misleading advertising of mobile deals

Guys_Dad

Silk wrote: »

For goodness sake GD how many times do we have to go over it before you can follow it
It's all there on the thread in black and white and I'm not going to go over it again but will just stick to the relavent point ....It's all well documented
David rang my partner at 09.43 whilst in an important meeting she couldn't talk and told him to ring ME at 10.45 ...he never did.
It started on the thread here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=24315135&postcount=158

You will see in the thread we all waited and waited and waited
There was no confusion with numbers ...we all agree they rang the mobile and spoke to my partner.
What they didn't do was ring ME on the landline which again is not in dispute as we live together and have done for 15 years.
To say they did is a LIE ...they said there was no answer which is a LIE

I was live on the thread and posted this at 10.33am and we all waited for the phone call as you can see it never happened ..I was sat by the phone all day and updated at 11.47am, 1.54pm and 11.11pm ...NO PHONE CALL.
My phone system logs all calls missed and otherwise it takes a message if anyone rings and flashes any missed calls, if the landline is busy it automaticaly diverts to my mobile so I never miss any calls because even the diverted number shows up.
There was no missed calls so the Parrot is dead I'm afraid
You will also see another LIE regarding this in so far as Ben said the call to my partner was logged at 9.20am which was totaly impossible due to her location untill 9.35am

I realise you are trying your best for Ben here GD but sadly your wrong I'm afraid ....O2 did not step back far from it in fact
It's all well documented in the thread they were even trying to phone at the same time on my behalf if you remember or have you forgotten ???
Who said anything about Ben job to liaise with networks on individual basis ???
Mobiles.co.uk were supposed to cancel the contract ...they never did ...we got the bill to prove it ....we were told by O2 they never cancelled it ...The account/contract was under close scrutiny by them from Day 2 on the thread again all well documented from this post
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=24150827&postcount=84

I'm quite confident they would have know whether the contract was cancelled or not :cool:

I think you find it does GD and I notice you still haven't disputed the other one I put the link to ????

Sorry - I learned a long time ago that there is no point arguing with an obsessive. For a few weeks I have forgotten that. Your minute recollection of this obvious major incident in your life which has built up your large post count will always exceed the time I have to spend on the matter.

This is clearly your mission in life - at least on here - and I will leave you to it - for now.

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Sorry - I learned a long time ago that there is no point arguing with an obsessive. For a few weeks I have forgotten that. Your minute recollection of this obvious major incident in your life which has built up your large post count will always exceed the time I have to spend on the matter.

This is clearly your mission in life - at least on here - and I will leave you to it - for now.

Hi GD,
Yes I do have a minute recollection of the event which is why I take exception to people trying to tell me it was different or to try and change details when it was all there in black and white beyond dispute

It was you who asked me to correct any factual errors if you remember earlier on in the thread or have you forgotten that too ????

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I see it slightly different and may be wrong, but here's my take. Please feel free to correct any factual errors.

Guys_Dad

Ok - I have risen to the bait, despite my earlier post and apologies to other bored readers.

You wrote
It was you who asked me to correct any factual errors if you remember earlier on in the thread or have you forgotten that too ????
Quote:

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I see it slightly different and may be wrong, but here's my take. Please feel free to correct any factual errors.

Well, of course, you cherry picked. and took the paragraph out of context. My actual post is reproduced below and it was to that post that I invited factual corrections, not every single post that I may or may not make subsequently.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I see it slightly different and may be wrong, but here's my take. Please feel free to correct any factual errors.

I think mobiles.co.uk were a successful, straight company that were taken over by CPW a few years ago. Some retained culture remained, but obviously a number of CPW corporate policies were adopted/imposed - primarily tightening up on settling cashbacks, applying ruthlessly the t&c (well those that benefitted cpw) and extending the payment timescale. However, I believe that mobiles.co.uk did not bring in any of the "refuse to pay legitimate claims" policies that were reputed to be prevalent at other cpw companies.

Recently, perhaps because of increased financial pressure, downsizing, cost cutting - call it what you will, their customer services have gone to pot as have their cashback team.

Now - and this is where I differ from some of you guys - I believe that Ben came on here to try to fix some problems that wewre being aired and were obviously damaging mobiles.co.uk reputation. The key here is the word "fix". Obviously it does no good for threads to get longer and longer if they are damaging your company. So I don't think he is a liar, stonewaller or anything like that. I believe that, having put his personal word behind some of the remedies, he is as acutely embarrassed by the lack of action that has followed his initial posts.

