mobiles.co.uk Any Good??

Guys_Dad

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

28 days to raise a cheque + 30 days to approve a cashback claim = the much debated 58 days, distorted by MJ as being something it isn't because he believes the time that must pass before a cheque can be stopped and re-issued is somehow part of the T&C-stated 30 days to validate *and send* the cheque.

In this case, we're talking about 28 days before Silk should ask where it is, but the distortion has obviously worked.

Thanks,

Apologies. You are right. So the clock is ticking on 28 days then.

The main point, however, stood. Silk should wait a bit before he complains that your ex gratia payment has not been received.

Silk

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Incorrect. I joined here by choice and I will leave by choice. I'm not a "marketing guy paid to swoop in", I'm someone trying to improve the company and part of this is speaking to your critics or customers who feel let down. I can and will leave when I want to, and could have done at any point from day one; so why did I saty? Because I'm genuinely trying to improve things or because I enjoyed Quentin and MJ's uninformed and biased attacks so much?

Thanks,

It may be your choice to come on here and whether someone instructs you to does not matter. What does matter is that you are paid to make posts as part of your job.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/htc-mobile-phone-discussions/1056166-buying-htc-hero-vodaphone-2.html

Aye, hopefully if you look at my post history you can see I'm only here to help - a "mobiles.co.uk" Google Alert pops up and I swoop in to see what's going on

Once you have been alerted to the posts you will make promises to help that never come to fruition and move on to the next one !

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Silk wrote: »

Once you have been alerted to the posts you will make promises to help that never come to fruition and move on to the next one !

Of course you can think what you like about my motivations, but at the end of the day only one of us knows for sure, yes? I'm happy that I know why I'm here, but thanks for your opinions.

I'm absolutely not paid to "make posts", by the way.

Regards,

Silk

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Promise?

Yes, it has. I'd love someone else who knows this to come and back me up (feel free to ask the O2 cancellations team yourself) but I'm reduced to repeating what I said even before you "cancelled" it yourself (wonder why I bothered saying it....) - cancellations take time to go through the system and can result in invoices (followed by credits), as well as O2 reps who say the account's live even after the cancellation request has been lodged with O2.

Regards,

If you had been following the thread where all this fiasco started you would have seen that a senior Manager from O2 was trying to get hold of you on the phone and gave up because I got through before he did !
I'm quite sure that if I'm speaking to the O2 accounts dept and they bring it up on the screen and they say it hasn't been cancelled then it means it hasn't been cancelled.
If you also had read the thread you would have seen that it took them about 2 mins to cancell it.
You would also have read that O2 were monitoring the situation since I was first in contact with them and had faxed details through.
Fortunately for me because they were able to track it back to my fax and conversations to them the bill was quashed.
They did say that if I hadn't done it myself I would have been liable for the bill because you had not cancelled it !
Even you yourself admitted when you became aware I received the bill that I was supposed to use your compensation towards it :mad:

Silk

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Of course you can think what you like about my motivations, but at the end of the day only one of us knows for sure, yes? I'm happy that I know why I'm here, but thanks for your opinions.

I'm absolutely not paid to "make posts", by the way.

Regards,

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
It's not what I think Ben its what We see
Perhaps it's not in your COE to make posts but it's what your job entails.
Of that I don't think there is any doubt !

Andyblizz

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

As I've said before, we don't want to run cashback by redemption because all it does it potentially turn happy customers into angry ones. People keep buying them and we can't give up business just because we don't like it, so we run it as cleanly as possible (evidence by zero CCJs against us) and try to promote alternatives (like Automatic Cashback or instantly-despatched free gifts, both of which we launched first).

On top of this I've made numerous changes to our site and how we work based on feedback from just this website, I've asked for feedback or discussions with various people and been ignored (while they continue to attack me), and yes, tried to stay here to help others.

Thanks for your support,

Ben

I have pointed out to you before that your company does have CCJ's. One paid and 1 outstanding.

Exact CCJ Details Date Court Amount Status Case Number Date Paid
07/04/2009 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £485 Judgement 9QT26829 -
05/08/2008 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £215 Satisfied 8QT64691 06/11/2008


So saying "so we run it as cleanly as possible (evidence by zero CCJs against us) " is actually a lie.

While the details of the 2 said CCJ are between the Courts, Mobiles.co.uk and the other party involved, unless one of these parties realease the information nobody will know the details.
You have previously said they are not for cashback claims but have not said what they are for !!!!!!

