mobiles.co.uk cashback scam -- small claims? trading standards? watchdog?

Ferris

Silk wrote: »

You are having a laugh here surely :eek:

I can't believe you are praising them considering your past experiances and the many many posts you were forced to make as a result of poor service

A quick look at the threads show many examples such as ...
You had to threaten them with legal action
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=35635461&postcount=33

You complained you can't get hold of them
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=34795183&postcount=4

You started a thread asking Are They Still In Business because you can't get hold of them
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=34789757&postcount=1

You started a thread They Have The Worst CS
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=30897385&postcount=1

You started a thread because you had a Faulty Handset
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29350153&postcount=1

Many posts relating to no communication such as ...
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29111997&postcount=17

Considering your history with them of faulty goods, unauthorised funds taken, lack of communication, time scales, unanswered emails, having to threaten Legal Action, complaints of poor CS etc etc etc it's amazing you wish to praise them.

To make a statement such as "the company have been courteous and efficient in the extreme." when many of your posts and threads state otherwise is an absolute joke :rotfl:

It does beg the question what your position would have been without the help and advice you received from the good people on this forum

i had a feeling someone would do the forum stalking thing

as the other respondent said, i think the most accurate way to describe it would be to say that on balance, over the course of the contract, the service has been excellent. i have no axe to grind, and no need to praise them.

i am a bit of a venter when it comes to forums - when faced with an issue i come on to MSE to rant and seek advice on worst case scenarios even before giving the company the chance to respond, so that i would know how best to tackle any potential negative response even if such a response was never forthcoming. as such, your list of my venting posts is a little misleading as i think every single one of those issues was ultimately resolved in satisfactory fashion (and i mentioned most of them in my original post). i don't think it's contradictory to say that i had issues with the company in the past, each of which was resolved positively to the extent that, on balance, my overall review of the company is positive.

in one of the linked posts i mentioned that the measure of a company is not in the mistakes it makes, but how it responds to those mistakes. looking back over 24 months rather than in the heat of the moment, they did a lot more right than wrong in that regard.

(this is not to mention that the vast majority of my issues were in the first month or two of the contract, when the scare stories on here had me jumpy!)

Guys_Dad

Ferris wrote: »

i had a feeling someone would do the forum stalking thing

It's not stalking when you see someone making contradictory comments when you remember that previously you helped them when they held a diagonally opposed view and then check it up.

If you make posts on a Forum with one view a number of times and then do a volte face and post a comment that flies in the face of your previous posts, you should not be surprised if someone with a good memory ( and a search facility ! ) brings that to other members' attention and has a pop at you.

Ferris

perhaps, but given that i acknowledge all the problems that i had in the post he took exception to, i find it odd that it should be seen as contradictory. i mentioned the cashback problems, the faulty phone, the overcharging, and my frustration with the company at times, and then came to a balanced retrospective opinion of my overall experience. some people like looking for contradiction where there is none. not all of us have an entrenched, unchanging opinion, as many seem to do about this company.

in any case, holding such a view is up to each individual, and i have no problem with it other than when it compels someone to 'have a pop' at another poster. indeed i will thank some of the most extreme examples for their truly useful assistance on this board over the years

Quentin

I recall you had to instigate the process for starting court proceedings against them, which makes this about face hard to see in any light other than some form of forum trolling!

Most people forced into the LBA (you used "email before action)/MCOL pathway wouldn't discount such an unusual experience!

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

I recall you had to instigate the process for starting court proceedings against them, which makes this about face hard to see in any light other than some form of forum trolling!

Most people forced into the LBA (you used "email before action)/MCOL pathway wouldn't discount such an unusual experience!

First time I have agreed with you ??

Guys_Dad

Ferris wrote: »

perhaps, but given that i acknowledge all the problems that i had in the post he took exception to, i find it odd that it should be seen as contradictory. i mentioned the cashback problems, the faulty phone, the overcharging, and my frustration with the company at times, and then came to a balanced retrospective opinion of my overall experience. some people like looking for contradiction where there is none. not all of us have an entrenched, unchanging opinion, as many seem to do about this company.

Sorry, Ferris, but read again the quote above. You acknowledge a number of problems, yet your post that caused the exchange read
"i should say in the interests of balance that in all my dealings with mobiles.co.uk over the course of a 24 month contract - cashback claims, faulty phones, incorrect charges - the company have been courteous and efficient in the extreme".

One of these statements has to be incorrect - clearly. Had you commented that you had some difficulties in your original post on this thread, but, in retrospect, you felt that the company had sorted out these problems to your satisfaction - as you did in the one I quoted - then there might not have been the recent comments by, Silk, thommy, Quentin and me.

