience. As I have said repeatedly, my experiences have been mixed. However, the responses from the rep have definitely shifted the balance of any doubt as far as I'm concerned.

The "rep chap" IS paid - THAT is the point. If he was NOT paid for his time on here I am quite sure he would not be on here. I am not asking to be paid - but my time is extremely precious. YOU may think this is getting no-where, but it has highlighted some fundamental things about them as far as I'm concerned.

Any company which IGNORES and/or changes its OWN t&c in retrospect because it is NOT honouring them is committing a fundamental sin in the cashback world. This company is doing just that. The attempts to shut me (and others) up and suggest the problem is with ME because I will not ask for the rep's "help" or help them with feedback on new t&c is an absolute nonsense. I would always be willing to consider feedback on something where a dealer is TRUSTWORTHY. Mobiles.co.uk has plainly shown that it is NOT trustworthy.

TREVORCOLMAN

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE!!! ANY notion that CPW won't defend a non-valid legal claim because it is not worth it is LAUGHABLE!!! How many HAVE they defended at great cost to themselves with no prospect of winning against a VALID claim in an attempt to BULLY the complainant away from the case?? THIS is also sometihing I also KNOW a lot about!

I can confirm they do try to bully us out of going to Court as this has happened to me on more than one occasion. They seem to think that getting a solictor to lie for them is acceptable. The solictor signs a statement saying that CPW does not owe any money and at the same time CPW tries to settle with the customer. If CPW are so sure they are going to win why did they not take me all the way to an appearance in Court?

Guys_Dad

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Only by you and one or two others.

Have YOU got a cashback contract with this dealer? My 40 minutes was because I was out all day, back for about 90 minutes then out again - during which time I had lots of references to me. I will not go away because the few dislike what I say. Like Mobiles, there must be 7,000 a week who agree with me and don't post on here!

I reckon my 40 minutes UNPAID is more than fair given that the rep is PAID for his time.

No - like I have said earlier, my contract runs out next month and I was looking for some advice/comments on this forum so that I could weigh up my options - which are tending to go towards sim-only, to be honest. At least for a few months till better deals come around.

Now I have read a number of your posts over the last 18 months or so and, initially, I was very impressed with your - and Quentin's - informed and generally helpful advice. You will note that I have recommended your Cashback Guide for Dummies more than once.

But your current exchanges with this company have been excessive and have been made in a tone that counteracts against your otherwise beneficial advice and experience to the extent that they read like "Oh, it's that CPW-hating repetitive fanatic steeming off again". You seem to see things as pitch black or snow white with no intermediate shades in between. At least you do to me and a couple of others who have taken the time to comment. And, yes, you have supporters too.

Now I am NOT, repeat NOT, defending this company when they appear to be failing in their promises. And, yes, their cheque drawing cycle does not compare favourably with Phones4U subsidiaries from the posts on here.

What I am saying is, instead of picking on every nuance from the rep's replies, you should concede when he goes into writing and promises on this forum in front of hundreds of MSE members to sort things out, but allow a little time - or the timescales that you know but don't love - to get things done. Absolutely no excuses for mobiles.co.uk not to return calls/emails etc and that does not show them in a good light and will cost them business. But when other people scrape the barrel by commenting on them not filing their annual return (not their annual accounts by the way) on time and you take personal swipes at their rep over the same things over and over, it begins to look like a mass shark feeding frenzy with you as a Great White.

If you moderate your posts (not run away) and revert to being more of a sage/oracle rather than a bully-boy attack dog, your contributions to this forum would be much enhanced.

mobilejunkie

The problem is that when initially challenged over the payment tardiness (thus breaking the t&c) the rep started doing the first fundamental no-no; picking and choosing the parts of the t&c they comply with and disposing of those which they don't. He then proceeded to first distance himself from cpw entirely and then reversed that to blame court cases lost and late payments on cpw administration. He has also claimed they have never denied a valid claim; something I know personally to be totally and utterly untrue. When someone who is supposedly here to listen and help starts making totally untrue statements about fundamental things like that there is no "grey" area and past experience with other cpw companies suggests most strongly that "benefit of the doubt" is undeserved and - if given - totally one-way. This company would NEVER give a customer the "benefit of the doubt" on a cashback claim unless (as with the Saturday claim previously raised on here) it was publicly embarrassing and obviously showed up the false claims of "the fairest dealer on the net" etc to be untrue also.

