Beware Onestop Phone Shop (merged)

alnsv1000s

My fixed rate mortgage offer is due to end at the end of January.

Woolwich have sent me a letter regarding different options.

I don't think i will read it as I am too busy.

Hope they dont contact me again regarding this as I am not 16 anymore and can't be bothered to spend my time reading letters.

I assume that I won't go onto their standard mortgage rate, but i will check my bank statements in April if i can be bothered, and see what they have decided to take out of my account.

If they take more than i thought, I will go absolutely mad and call them on all the names under the sun and post all sorts of defamatory comments on various forums. :mad:

How dare they - Anyone got any valium :rolleyes:

elljay20

t8769 wrote: »

I'm setting up a new company called CarphoneScamPhones

In it, I agree to a contract on the phone with the customer, but then amend the contract by text a few days later.

As many people will not realise that the contract has been amended, I will then be able to charge the customer's bank account whatever I like. If anyone asks, I'll say they were warned.

This is a surefire way to rake in the cash, think of all the suckers (honest people) who believe they're given correct information on the phone, and all the cash I can steal from them.

I'm looking for investors, if there are any crooks out there (and there certainly seem to be some around with questionable morals) who don't mind stealing for a living, do let me know.

If only 20% of the people I sell to don't read the text, we could be living it up on other people's hard earned money. And we'd be Kosher (or Hillal if you're that way inclined).

We could even get people to defend us on websites like this.


Where are there are honest people, there's always a way to steal money. We can thank the CarphoneWarehouse for teaching us that.

seriously, are you so arrogant that you cannot see that you made a mistake?
i don't believe these rants!!! you're not hurting carphones business, just making yourself look foolish:rolleyes:

MORPH3US

So much good advice on here and the OP just won't listen... the world is against him / her and everyone who disagrees is wrong...

Old_Gold

I find it amazing that you are attacking the OP on a site that is basically set up to help not wildly attack. Please tell me where it is written in black and white that one loses rights by not looking at text messages. I very much doubt that a court of law would accept a text message as being proof of a received communication unless it is known the recipient actually read it.
As for being a scam I would not go that far but I think all network providers make it easy for customers to fall foul of their procedures which then means the customer incurs expenses they would not have chosen to accept.
It looks to me as if you guys have wound up t8769 and as a result probably saying things in defensive manner which has triggered a poor response.
t8769 complain to trading standards and ofcom and good luck to you.

d123

t8769 wrote: »

I wonder if these are CPW employees.

I'm only asking this, as this scam is so awful, so obviously immoral and misleading, and the lack of open information to obviously planned, that I assume only a CPW employee could think it acceptable.

Or perhaps there are people who actually think its ok to take money from someone's account without their knowing.

Asside from this wierdness..

Has anyone been successful making complaints about this kind of behaviour?

Just to start, No, I dont work for CarPhoneWarehouse and never have, or have any connection whatsoever with the company. In fact I have an active dislike for them.

BUT

Why is it so difficult to get across the fact that it isn't just CPW that has this procedure with regard to PAC's. This is the way it would work with any Porting request from any Provider or Network.

For the Port to be successful the line has to live, so there cannot be a termination request on the line.

You really do need to wake up and take responsibility for your financial matters. I have had PAC numbers from T-Mobile, three, Orange and Vodafone, every PAC has been accompanied with the warning that failure to use the PAC will mean the line stays live.

Honestly, you really do need to take some responsibility for your action (or inaction, in this case).

