e2save problem (merged threads)

StockportGerbil

Folks :-
Another e2save problem I've got on the go is I took a year long contract out with them / O2 last year to get a phone for my daughter. The contract ended in February, so on the 17th January I phoned up the Carphone Warehouse operated O2 'help line' to get a PAC code and to end the contract. On the phone I was given a disconnection reference and was told a PAC code would be sent to me. Following that phone call I sent a letter requesting disconnection and the PAC code (as per section 11.2 of the Ts and Cs.)

As I recall, I received a letter dated 24th January with the PAC code and a statement the service would terminate on 24th February. (Annoyingly I can't find the flippin' letter now.) A text seperately got sent with the PAC code. In the event the PAC code didn't get used, but the O2 service ceased on 24th February.

But the bills kept coming. I wrote to e2save to complain, but they say because I didn't use the PAC code the contract keeps going. Eventually e2save cancelled the contract on 8th May, but expect me to pay two months worth of charges for a service that was not provided and I had cancelled according to the Ts and Cs. I'm now getting increasingly snotty letters from them about this 'debt'.

I keep writing to them about this and they keep saying the contract was only over when the PAC code was used (Vodafone via Mobiles to your door wouldn't accept it irritatingly) and I really don't see anything in the Ts & Cs about that.

I am concerned this debt will effect my credit rating and am now tempted to pay it and just add it on to the MCOL claim I suspect I am going to be raising shortly. Has anyone else been in this situation with this bunch? Any other ideas for how I can progress this?

Thanks

Kevin

nicole136

I think unless the PAC code is used the account remains open, which is in the terms and conditions? check yours, you then have to give a further months notice once you decide you dont want the pac code.
whether it seems fair or not thats the T+Cs you agreed to by defualt...
not much you can do, if they took you to court you would lose if thats what your T+C's state, maybe you should have checked you could use your PAC code with your new contract 1st... unfortunate

pjclark1

mobilejunkie wrote: »

We should be looking at this outfit from a different perspective nowadays. I don't think I've come across anyone legitimately suing and not getting paid before they actually go to court. Maybe they aren't as thoroughly stupid as they certainly appear. Nah; must just be their legal department which still has a milligram of sense - the rest of the company has none.

For every one that takes legal action, 9 don't
The Math is easy, refusing to pay up until court action is threatened is very profitable.

agsnu

pjclark1 wrote: »

For every one that takes legal action, 9 don't
The Math is easy, refusing to pay up until court action is threatened is very profitable.

I'm starting to wonder if it's worth including a claim for damages for willful breach of contract.

Quentin

They do seem now to be heading down the same path as all the others who operated this business model, which came to its logical conclusion (ie they all went bust)

They have given up any pretence at customer service/retention:

They happily lie (on the phone, in writing, via their defences submitted to the courts etc)

They have someone (separate from their solicitors) who "negotiates" out of court settlements in parallel with their solicitor's "generic" submissions to the courts, these settlements then get reneged on!

The consequences of all this are they get involved in more legal expenses (hearing fees, warrant applications etc).

In the past it may have been only 10% bothered to take legal action - as they did used to pay up quickly (often on receipt of the LBA, and immediately if a summons was issued). But from their responses now to the LBA/MCOL routine things have changed.

Now they have a delaying system in place - ignore or reject the LBA, then if a summons is issued, first acknowledge it (to gain more time), then send in the "generic" defence ("we owe the claimant nothing"), then do a "without prejudice" agreement to settle (first trying to get us to accept just money owed, no interest and no full payment of outstanding, then agreeing the full amount when first offer rejected, then NOT paying anyway - making us eventually file (and pay) for a hearing before "giving in").

The CPW pledge to customers often quoted is seen as a cynical sham, and how long before they run out of new "naive" customers to sell to, bearing in mind that now there must be a steady stream of LBAs hitting them, with each writer telling all their circle to avoid them like the plaque.

mobilejunkie

All very true Quentin. However, they are a footsie 100 company (unlike the other culprits) so unlikely to go bust. My own need to sue has just been negated and generally I have no problems if I do things right. Of course, many don't purely because of the deliberate misinformation they provide.

pjclark1

Quentin wrote: »

The CPW pledge to customers often quoted is seen as a cynical sham, and how long before they run out of new "naive" customers to sell to, bearing in mind that now there must be a steady stream of LBAs hitting them, with each writer telling all their circle to avoid them like the plaque.

Most of the cashback scams are being done under the E2Save badge so CPW are not seen as the bad boys. When you phone up to cancel at the end of a contract the operators point out that they have no connection to the disreputable E2Save company and would like to help you out with a really good deal for next year from CPW.

I really can't fault them on their business plan, it's very smart (if unethical)
I wish I had thought of it!

mobilejunkie

Ignore whatever they "point out". They say anything to customers at any time for their own ends; much of what they say is utter rubbish at best and blatently untrue at worst. They are the SAME company, however they are structured and whatever they may say.

Quentin

pjclark1 wrote: »

Most of the cashback scams are being done under the E2Save badge so CPW are not seen as the bad boys.

They are, however when they submit their defences to court they only refer to themselves as "The Carphone Warehouse Group PLC".

mulerider

Hi,

Can anyone provide a link to the T&Cs for a NON price match deal taken out in January this year? My dad has already had his auto cash back of £171 but I can find the T&Cs for the deal he is on.

Any help would be appreciated.

Scott