Mobiles.co.uk Cashback Con

mobilejunkie

You ignore when it's "inconvenient" rather than "investigate". At a time when you were very active on here you ignored this completely:-

Originally Posted by Mobiles.co.uk company representative
Hiya,

The web page that explains how to claim always stated that the date in question is the one on the invoice sent with the phone, and since then I've had an image of said invoice with the date circled put on there to make it even easier.

Regards,

THAT is completely and utterly untrue. It may say that NOW but it certainly didn't "always". I have also quoted what it DID say previously but that seems to count for nothing, so I will repeat it (and I DO have the written copy since - as I have always advised everyone to do - I print it all out at the point of sale!):-

"For the avoidance of doubt the month 6 bill will be the bill dated in the month that is six month after your connection date. e.g. If connected in January, the sixth month is July so we need to receive your bill dated in July within 30 days of the date of that bill. All other bills are calculated in the same way".

Where does it say "The web page that explains how to claim always stated that the date in question is the one on the invoice sent with the phone"??? Whatever the company comes up with to explain that away "connected" MEANS connected; NOT when the phone was ordered, sent, switched on or anything else. Like so many other instances, the company has atempted to change history with new words which never existed, circumstances which are irrelevant and statements designed to show people that the company never rejects a valid claim. This is totally untrue, as I have also repeatedly stated. It isn't debatable or a grey area; it is perfectly clear BUT not the picture the company wishes to be known - so it overcompensates with pretending it never happens. It has - AND more than once that I know of. Let's be perfectly clear - they haven't "clarified" the t&c - they have changed them. I have no objection to that in itself - merely to the fact that they have done so in the main in an attempt to justify their rejection of what was a perfectly valid claim by turning it into an invalid one. Any company that does that deserves a warning on the packet (this company doesn't actually recognise or follow its own t&c).

You have clearly established over the last few months that "honesty" is a word and not an action. Had that not been the case I would have worked with you instead of regarding most of what you say as all hype and no substance. As I have repeated many times, I will not "share" personal information with you; there is plenty of it on here and all you do is attempt to misuse it or avoid it all together, then repeatedly come and deny I ever gave it, pick out just one example and claim it's the only one I've ever given and was "tiny" or misrepresented it. When all that fails you state you won't reply - but immediately conitue to do just that. Saying one thing and doing something completely different is completely in keeping with your organisation's true attitude to its customers.

Another person on here who tried the personal "investigation" route with you still got no satisfaction - until they were on the point of suing your organisation. I learnt a long time back that it's pointless playing cpw's games, which they re-invent as they go along. You a very classic example of that.