They wont give me Cashback!

OneADay

mobilejunkie wrote: »

No longer finding excuses for them? In this instance, they haven't actually done anything wrong!

I will find excuses for whom I like...thank you!

mobilejunkie

OneADay wrote: »

Depends on length of contract

months 6, 8, 10 & 12 on a 12 month contract.
months 6, 9, 12, 15 & 18 on an 18 or 24 month contract.

You are correct. I only deal in 12 month contracts - the March t&c also state months 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 - so December will be correct since this particular contract is for more than 12 months. I have changed my post accordingly rather than mislead anyone who may not read as far as this one.

Guys_Dad

If only Ben was still with us, he would wonder if this was his lucky day !

Both MJ and Quentin agreeing that mobiles.co.uk were applying their t & c correctly and that the OP was in error !! Poor guy would have a heart attack !!

(Just kidding, guys - it's the weekend and time to relax) :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bathing-ape - t&cs when dealing with them, sometimes you are the pigeon, sometimes the statue. This time, I'm afraid, you are the statue. But in December, please be the pigeon.

Cheers.

mobilejunkie

Not sure he'd be that thrilled - Oneaday is now telling the OP to tried to get them "wound up"!

:j

OneADay

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Not sure he'd be that thrilled - Oneaday is now telling the OP to tried to get them "wound up"!

:j

There is no reason why he should not try to wind them up.

For example did bathing-ape get written instructions of how to claim when he got the phone? A lot of these companies expect you to read their web sites.

Now if mobiles.co.uk 6 months into his/her contract changed their web site but did not tell him, he could have a case there.

Wounding them up might not help in the end but it might help others to avoid the same useless web site which has a page with two sets of T&C now, rather than one. Where is the clarity? The only difference being that 30 days changed to 60 days. Any decent business would apply this backwards on existing contracts but because its in their favour not to do so, they wont. Go to any judge, he would say its unfair.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If only Ben was still with us, he would wonder if this was his lucky day !

Both MJ and Quentin agreeing that mobiles.co.uk were applying their t & c correctly and that the OP was in error !! Poor guy would have a heart attack !!.....................

Bathing-ape - t&cs when dealing with them, sometimes you are the pigeon, sometimes the statue. This time, I'm afraid, you are the statue. But in December, please be the pigeon.

Unfortunately, the OP took your incorrect advice and wasted his time again contacting ben's lot!

He should have accepted the advice given by the contributors who knew what they were talking about!

Ben should be dismayed how his "fairest" of all the online retailers are shown up in their true light in this thread!

(By waiting till the last possible minute to accept OFCOM's directive and continuing to take advantage of their restrictive cashback condition).

mobilejunkie

OneADay wrote: »

There is no reason why he should not try to wind them up.

For example did bathing-ape get written instructions of how to claim when he got the phone? A lot of these companies expect you to read their web sites.

Now if mobiles.co.uk 6 months into his/her contract changed their web site but did not tell him, he could have a case there.

Wounding them up might not help in the end but it might help others to avoid the same useless web site which has a page with two sets of T&C now, rather than one. Where is the clarity? The only difference being that 30 days changed to 60 days. Any decent business would apply this backwards on existing contracts but because its in their favour not to do so, they wont. Go to any judge, he would say its unfair.

I was just surprised that you suggested it, since up until now you have vehemently criticised me (and others) for warning people against "their useless web site".

As for the rest, I have to defend them on this. I was always perfectly happy with the clarity of their original t&c - the issue was that they ignored them (and contniue to do the same with the new version). THAT is what is wrong and requires warnings. Anyone not clear on the t&c should simply decline from signing up to an offer. Since I have always criticised dealers for trying to force customers into accpeting newer t&c and consistently advise the only course of action they should follow (i.e. stick to the original ones at the point of sale) I definitely would not suggest they be wound up for nbot doing the same now. I take exception to their obvious and blatant lies on here and attempts to muddy the waters when caught out. However, all cashback deals require substantial numbers of customers to fail in their claims and it should be obvious to any potential customer that this must of necessity be the case - and ensure they know what they are doing first. I will never blame any dealer for poeple not doing that and then losing out - only when they act dishonestly as this one does. On this occassion, though, they have not been dishonest. Also, the change from 30 to 60 days is (by far) not the only change and less important than the others!

