e2save problem (merged threads)

bassman

gtz101 wrote: »

Wrong.

If its sent recorded and its lost in the post and they say they won't pay out cash back it means you shouldn't be dealing with such cowboys in the first place. Only stupid cowboys can be fool enough to reject cashbacks just because its lost in the post via recorded delivery.

Wrong


Recorded delivery doesnt guarantee you anything,except the compensation up to the price of 100 first class stamps.....if you dont find out they havent received it before your allotted window closes, you will lose out...With companies like this, who appear to exploit peoples weeknesses, Special Delivery is the only safe way forward(imho).....that actually guarantees delivery, and paying a little bit extra guarantees against any consequential loss in case it does get lost....

Quentin

bassman wrote: »

Recorded delivery doesnt guarantee you anything,except the compensation up to the price of 100 first class stamps.....

Though the contents of a claim envelope is worthless pieces of paper.

So there is nothing you can claim 100 stamps for!

wolfman

Just a few additional notes regarding my legal action. I did actually hear from them, I missed the letter. I received it around the time I took action.

Anyway, in my LBA I was very clear regarding what had gone wrong. I sent them the original terms, highlighted the parts of the terms they had got wrong etc... I couldn't have proved a better case... or so I thought.

In the response from Samantha Norris-Bonner, she put

Although your cashback claim was received on ### 2007 however at this point your claim had expired. As advised within the price match terms and conditions a rejection letter was sent and the remaining documentation destroyed.

Although I appreciate that you feel that this claim is due to you as part of your original contract, I must advise that there are strict guidelines that must be met in order for your claim to be honoured and in this circumstance these guidelines have not been met.

I have no idea what the "strict guidelines" part means. I followed my terms and made it very clear to them the mistake that they had made.

Anyway, in the letter they refused to pay me the cashback they owe me.


Ironically, I took legal action around this time, and they phoned up immediately to settle out of court. So it just shows, they obviously know they are in the wrong, but you may literally have to go all the way for them to admit it.

Also when claiming, make sure you claim the cashback, legal fee's, and a fee you feel covers the time and money it has cost you to right the wrong. £50 for example.

Quentin

Plus interest on the overdue money.

mobilejunkie

wolfman:- I knew you'd get there in the end. They are imbeciles; cost them a lot more than simply paying you. Unfortunately, the IIC is determined to stick a spanner in the works at almost every opportunity. I can only asume (as maybe he does) that more people will surrender or get so totally confused by it all (like most of their own staff) that they will give up. The fact that such people (including loyal, long-standing customers) won't be back doesn't seem to warrant any consideration. I think short term sales figures are the only thing this person understands (and that's being generous to his intelligence).

Your outcome has confirmed my own understanding of all this (though quite honestly I find it rather straightforward because I understand how they work AND how the actual t&c they stole did - and therefore do - too) and should serve as yet another warning to anyone complacent from past cashback contracts or thinking anything is "straightforward". It should also warn of the dangers of listening to the rubbish from the cashback team or relying on the usually totally misleading information on the on-line individual account. Anyone entering the door below the "welcome" sign now needs to be fully armed and trained or they are likely to be among the growing casualty list.

Ian_Winter

I have a contract with e2save.
The first two cashback claims were paid.
Number 3 was refused since the Orange bill did match the name on e2save records.
Strange since the invoice from e2save and mobile number were identical to Orange.
Two months down the line and countless emails to e2save the outcome is
e2save advised Ornage to change the name.
Orange say this cannot be done under DPA.
e2save say they have the email request on their system but cannot send a copy to me.

Orange say if a request is made then the account holder must give permission -
No contact made with the account holder therefore e2save say we will not pay.

Tread carefully or you will find a cashback shortfall.
y

dov

wolfman:- I knew you'd get there in the end. They are imbeciles; cost them a lot more than simply paying you. Unfortunately, the IIC is determined to stick a spanner in the works at almost every opportunity. I can only asume (as maybe he does) that more people will surrender or get so totally confused by it all (like most of their own staff) that they will give up. The fact that such people (including loyal, long-standing customers) won't be back doesn't seem to warrant any consideration. I think short term sales figures are the only thing this person understands (and that's being generous to his intelligence).

Your outcome has confirmed my own understanding of all this (though quite honestly I find it rather straightforward because I understand how they work AND how the actual t&c they stole did - and therefore do - too) and should serve as yet another warning to anyone complacent from past cashback contracts or thinking anything is "straightforward". It should also warn of the dangers of listening to the rubbish from the cashback team or relying on the usually totally misleading information on the on-line individual account. Anyone entering the door below the "welcome" sign now needs to be fully armed and trained or they are likely to be among the growing casualty list.

If e2save have mis-informed via email or online account and then refuse payment based on that information wouldn't it be easy to sue even though your bill is incorrect according to t&a. I would have thought that a court would side with the customer in this scenario.

Basically e2save shoot themselves in the foot if they tell you to send a latter bill and then refuse it as long as you have this in writing.

mobilejunkie

It is "easy" to sue and I am prepared to - although they just missed my first instance by the skin of their teeth. However, the t&c are (intentionally) totally confusing and self-contradictory - apart from much of the information actually being deliberately misleading. THAT means that a large number of people don't undertsand the t&c to start with, which in turn puts them at risk if they sue. Sometimes the information they give you is in writing, but often they won't put it in writing because they know they are giving out incorrect instructions much of the time. In order to successfully sue it is necessary to 1) understand the actual t&c 2) comply with them 3) prove you have complied with them 4) give them a chance to pay even if they have refused 5) actually press the button, pay the fee and do it. There is never a guarantee although if you've done these things correctly you should win easily enough. The fact is most people will simply let it go or, having messed up themselves in the first instance, not have a good enough (or provable) case. All this goes back to following the groundrules (which few do).

Clare99

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Then you waited. Chasing is for dogs and people who don't know what they're doing. You won't catch me "chasing".

Thanks for the unhelpful and patronising comments Mobile Junkie, it's really not helpful.

mobilejunkie

It may be to those who don't want to follow your example.