Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

You have to be kidding me.

Unbelieveable stubbornness, I've never seen anything like it in my life.

I point out your spin to us which is that if you earn £200, but instead of getting that £200 paid into your bank account you agree to it being taken as part payment for a £600 bill (for a product only costing £500 elsewher), and the remaining £400 of the bill is taken from your bank that you aren't saving any money at all, but paying £100 more than you need to - and you see this as me being stubborn!!

Of course you are £100 down on the deal!

Meeper

How can I be down if I've got more money than I would otherwise have had?

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

How can I be down if I've got more money than I would otherwise have had?

You are paying £600 when you can get it for £500.

You are down £100!!

Your cashback earnings are a separate issue (you'd still get those if you were buying the cheaper energy elsewhere - which you know, but fail to correct Twitters misunderstanding, presumably as you think he's seen to be siding with you).

MillicentBystander

An analogy: If Company A charged £12/mth for a product and you could pay by whatever method you desired but Company B charged £13/mth for a product but gave a 10% discount for paying by DD, what Quentin is basically stating is the person who goes with Company B and pays by DD is actually paying more per month than the person who goes with Company A?? Riiiggghhhttt....

Meeper

Quentin wrote: »

You are paying £600 when you can get it for £500.

You are down £100!!

I only paid £400. Only £400 left my account, therefore I only paid £400. Someone else paid the £200, or it was credit from elsewhere, or whatever. Who cares. Only £400 leaves my account in the example given, therefore I am £100 better off than I would have been. This is a fact and is indisputable. I have £100 more in my bank than I would otherwise have had, thus I am better off. Your arguing with this fact is absolutely amazing.

Your cashback earnings are a separate issue (you'd still get those if you were buying the cheaper energy elsewhere...)

This isn't about energy any more, this is about simple common sense, which doesn't appear to be very common at all. See MBS's example above, which follows your logic.

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

I only paid £400. Only £400 left my account, therefore I only paid £400. Someone else paid the £200, or it was credit from elsewhere, or whatever. Who cares. .........This isn't about energy any more, this is about simple common sense, which doesn't appear to be very common at all. See MBS's example above, which follows your logic.

No, £600 of yours was used - you cannot fool us all, though we know the uw way of doing things is not normally to get into detail like this.

In fact the uw way we have seen the reps being trained would be to be telling us that we were actually getting 33% discount off our £600 bill!

When in truth we could be paying just £500 elsewhere, plus having £200 extra in our bank account by way of "cashback".

Lucky for the uw reps their friends are so trusting of their spin!

Meeper

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

He's nowt but a windup merchant that Quentin. :rotfl:

The amount that leaves your bank account is the only important thing. Anything else is irrelevant, no matter how Quentin tries to 'explain' it with his warped logic.

Quoted for truth - written by someone who is not a distributor or even a customer of Utility Warehouse and thus has no bias or vested interests.

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

Quoted for truth - written by someone who is not a distributor or even a customer of Utility Warehouse and thus has no bias or vested interests.

"Quoted for truth"! Surprised to learn he hasn't marked your card before now (especially after you broke the rules and tried to recruit him earlier in this thread)

He is of course a self confessed WUM, and previously has been "outed" as being a UW member with vested interests, who supposedly reported us to Which? for libelous comments regarding their energy survey!

(Though presumably you'll now want "proof" of this in the same way you want "proof" of the alteregos used by uw supporters!)

MillicentBystander

Ah, but Quentin has clearly actually sold the products in the past so...(although obviously not in the numbers he must have hoped for when signing up).

MillicentBystander

My guess is he is some sort of insurance broker (or more likely works in an insurance broker's office) so it would have been something he could have slotted in with his regular daily activities ( I'm suspecting around 2005). Unfortunately, clearly something went horribly wrong hence his 5 year crusade on here (he never gets involved with any other G&E matters, including the extraordinary npower gas sculpting scandal so it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out he has 'issues' with UW only and not the mistrusted energy industry as a whole).