Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

Quentin

BaggieBoy wrote: »

I'm a UW customer and when i was "sold" the service i was told that UW constantly monitor the big six and make sure their prices are towards the lower end of them. Has this changed or was i lied to? To be honest i'm not the sort who will sit and compare tariffs of all of the companies and i also like the fact i pay everything in one DD.

You fell for their worthless guarantee cleverly used as a marketing tool to make prospective customers believe their prices are guaranteed to be "competitive".

The small print of the "guarantee" makes it worthless:

1) They don't include their monthly membership fee in their comparison

2) They don't include any discount other companies give for dual fuel

3) They don't include other companies cheaper on line tariffs

4) They don't include any discount givejn by other companies for paying by direct debit

(In fact uw will charge you more if you don't pay by direct debit!)

Put your consumption into any comparison website to see how expensive they are compared with the cheapest.

The card is just another clever marketing tool, turning their members into busy fools using the risky card just to make their expensive energy seem cheaper.

If you want to get discount off your shopping then why not treat that separately, and keep any discount for yourself instead of buying expensive products just to let uw take your discount?

BaggieBoy_3

Thanks for that Quentin, worth doing by the sound of it

One question for the UW distributors - I currently have Gas, electric, Phone, Broadband and an 0800 number with UW plus the cash back card.

If i moved the gas and electric somewhere else would i still be eligible for the cash back card or is it only issued if i use gas/electric as well?

Looked on the website but can't see it mentioned anywhere.

Meeper

BaggieBoy wrote: »

If i moved the gas and electric somewhere else would i still be eligible for the cash back card or is it only issued if i use gas/electric as well?

You only need one service to have the Cashback card, so that would be fine.

Do bear in mind that you may lose some of your free calls if you chop some services out. The free global calls is 24-hours for 4 or more services, but if you go to 3 services it is only on weekends and evenings. 2 services and it's weekends only.

Just something to bear in mind.

Quentin

BaggieBoy wrote: »

If i moved the gas and electric somewhere else would i still be eligible for the cash back card or is it only issued if i use gas/electric as well?

You seem to spend a lot on fuel/food. If this is at sainsbury you will have seen there are other cards which give bigger discounts than the risky uw card.

Meeper

Quentin wrote: »

1) You pay £370 more than you need to by buying expensive uw energy.

The amount that I pay is the amount that goes out of my bank account, not what it says on a piece of paper or a website. I therefore don't PAY more than £370 more than I need to, I PAY less. The amount of money that goes out of the bank is what I PAY. This is not a difficult concept.

2) You tell us that because the uw takes your uw risky card cashback of £696 towards paying the bill that you are saving.

I have asked you before how the Cashback card is "risky" and you have declined to answer in anything other than "because UW says it is". If you could outline what the risks of the card are, that would go a long way to helping your argument.

3) The rest of us can see the flaw in your argument.

Lucky British public to have you to speak for them.

4) Why not buy the cheapest energy in the first place, saving you £370?

Because then I wouldn't have received the cashback on the bill and so on that actually means that I PAY less. Not to mention everything being on one bill, no minimum term contract, and many other benefits to being a UW club member.

5) Then have your card reward for yourself to do what you want with (or use it to reduce your cheap energy down from £964 to £268)

If I don't have the services, I don't get the card reward.

(You seem to spend a lot at sainsburys, so why not get a card that gets a 5% discount there - you'd have an extra £264 to help get your energy cost down to just £4! But you would rather pay the uw your £638)

I do spend a lot at Sainsbury's as well as many of the other stores on the UW Cashback scheme. You never give an example of which card I should go for instead of the UW Cashback card.

Besides which, as I have mentioned before, there are a number of additional benefits to being a UW Club member, it's called a Discount Club, not a Gas & Electricity Supplier. The clue is in the name.

Meeper

Quentin wrote: »

You seem to spend a lot on fuel/food. If this is at sainsbury you will have seen there are other cards which give bigger discounts than the risky uw card.

How is the card risky? If I ask enough times will you provide an answer? Which other card do you recommend for this, specifically? If I ask enough times will you actually provide an answer?

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

I have asked you before how the Cashback card is "risky" and you have declined to answer in anything other than "because UW says it is". If you could outline what the risks of the card are, that would go a long way to helping your argument.

As you get paid for selling the risky card it's understood why you don't like it being referred to in this way.

Nevertheless you know it is the uw that point out the risks to all customers in the ts + cs for the card.

You work for them, and you tell us you have the card so must have a copy of the ts + cs.

At the top it says that everyone taking out the card understands the risks and confirms they accept them (so why do you keep asking on here what the risks are - you clearly must know them!)

By activating your Card you accept these Terms and Conditions and confirm you understand and accept the risks highlighted in clauses 2(b) and 18(d) of this Agreement.

Meeper

Ok, as you can't answer the question as to what the risks are, I'll tell you, just to get rid of this perception that it is "risky".

Clause 2(b) in the agreement explains that the money deposited on the card may lose its value if the company becomes insolvent. So basically, in the event of the collapse of the FTSE-250 company, the money will potentially not be worth anything. That's just the same as having your money in a "risky" bank. There is nothing any more inherently "risky" about having your money on the Cashback card compared to a bank.

Clause 18(d) explains that compensation schemes are not applicable to the funds deposited on the Cashback card. This means for example that your only protection for Internet, mail order or telephone transactions is your statutory protection under the Sale Of Goods Act and other applicable legislation. Where the Card is used in such situations and the company is unable to resolve the dispute, you will be liable for the transaction. That is just the same as any other Debit card out there, as you only get additional consumer protection if you use a credit card which is substantially more "risky" and can cause significantly more harm by its use.

So, there are the risks in the clauses you mention. The first risk is no more risky than depositing money with any bank, and the second is no more risky than using a regular debit card.

So now you either have to label all banks and deposit-taking accounts as "risky" and brand all debit cards as "risky", or dispense with the "risky" tab from the UW Card, unless you have something of substance (for a change) with which to counter my points.

And, as is the norm, you have answered one question out of about 5, and that was a poor answer.

Still lacking in substance I'm afraid. I'm putting everything out there any being as open and transparent as possible, and far from everyone seeing through my scheming, I think more that people are seeing through your nonsense and realising that you have no substance to back up your comments. It's all good, as it just makes the UW proposition look better. The more objections you can put up, the more I can knock them down and improve the image of the proposition because I make logical and reasoned arguments, and you come back with pointless one-liners that lack substance.

I appreciate your assistance in spreading the good word.

Meeper
--UW Distributor

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

Ok, as you can't answer the question as to what the risks are, I'll tell you, just to get rid of this perception that it is "risky".

What a surprise, you knew all along what the risks are, and your repeated requests were just the troll posts we knew they were!

No wonder you get ignored.

Meeper

Of course I knew. It's my job to know. I was trying to ascertain the basis that you continutally used the word "risky" in your explanation without having a clue what you were talking about. Once again, in dodging the question and taking a pop at me, you are just detracting from your own points and making yourself look somewhat foolish and unwilling to discuss the actual issues.

It's a shame, because I actually feel that if you could come up with some structure to your points and include some actual facts, we could have a proper debate. As it stands, it's like having a gunfight against a guy who forgot his gun and brought a sword. Your arguments are easily picked off from a distance.