e2save problem (merged threads)

amf

Good luck tomorrow Del_Boy_Gupta_party_

I was one of the lucky ones whose claims were settled in full before the court hearing....after they had initially submitted their scandalous standard defence, which was struck out by the court.:D

chris_topher97

"Dear Mr X

Thank you for your email to our Customer Support Team. I can confirm that your month 10 claim for mobile number 077XXXXXXXX has been accepted on the 4th December 2008. The cheque will arrive within 21-28 days of this date although it may be sooner.

Please send your month 12 claim by recorded mail to Cashback Claims, Admail ADM 4118, Loughborough , LE11 1YX .

Should you have any further queries regarding the information in this email, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Team on 0871 522 3400 or for Cashback queries contact 0871 522 3403 and we will be happy to help you.

Kind Regards,

Kate Edmunds
Customer Support Team
e2save"


Given there reputation on this board i asked them to confirm in writing that they were honouring my 10th claim.
I can sleep a little easier now with this email i think, they havent really got a leg to stand on if they decide not to pay up now.
We shall wait and see.
As for the 12month claim, just make sure i send that.. erm recorded recorded deliver, and make an extra copy at home.

wakeupalarm

Del_Boy_Gupta wrote: »

Well to provide you with an update on my claim and my mum's- they are both to be heard tomorrow morning.

Good luck tomorrow Del_Boy_Gupta.

Del_Boy_Gupta

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I know of another which went to court. Methinks they are attempting to apply more pressure to honest claimants who are forced to sue in order to get their money. It will cost them a lot in legal fees which they can't recover even if they do win now and then; but it is important to ensure your case is sound before embarking on the legal route. Provided it is, it wouldn't put me off suing in a moment!

Well they did start off with their usual we owe you nothing arguement and then they have as part of their witness statements included 32 pages incorporating the fact that e2save.com limited went into liquidation and the claim is against CPW trading as e2save.com. (interesting as when competing the MCOL it picked the address and details in for me).


They have produced the paerwork for the original applicaiton and incuded a witness statement from Sylvia Eguavoen, who works in their group legal department which goes on to chronologise the case and accepts a computer system error to pay the direct credit on time .

interestingly they go on to say the future cashbacks are payable on submitting the claim form and original monthly bill at relevent time with the terms and conditions. however the dates on their system account have been altered yet again and show 60 days as opposed to 30 days which the paperwork showed.

I have to admit i am a bit apprehensive not because i dont think i have a case but because I am an individual against a large body with experts on their side and i can't afford to pay their costs if the worst was to occur.

If quentin or mobilejunkie want a copy of their 28 page docs pm me withyour email address and i'll email it to you for your view.

Lynsey

Good luck.

Lynsey

Quentin

Del_Boy_Gupta wrote: »

...... incorporating the fact that e2save.com limited went into liquidation and the claim is against CPW trading as e2save.com. ........

Is your case against CPW plc t/a e2save? If so there is no problem, and them referring to the liquidation of e2save ltd is just a red herring. But if you took out the case against "e2save ltd" then there may be a "technical" defence that the Defendant is incorrectly named. (If this is the case it should have come to light long ago.)

mobilejunkie

Don't let them frighten you with the David vs Goliath. Hearings are informal and a judge will make allowances for the fact you're not represented; that's what these courts are for. Listen carefully, have your arguments prepared but use/adapt them according to how things develop. Don't lose your temper and listen carefully for the flaws in their arguments and statements (and the inconsistencies and lies - though NEVER call them liars in a court). You shouldn't have to pay their legal costs if you lose (just as they wouldn't pay your solicitor's costs had you incurred any) and the hearing will cost them an awful lot of money even if you were to lose (so you could at least achieve some satisfaction). However, be positive and confident. Good luck - there will be a lot of people on here rooting for you!.

Del_Boy_Gupta

Quentin wrote: »

Is your case against CPW plc t/a e2save? If so there is no problem, and them referring to the liquidation of e2save ltd is just a red herring. But if you took out the case against "e2save ltd" then there may be a "technical" defence that the Defendant is incorrectly named. (If this is the case it should have come to light long ago.)

They have accepted that e2save.com limited is liquidated but have continued that 'it is assumed that ....did bring this claim aganst the correct contracting party. Consequently id the court sees fit to make an order against the defendent in this claim it should be against the carphone warehouse limited trading as e2save.com and not e2save.com limited.'

As such I don't think that is a problem becasue as you say if they wanted a get out clause they could have raised it earlier.

Quentin

You got PM.

amf

What news Del_Boy? How did it go?