Mobiles.Co.UK

Silk

OneADay wrote: »

You cant pm Ben anymore and also you cant find Ben anymore - wonder if he is on holiday with his iphone.

I would imagine he's either given up as he was just digging deeper holes for the company or he's been banned for his antics
Meanwhile the clock is still running for Trevor

OneADay

Silk, I think TC is happy with phone, no memory card. Personally I would have been returning it rather waiting for a memory card. Glad I am not experimenting - good luck though of course to TC.

Silk

I agree I would have sent it back esp. as it was for a pressie for his OH and it's dubious history

TREVORCOLMAN

OneADay wrote: »

You cant pm Ben anymore and also you cant find Ben anymore - wonder if he is on holiday with his iphone.

My sentiments entirely.

TREVORCOLMAN

The whole point of the exercise was to see how the Rep helps!

:rotfl:

Guys_Dad

TREVORCOLMAN wrote: »

The whole point of the exercise was to see how the Rep helps!

:rotfl:

I agree, Trevor, and it is a great pity if the rep has, indeed, given up as he said he would as a result of the incessant attacks on him and the repetitive points being made ad nauseam.

For what it is worth, I actually believe that he did try to help members, but ran up against poor procedures and internal problems within the company, coupled with the financial shackles that were imposed upon the company by the parent CPW. By that, I am not referring to mobiles.co.uk wriggling out of cashbacks (to the extent of other CPW companies in the past), but to the repayment cycles imposed by centralised CPW systems.

And, of course, I suspect that the "customer services" team, for want of a better phrase, and the actual cashback team must be understaffed, under trained and of pretty low calibre in places. I am sure many of you in your working lives will have met with inter-departmental frustrations where one department doesn't play ball and you are left with a feeling of frustration and helplessness with "the system"

So I can't see the benefit of some members hounding the rep off this site. Sure, he may have put a more positive spin on things to counteract the negatives, but at least there was a point of contact and sometimes he responded in writing as to what the company would do to put things right .. And before anyone jumps down my throat that nothing happened, I take that point. But having in writing a statement of intent from the company rep doesn't half help if, at a later stage, matters did progress to court.

So, have the Ben knockers who mounted so many attacks on his personal, rather than corporate, integrity actually helped other members by causing him to chuck in the towel? I know what I think, but you will all have your own views.

I won't set up a poll, but if you agree with me, then just click "Thanks" on this post.

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

For what it is worth, I actually believe that he did try to help members, but ran up against poor procedures and internal problems within the company, coupled with the financial shackles that were imposed upon the company by the parent CPW.

Hi GD,
Looks like Ben's posts seem to have clouded the "Facts" as far as your concerned.
The facts are that Ben is a marketing guy who's been around the net for several years doing damage limitation posts on forums all over the place. He was not here to help members at all and there is lots of evidence of that all over the net. a simple search of "mobiles.co.uk" followed by Ben will illustrate the fact.
You cannot blame "poor procedures" or "finance" for Ben's lack of replying to emails or PM's or not phoning people when he had promised to do so !!!
You cannot blame others when it is "Ben" that "Fails" to follow up anything he promised to do.You cannot blame others for "Ben" failing to keep track of who he is talking to !!!

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So I can't see the benefit of some members hounding the rep off this site. Sure, he may have put a more positive spin on things to counteract the negatives, but at least there was a point of contact and sometimes he responded in writing as to what the company would do to put things right .. And before anyone jumps down my throat that nothing happened, I take that point. But having in writing a statement of intent from the company rep doesn't half help if, at a later stage, matters did progress to court.

He wasn't hounded off the site at all
The guy was totaly incompetent and some of the stunts he pulled recently exposed his faults and he had many complaints made about him !
As for having a point of contact it was a complete waste of time as you well know. All that happened was was it prolonged the inevitable and as I've said before having someone on a chatline say something who refuses to put his name to anything is worth about as much use in court as a charecter reference from President Mugabe :rotfl:

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So, have the Ben knockers who mounted so many attacks on his personal, rather than corporate, integrity actually helped other members by causing him to chuck in the towel? I know what I think, but you will all have your own views.

As I've said before GD he was a complete waste of space ! You yourself have read his statements on here as far as his "corporate integrity" is concerned.
What sort of Company Rep. is it that says things like "I don't work in the returns dept so I can't help you" or "I don't work in the sales dept. so I can't help you"
The one I always liked was "99% of the problems we have is the customers own fault" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

TREVORCOLMAN

I had a question regarding cashback so contacted Mobile.Co.uk on Monday morning (21 Sep) - holding reply with no info arrived 1410 same day.

When I sent their Web Site said

Please allow 72 hours for replies to cashback queries. We are currently working to reduce this waiting time and apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Now well over 72 hours and no reply.

Yet another broken promise.

Guys_Dad

Silk. You wrote "As for having a point of contact it was a complete waste of time as you well know."

Did he or did he not arrange £50 compensation for you?

You say he was incompetent - I have experience of large companies where the right hand and the left hand don't work together. I have read your original post as it developed and it seemed to me that it was others who didn't mainly ring back, not him. And it was these others who held the answer to your problems in their hands.