The contrast between Mobiles2yourdoor (who I very much doubt I would even have to contemplate suing provided they don't suddenly change as cpw deliberately did 2.5 years ago) and Mobiles.co.uk (who I know may always force me to sue - I have already needed to threaten and could have threatened more than once) could not be more dramatic. Anyone who has used both companies must be aware of the massive difference between them.

Had you dealt with these companies directly you would be more sensitive to the problems with this one in stark contrast to the other. You might also not sit idly by when people who are considering using either but who are far less experienced in cashback deals appear on these threads and get the smooth appearance that Mobiles.co.uk does nothing wrong and follows its t&c so people have nothing to worry about. Unfortuanelty, they should worry. That does not mean they should not use the company - but they should ONLY use them if they go in with their eyes wide open and cover themselves every step of the way so that they are ready, willing and able to sue if needbe.

With cashback deals there is one fundamental principle; never go into one without knowing exactly who you're really dealing with (cpw in this case despite the procrastinations), exactly what the t&c are and what you need to do to get paid (even when the dealer refuses payment). I wish that Mobiles.co.uk did NOT walk and talk like other cpw companies but my experience of them on here (and directly) is that they largely (though not entirely YET) do!

I also resent being told that I am "uninformed" (I definitely know a lot more than the rep thinks or will acknowledge - and more than I am prepared to put on these threads) and that I should "shut up" on "his" threads. When he has spent nearly three years posting and helping (and not misleading as he often does) he will have earnt a little more "right" to make such a suggestion. As long as he does the opposite I will not respect such opinions.

Andyblizz

Guys_Dad wrote: »

.....But when other people scrape the barrel by commenting on them not filing their annual return (not their annual accounts by the way) on time ......

I was me that mentioned the Annual Return. And it was not scraping the barrel i was just informing there rep about the late filing. As i was on companies house looking at the incorporation date of the company.

It you look at the posts i have made in reference to my few posts about mobiles.co.uk. There are based on fact.

OneADay

Andyblizz wrote: »

I was me that mentioned the Annual Return. And it was not scraping the barrel i was just informing there rep about the late filing.

The annual return was mentioned earlier by someone else - its nothing short of scare mongering.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote:

.....But when other people scrape the barrel by commenting on them not filing their annual return (not their annual accounts by the way) on time ......

Why differentiate between not sending returns or accounts?

If you don't send in your return within 28 days of the due date you commit a criminal offence, for which directors and the company secretary can be prosecuted. (Directors could be disqualified from acting as a director). This is in addition to the civil offence already committed by the late submission.

Reputable companies don't feature like this! (As well as not lying down and accepting easily avoidable registered CCJs because they feel the claim "not worth defending" as we are expected to believe happens with this outfit)

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

Why differentiate between not sending returns or accounts?

If you don't send in your return within 28 days of the due date you commit a criminal offence, for which directors and the company secretary can be prosecuted. (Directors could be disqualified from acting as a director). This is in addition to the civil offence already committed by the late submission.

Reputable companies don't feature like this! (As well as not lying down and accepting easily avoidable registered CCJs because they feel the claim "not worth defending" as we are expected to believe happens with this outfit)

Because it is mud slinging and kicking a dog when it is down and totally irrelevant to the issue in hand. Given the demise of other cashback companies who have gone out of business and left lots of people in debt. When a company fails to file its annual accounts for a period, it often indicates that they are shaky. Referring to late filing would tend to give some MSE members the impression that they were in some sort of financial trouble. This is without foundation - at least I believe that to be the case.

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

(As well as not lying down and accepting easily avoidable registered CCJs because they feel the claim "not worth defending" as we are expected to believe happens with this outfit)

If you have read the threads on mobiles.co.uk, you will have taken on board that the CPW head office legal boys seem to deal with all the CPW companies' cases. Whether or not a case is defended, therefore, is probably out of "this outfit's" control.

Once again, you fail to differentiate between the subsidiary and the group and this dilutes the value of many of your posts.