Ferris

Quentin wrote: »

I recall you had to instigate the process for starting court proceedings against them, which makes this about face hard to see in any light other than some form of forum trolling!

Most people forced into the LBA (you used "email before action)/MCOL pathway wouldn't discount such an unusual experience!

not really. the 'email before action' was simply a method to hurry them along a little, and if i recall they responded within 20 minutes with an approved claim that was paid a few days later.

all i know is that out of 5 cashback claims, only one took longer than expected. when i sent them an appropriately blunt email the problem was resolved within half an hour. every other cashback claim was fine.

no trolling here. i'm not even recommending mobiles.co.uk to anyone else. it could well be that my next five claims are a quagmire of legal action. but in 24 months, any problems i had were resolved relatively easily and (usually) quite quickly too. despite my premature frustrated ranting on this forum, overall they got things pretty much right most of the time.

Ferris

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Sorry, Ferris, but read again the quote above. You acknowledge a number of problems, yet your post that caused the exchange read
"i should say in the interests of balance that in all my dealings with mobiles.co.uk over the course of a 24 month contract - cashback claims, faulty phones, incorrect charges - the company have been courteous and efficient in the extreme".

One of these statements has to be incorrect - clearly. Had you commented that you had some difficulties in your original post on this thread, but, in retrospect, you felt that the company had sorted out these problems to your satisfaction - as you did in the one I quoted - then there might not have been the recent comments by, Silk, thommy, Quentin and me.

again i respectfully disagree. in an ideal world my only dealings with the company would have been to order the phone, then email 5 cashback claims. however, this was not ideal and there were some mistakes made so i had more dealings than i would have preferred - as i mentioned in my post, queried cashback claims, faulty phones, incorrect charges - which are where their response was to be measured. in general, they were efficient and courteous in each of these cases, on some occasions going beyond what i would have expected.

and it's odd that you say "Had you commented that you had some difficulties in your original post on this thread", right after including the quote from my initial post in which i mentioned the difficulties that i had. what could "incorrect charges" refer to but a problem i had experienced? and "faulty phones"? and the bit later on (not quoted) where i mentioned how i was frustrated with the company on occasion, which (having listed the problems earlier on) pretty much says exactly what you said would have prevented the replies: "i have been frustrated by them in the past, but never for long, and all problems were sorted out satisfactorily with apologies and compensation where appropriate." bizarre.

anyway, let's leave it at that. we're all after the same thing, which is a better customer experience.

i expect i'll be back on the board in may when the first cashback claim comes along...

Quentin

Ferris wrote: »

not really. the 'email before action' was simply a method to hurry them along a little......

Didn't see it like that at the time!

You started a thread because you were concerned, your cashback was late and you could get no response from them.

You asked, and were given, advice on LBA/MCOL.

You decided uo allow them 21 days more before embarking on the legal action route.

Many would feel the same about getting involved with threatening legal action - as it's not something we expect or want to do.

Eventually you did go down the legal route, and this was successful for you - they responded to your threat.

You then sought further advice on the courts, intending to use them in the future, and specifically asked how much you would be able to sue for (the missing amounts or the whole sum owed), and how much it would cost you.

To now dismiss all this as a way of "hurrying" them up after your inexplicable about face gets challenged seems to point more to you just manipulating the forum - for your own unexplained reasons (bearing in mind the long litany of threads in which you did moan about them, and famously titled one "The worst cs in history")

Come off it! (Though the real advice which we should be sticking to is the one about not feeding the trolls)

Ferris

i refer you to my earlier post about seeking advice about worst case scenarios as the reason to seek help from the forum. before taking action i'd rather know how it could play out, which is why i asked about worst case scenarios - as a precaution; forewarned is forearmed and so on.

having just looked back over the thread you refer to, i notice that i was consistent in praising their response speed in general - as i did in this thread - and noting how that particular delay was uncharacteristic - as i did in this thread.

to state that i started the thread because "my cashback was late" is a little disingenuous, seeing as i mentioned the specific reason for my concern, which is that another cashback provider had gone out of business leaving me out of pocket as a result, and because that particular delay was uncharacteristic of my dealings with them.

also, notice that as soon as i'd received confirmation the bill had been received i was fairly satisfied. when the delay in confirming the claim would be paid stretched out a bit, and having sought advice on how things might pan out in a worst case scenario, the "email before action" was genuinely an attempt to hurry them along - and it worked! had it not worked i would have waited a fair bit longer before contemplating any further action.

no contradiction, no inconsistency, no trolling