You claim he is incompetent. I think it is the company that shows that trait and that is what I meant about personal attacks. You don't actually know if he was hitting his head against a brick wall or not as you were not the fly on the wall at the time. It is not a one man company and he doesn't have the power to write cheques, agree cashbacks or dispatch phones.

He did sort out the mistaken claim of one OP who said that they had the wrong month's claim rejected. They admitted they were wrong, but he allowed their claim neverthe less.

And then there was the famous case of a claim arriving on the 30th day and that was a Saturday so claims rejected it. Ben sorted that out and amended the t&c to clarify the position.

Now what I am saying is that having a rep around could help some people. You may think he didn't, but you have £50 in your pocket that says he did. And as I wrote "But having in writing a statement of intent from the company rep doesn't half help if, at a later stage, matters did progress to court."

I freely admit I did not like the personal attacks that were made on him by you and a couple of others. By all means, have a go at the company and, yes, he was their rep so he took the flak. If I had been him, I would have ignored the personal attacks as whenever he defended himself or explained, you all hounded on him in personal attacks.

These posts were terminated by the moderators as they were geting out of hand and I think certain people need to reconsider their approach. You had a valid case - or should I say your partner did - but if only it were a cow, you would have won the UK dairy award for productivity for how much you milked it - as you know full well.

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Silk. You wrote "As for having a point of contact it was a complete waste of time as you well know."

Did he or did he not arrange £50 compensation for you?

I've no idea, it certainly didn't arrive for 35 days and it could have been a result from follow ups from myself and O2 so who's to know ????

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You say he was incompetent - I have experience of large companies where the right hand and the left hand don't work together. I have read your original post as it developed and it seemed to me that it was others who didn't mainly ring back, not him. And it was these others who held the answer to your problems in their hands.

He was incompetent I too have dealings with large companies including international on a daily basis and have never dealt with such incompetence. If you read the history of the the thread you will see quite clearly he didn't reply to emails and he didn't phone me and he didn't do any of the things "he" promised !!! his excuses varied from he forgot to not remembering who I was if you remember

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You claim he is incompetent. I think it is the company that shows that trait and that is what I meant about personal attacks. You don't actually know if he was hitting his head against a brick wall or not as you were not the fly on the wall at the time. It is not a one man company and he doesn't have the power to write cheques, agree cashbacks or dispatch phones.

If he has no powers then he should not make promises "he" can't keep. I don't need to be a fly on the wall to know when someone is pulling the wool over my eyes. Just exactly how hard is it to give somebody returns instructions it's not exactly rocket science is it ???
If you remember we had excuse after excuse, his in box was full, he deleted them by mistake, he had lost it, he didn't work in that dept. he couldn't find it, he's passed it on to somebody, he had spoken to someone and they would sort it out, the list was endless !!! These were not anyone elses excuses they were to do with him.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

He did sort out the mistaken claim of one OP who said that they had the wrong month's claim rejected. They admitted they were wrong, but he allowed their claim neverthe less.

Wow and I think at the time I said" one Swallow does not a Summer make"
If you remember there was a long list of people with problems that were being ignored and fobbed off at the time.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

And then there was the famous case of a claim arriving on the 30th day and that was a Saturday so claims rejected it. Ben sorted that out and amended the t&c to clarify the position.

Yeah that was a good one that one, even though it arrived within the 30 days the company doesn't accept signed for post on a Saturday :rotfl:
And was was Bens reaction start accepting mail on a Saturday ??? NO he changes the T&C's making it clear they don't accept mail on saturdays ...great victory for the consumer that was :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Now what I am saying is that having a rep around could help some people. You may think he didn't, but you have £50 in your pocket that says he did. And as I wrote "But having in writing a statement of intent from the company rep doesn't half help if, at a later stage, matters did progress to court."

Even if we accept the token of £50 which we haven't yet I would still be about £250 out of pocket and as I replied earlier a post from someone who doesn't want to give his name or status to anything is worth zilch in court even more so if it's said on a forum rather than through the correct channels.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I freely admit I did not like the personal attacks that were made on him by you and a couple of others. By all means, have a go at the company and, yes, he was their rep so he took the flak. If I had been him, I would have ignored the personal attacks as whenever he defended himself or explained, you all hounded on him in personal attacks.

Please explain what you mean by personal attacks ?
If you call having to constantly chase the guy to do what he has promised to do and what he has promised others to do a personal attack I think it's a bit extreme to call it that. Yes he did take some flak but thats what he came here for it was damage limitation as it is elsewhere when he posts on the net and theres a lot of it if you look and he's been reprimanded several times elsewhere too. Heat and kitchen spring to mind and if he can't cut it he shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

These posts were terminated by the moderators as they were geting out of hand and I think certain people need to reconsider their approach. You had a valid case - or should I say your partner did - but if only it were a cow, you would have won the UK dairy award for productivity for how much you milked it - as you know full well.

The posts wern't terminated because of me GD though were they GD
As for milking it I think thats a bit unfair to be honest as the fiasco was played out to the bitter end with a very poor result. The only reason it was played out online was to give other members a real time experiance of Customer Services the mobiles.co.uk way :T