Dave

reehsetin

Old_Gold wrote: »

I find it amazing that you are attacking the OP on a site that is basically set up to help not wildly attack. Please tell me where it is written in black and white that one loses rights by not looking at text messages. I very much doubt that a court of law would accept a text message as being proof of a received communication unless it is known the recipient actually read it. its not the companies job to force people to read the T+C's when i get some time ill pull up some cases where people havent bothered to read it and guess what courts will not back them up, as long as the terms available if he doesnt want to read it thats his fault, it wasnt even like it was burried away it was brought to his attention
plus dont think the courts would look kindly upon the fact that it took months for the consumer to realise, if he had raised an objection after the first month then maybe everyone would be more sympathetic
As for being a scam I would not go that far but I think all network providers make it easy for customers to fall foul of their procedures which then means the customer incurs expenses they would not have chosen to accept.
It looks to me as if you guys have wound up t8769 and as a result probably saying things in defensive manner which has triggered a poor response.
t8769 complain to trading standards and ofcom and good luck to you.

...........................

reehsetin

L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394) demonstrates that one cannot evade being bound by the terms of a Contract, even an ExclusionClause on the basis that one did not read or understand the terms.

Mrs L'Estrange owned a cafe. She ordered a cigarette machine from the manufacturers which, it turned out, never worked properly. Although an implied contract term in the sale of goods is that the goods will be suitable for the purpose intended, the contract -- which Mrs L'Estrange had signed -- did state that the manufacturers disclaimed all liability regarding the malfunction of the machine. It was held that Mrs L'Estrange could not claim damages on the grounds that she ``did not see'' the clause in the contract. There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation that might have mitigated this judgement.
http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_LestrangeVGraucob1934.html

(Thompson v Bordon Midland and Scottish Railway [1930] 1KB 41) In this case an elderly, illiterate woman asked her neice to buy a railway ticket. On the ticket was a reference to the Railway's standard terms and conditions which, on page 552 (!), contained a disclaimer of all liability for personal injury arising out of negligence. Mrs Thompson injured her leg, and sued for damages. The court ruled that the railway had done what it reasonably could to bring the exclusion clause to the attention of the public, and there was no case for damages. Although such a ruling seems harsh, it emphasizes the general principle that people ought to be bound by the contracts they make.
http://www.kevinboone.com/PF_lawglos_ThompsonVBordenMidlandAndScottishRailway1930.html
main way these cases may be overturned now is because of unfair contract terms act but that is judged by reasonable
the fact that the term wasnt burried away in t+c's and the fact it was text in a very short message seems to me to mean that the term would be seen as reasonably brought to his attention

Old_Gold

reehsetin you left off the fact that I said by text. Of course it is the buyer's responsibility but only within reason. Unless the law has changed one party cannot assume acceptance from another party simply because they have not answered in the negative.
The two cases you quote are interesting but without full knowledge of the reasoning behind the verdict it is hard to comment. In the second case it does not state that negligence on behalf of the staff was involved. Nobody can absolve themselves of the responsibility of care except maybe in extreme cases which this does not sound like.

reehsetin

by continuing with the contract and acting on it (giving the payment via direct debit) its likey he'd been seen to be accepted, it wasnt silence, he paid!
im trying to understand your second point about negligence but not getting it

alnsv1000s

Old_Gold wrote: »

reehsetin you left off the fact that I said by text. Of course it is the buyer's responsibility but only within reason. Unless the law has changed one party cannot assume acceptance from another party simply because they have not answered in the negative.

So in your view, even if CPW sent a letter by special delivery, to the OP detailing the fact that if the PAC code was unused within 30 days then the contract will continue, unless they can prove that the OP has bothered to read it, that statement is invalid.

What do companies have to do to ensure the customers understand if the customer cannot be asked to listen, by whatever means it has been explained to them.

If i ever get a letter from Customs & Revenue saying that they want to do an inspection, i can say I received the letter but as I get so many letters every day, I just ignored it. Hopefully they will understand and cancel the inspection.

What people are saying on this thread is that the OP could very easily have known about the PAC code scenario, and was advised, but due to the poor attitude of the OP they ae now paying the price and making slanderous and sarcastic comments about the Company that did give them the facts.

Hopefully it is a lesson learned, and in future the OP will take the 20 seconds to look at correspondence.