You can see my views on this in post #8 of this thread. I think that, contrary to Ben being a senior guy with loads of influence, it is the opposite. Somewhere, someone with more clout or less resources, is not responding to this, Ben is losing track of the outstanding issues and getting personally and subjectively involved in pointless "He says - She says" arguments on here rather than saying "Look, cpw guys - we have less than 10 issues on forums at any one time. If we can solve them quickly and satisfactorily, we go from villains to good guys overnight".

So, if I was Ben, that is what I would do - via Dunstone if necessary. (Marketing guys like to see success and I think Ben is suffering from his company's poor performance, but obviously can't come on here and say that.) Then I would make sure that everyone knew that it had been solved. Oh, and Silk, I would make damned sure that phone calls and emails were returned too!

I wonder if there would be more success if Ben's main combatants just tried - for a limited time - to back off any personal attacks on his (rather than mobiles.co.uk's) motives and objectively took the approach "OK Ben, put your money where your mouth is and fix this one in a reasonable time, doing what you said you were going to do and demonstrating that your company does have a customer service ethos in spite of what a lot of folks believe".

Sorry for such a long post.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote: »

it was to that post that I invited factual corrections, not every single post that I may or may not make subsequently.

Anyone can post here.

You know that, so you cannot just "cherry pick" which of your incorrect posts get subsequently corrected - or by whom! (Or do you subscribe to Ben's way of doing things and giving people who irritate him 3 posts before he will get them banned!)

Any factually incorrect posts deserve to be corrected, and saying in your bold way you don't give your consent to your posts being corrected is just more arrogance.

OneADay

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Ok - I have risen to the bait,........

You won't catch me doing something so silly, eherm

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Ok - I have risen to the bait, despite my earlier post and apologies to other bored readers.

Well, of course, you cherry picked. and took the paragraph out of context. My actual post is reproduced below and it was to that post that I invited factual corrections, not every single post that I may or may not make subsequently.

Hi GD,
I did cherry pick and don't deny it .....I cherry picked at you saying that "Ben wasn't a liar a stonewaller or anything like that "as per the post you are referring to which started off ......
I see it slightly different and may be wrong, but here's my take. Please feel free to correct any factual errors.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Now - and this is where I differ from some of you guys - I believe that Ben came on here to try to fix some problems that wewre being aired and were obviously damaging mobiles.co.uk reputation. The key here is the word "fix". Obviously it does no good for threads to get longer and longer if they are damaging your company. So I don't think he is a liar, stonewaller or anything like that. I believe that, having put his personal word behind some of the remedies, he is as acutely embarrassed by the lack of action that has followed his initial posts.

The rest of your post was generaly made up of guessing and assumptions of why the company is so bad such as market forces, takeovers, costcutting etc etc of which I have no personal knowledge.

We could probably sit here till the cow's come home discussing possible reasons as to why they are so bad but that doesn't detract from the fact they are

Silk

OneADay wrote: »

You won't catch me doing something so silly, eherm

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

Anyone can post here.

You know that, so you cannot just "cherry pick" which of your incorrect posts get subsequently corrected - or by whom! (Or do you subscribe to Ben's way of doing things and giving people who irritate him 3 posts before he will get them banned!)

Any factually incorrect posts deserve to be corrected, and saying in your bold way you don't give your consent to your posts being corrected is just more arrogance.

Ah , wondered when you would reappear. Now the three musketeers are all together again in their mutual admiration society.

My reply to silk was as a result of him writing "It was you who asked me to correct any factual errors if you remember earlier on in the thread or have you forgotten that too ????"

I had not forgotten, but as per my last post, I reminded him that the invitation to correct factual errors that I made - but had not forgotten - was specifically in regard to the post I reproduced for his benefit. (I have absolutely no problem in any factual errors in any posts I make being corrected, but he was referring to a specifc wording I had made in a particular post)

Silk himself in the previous post to this admitted he had cherry picked that sentence (Thanks, Silk :beer:)

But nice so see you back with your scatter gun approach to invective. We missed you.

mobilejunkie

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Ah , wondered when you would reappear. Now the three musketeers are all together again in their mutual admiration societ .

Yes, you are - Oneaday, Thommy and GD. The fantastic three.

Guys_Dad

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Yes, you are - Oneaday, Thommy and GD. The fantastic three.

Keep counting - You will find there is a growing number of people who are not necessarily fans of mobiles.co.uk but are definitely fed up with seeing posts hijacked to feed personal vendettas.

Anyone agree?