I am puzzled as to what has changed your stance so dramatically on them though.

OneADay

I have not changed my stance or anything. I am making a case to say having two terms and conditions now on their site is unfair.

Unless they sent the t&c in writing when phone was delivered (which I think they don't), I think the practice is mis-leading.
Did they update existing customers or at least inform them of a change (even if it did not affect them) in writing?

What happens if you bought a phone on 15th Sep 2009 (a day before they changed their T&C) - I would be pretty darn annoyed when it came to claiming that I was going to be treated differently to anyone buying a phone after that date.

I am also peeved at seeing another thread about mobiles.co.uk which has a completely mis-leading Best Deal stated on their site (and even though its been changed, its still not correct). See here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1977095

mobilejunkie

OneADay wrote: »

I have not changed my stance or anything. I am making a case to say having two terms and conditions now on their site is unfair.

Unless they sent the t&c in writing when phone was delivered (which I think they don't), I think the practice is mis-leading.
Did they update existing customers or at least inform them of a change (even if it did not affect them) in writing?

What happens if you bought a phone on 15th Sep 2009 (a day before they changed their T&C) - I would be pretty darn annoyed when it came to claiming that I was going to be treated differently to anyone buying a phone after that date.

I am also peeved at seeing another thread about mobiles.co.uk which has a completely mis-leading Best Deal stated on their site (and even though its been changed, its still not correct). See here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1977095

No need - I have been following it (as I do with all threads where people are having problems with a dealer I actually do business with). I thought it might have something to do with that - though it's merely the last in a long line of such problems with this company.

As for multiple sets of t&c - there is nothing at all wrong with that. Companies can and do change them - as long as they make it clear which ones apply to your contract I have no problem at all with it - I actually applaud it. There is no other practical way to deal with things. No dealer sends updates to customers on t&c and neither should they. Hardly any have ever supplied them with the phone - except other cpw companies where they supplied different ones to those the customer actually signed up to!

It is fairly obvious that ANY cashback deal should bear the label "caveat emptor". It is also obvious that people rushing into such contracts where they are happy for the dealer to actually LOOSE money on the deal should have the common sense to ask a LOT of questions beforehand and make certain they know what they are doing.

Something which seems to have puzzled some is why I still use this dealer. THAT is why - I know precisely what I am doing and what actions to take should they mess me around - and sending pm's to "Ben" definitely wouldn't be one of them. Without a large proportion of people who are too lazy or too blinkered by the attractions of something for nothing to take the proper time to research what they are doing first (and therefore often losing out) cashback schemes wouldn't exist (and people like me who actually benefit a great deal from them would lose out). We only benefit because we put in the time and effort - and that is also why I have tried for a LONG time to warn the unwary about such deals (and dealers) and sometimes helped those who get into difficulty.

It is because of my experience (which is quite substantial in these things) that I did not need to wait for the umpteenth angry customer appearing on here to see through the words of the rep as soon as he appeared. Had his answers been different I would have been supporting him and the dealer. Unfortunately, they showed all the perfectly clear characteristics of a dealer who is dishonest and not to be trusted. This is merely yet another case in point - no real difference from all those which preceded it. I therefore saw no reason at all to give them the "benefit of the doubt" or succour whatsover when it was very plain what was happening.

mobilejunkie

having just checked their website it is now apparent that although they have shown the previous t&c separately (something I applaud) they have deliberately CHANGED them from what people actually signed up to. I will therefore start a new thread to draw that to peoples' attention (for what it's worth).

Such a practice really is despicable - and something that other cpw companies routinely did for the last two and a half years.