(Oh buy the way I now have Mobiles.co.uk on constant monitoring so any official change relating mobiles.co.uk, i know about with 24 hours normally)

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Silk wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
It's not what I think Ben its what We see
Perhaps it's not in your COE to make posts but it's what your job entails.
Of that I don't think there is any doubt !

Incorrect. Customer Service should be here, but I can't put this account into their hands because they'd be attacked non-stop and couldn't handle it as "well" as I'm trying to.

I've already told you that I'm here out of a desire to use customer feedback to improve the site and business - this is more in line with my job (but really doesn't cover half of it).

Regards,

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative

Andyblizz wrote: »

Ben

I have pointed out to you before that your company does have CCJ's. One paid and 1 outstanding.

Exact CCJ Details Date Court Amount Status Case Number Date Paid
07/04/2009 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £485 Judgement 9QT26829 -
05/08/2008 NORTHAMPTON CCBC £215 Satisfied 8QT64691 06/11/2008


So saying "so we run it as cleanly as possible (evidence by zero CCJs against us) " is actually a lie.

While the details of the 2 said CCJ are between the Courts, Mobiles.co.uk and the other party involved, unless one of these parties realease the information nobody will know the details.
You have previously said they are not for cashback claims but have not said what they are for !!!!!!

(Oh buy the way I now have Mobiles.couk on constant monitoring so any official change relating mobiles.co.uk, i know about with 24 hours normally)

Hiya,

I did check and neither relates to cashback, but as you say I am unable to prove this. Both were rolled over on by CPW legal as not being worth defending but (again, trust me or don't, but this is the case) we'd have won - they were nuisance suits. I'm not going to debate this though, because as you'll admit it's my word vs whatever opinions people have.

Feel free to list CCJs against other mobile retailers... Or even better, those with less than 2 in 15 years trading?

As for calling it a "lie" - I know what those CCJs relate to, you do not - so how can you call me a liar when I say that we have zero CCJs against us in the context of cashback? Harsh, no?

Regards,

Quentin

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

I did check and neither relates to cashback, but as you say I am unable to prove this. Both were rolled over on by CPW legal as not being worth defending but (again, trust me or don't, but this is the case) we'd have won - they were nuisance suits

All very convenient.

No-one elects to get a CCJ registered against them because the claim is "not worth defending".

If that was true, then you should have just paid the claims when they first surfaced by way of the summons, thereby avoiding the stigma of having CCJs registered against you.

Claims via the county court system only end up as CCJs against the defendant after some time after the summons has been issued, when at any time the defendant can pay off the debt being claimed, the matter is closed and there is no stain on the defendant's record.

Even when the claim ends up as with a judgement against the defendant, the court still allow the defendant a month to settle the claim before the judgement gets registered.

(So what were mobiles.co.uk/cpw thinking about to allow these stains to remain, when they could so easily have prevented it?)

Andyblizz

Mobiles.co.uk_company_representative wrote: »

Hiya,

I did check and neither relates to cashback, but as you say I am unable to prove this. Both were rolled over on by CPW legal as not being worth defending but (again, trust me or don't, but this is the case) we'd have won - they were nuisance suits. I'm not going to debate this though, because as you'll admit it's my word vs whatever opinions people have.

Feel free to list CCJs against other mobile retailers... Or even better, those with less than 2 in 15 years trading?

As for calling it a "lie" - I know what those CCJs relate to, you do not - so how can you call me a liar when I say that we have zero CCJs against us in the context of cashback? Harsh, no?

Regards,

Ben

My point was the fact you said you had ZERO CCJ's, but as i have proven you dont have.

Unlike many posts in all the mobiles.co.uk's threads, most are peoples opinions.
The CCJ's are FACT and you have confirmed you knew about them as you say you have looked into them, as you said they are not for cashback claims.

Mobiles.co.uk/CPW choose not to defend them for there own reasons (cost vs payout or whatever) But the FACT is mobiles.co.uk do have CCJ's

My point is that you say other people are liar's but i have proven more than once that you have lied about having zero ccj's. And the most recent time you have said it (being today) was way after you looked into the CCJ's, as i had pointed them out to you several weeks ago.

So Ben my advise to you is that as everyone is looking and reading what you are writing in very close detail. Is to make sure when you actually say something, you know it is fact or that it will be acted upon like you say it will. That way your bashers will have less to bash you about.

Regards

Andy