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

Lynsey

mobilejunkie wrote: »

well, I suppose having thrown away one lot of dosh it's possible to acquire a taste for it...

Classic...........thank you for starting my day with a smile. :rotfl:

Lynsey

mobilejunkie

My pleasure. Good to have you back (methinks you've been away?).

Silk

Ok got a bit more time today so able to reply in more detail.

As expected you will have seen from the posts that you have made some basic errors in in trust and assumptions, however theres no disgrace in that as you are not the first and certainly won't be the last

Daddy wrote: »

We did this each time within 2 weeks of receiving each bill. We have copies of all our emails in our sent box.

You are lucky in the fact that you used the normal email and have kept copies in your sent files, rather than use the online one that gives no proof of sending.
The only fly in the ointment is that you will need to have mentioned the "attachments" in the email, providing you have done this you will be able to prove that you have sent them.

Daddy wrote: »

Their first response said that they had not received any emails. We replied stating we had sent emails and had receipts.

Standard response untill you prove they were sent.

Daddy wrote: »

The second response we received stated that they had emails but no attachments, and can we send the attachments. As requested, we sent the attachments.

Again standard response when first one failed to work

Daddy wrote: »

Then we just got a reply from them saying that they had never received any emails from me at all and were not eligable for any cashback!

Last ditch effort hoping you will go away and forget about it as many give up at this point

The easy solution, should Ben fail to instigate the payment following his invesigation (I'm sure he will) is to go the MCOL route.
Fairly cheap and easy, all that would be required is to supply print offs of your sent email claims ...in order for them to defend they would have to provide all their data records for the 5 dates which is time consuming and costly for them. We know they are going to be unable to prove this as you recd. the auto replies anyway

In every case on here and the www when this option is taken they fold before it comes to court although they tend to take it to the wire, preferring to keep their money as long as poss :rotfl:

Theres an interesting side issue to all this .......

Daddy wrote: »

Very presuming of you to know my full business, but here's a copy of an email we had from mobiles.co.uk on 18th Sep 2009:

Hello,
To claim your discounted line rental, we will need to receive the following bills within 30 days of each of their bill dates

The date is interesting ....what date did you take out the contract ?

The reason is that the regulations changed on the 16th Sept 2009 and the 30 day rule amongst many other items was extended by law to 60 days.
In order to enforce the T&C's regarding this side of the contract you would have to have taken out the contract by the 15th Sept at the latest ???

The upside to this is that if you have been signed up to illegal T&C's, whilst it would not nullify the whole contract it would the section regarding the time limit in which to submit the claims. If that is the case then there would be nothing to stop you submitting a claim even now

Guys_Dad

I think that, unlike other cases, the weakness in any MCOL action is that OP did not raise any concerns about not getting stage payments when they arose

There is something odd about this case that isn't stacking up 4 times mobiles.co.uk failed to pay up on the same customer. Customer does not save acknowledgements. Customer doesn't know when cashbacks were due.

Jury is out for me at present. Mobiles.co.uk rep's - who knows, it might not be Ben - answer will be interesting.

Chunks

Having come to the mobiles.co.uk party post September 2009, I am unaware of how the scam (sorry, my fat fingers) scheme used to work. I (or rather a loved one on my behalf) signed me up after describing the deal as half price line rental rather than full price line rental ……….. then, claim cash back (hopefully). Upon realising that I was playing poker holding a pair of jokers, I turned to you lot who sorted me out (manly hugs and kisses to all).

Accepting that the game may already be over (Daddy appears to be in firmly in the Doodoo) there surely has to be some hope? I am assuming that he did send compliant bills as attachments to his emails and that being in IT he might be in a position to prove it (you can recover files cant you - even if deleted)? If mobiles didn’t reject his claims surely he has an arguable case? The email they sent Daddy might be useful too (setting out procedures) might act as a variation of the then T&Cs (if they would have otherwise operated against him). We know they vary T&Cs all the time (the January 2011 revision is meant to cover the VAT issue – have you seen it?).

If mobiles.co.uk wants to be seen as having turned over a new leaf (big assumption) give Daddy what you owe him, Ben (or whatever your name is).

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think that, unlike other cases, the weakness in any MCOL action is that OP did not raise any concerns about not getting stage payments when they arose

Hi GD,
It won't make any difference to MCOL, the OP has 6 years in which to make a claim and wouldn't even need to account for reasons of delay.
I can quite easily see the confusion of the OP thinking he would get the cashback when he had finnished paying for the contract at the end.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

There is something odd about this case that isn't stacking up 4 times mobiles.co.uk failed to pay up on the same customer. Customer does not save acknowledgements. Customer doesn't know when cashbacks were due.

Again thats understandable, up to now the OP did not suspect anything was wrong, why should he think about saving a mere ackowledgement.
It's ok for us because we and a few other members on here are well aware of the lengths mobiles.co.uk will go to to save a quid but the OP was flying blind and not aware ....although he will be now :rotfl:
As for not getting replies or cashback it's not exactly the first time thats happened is it ??? How many times do you read on here about them not responding to emails etc etc.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Jury is out for me at present. Mobiles.co.uk rep's - who knows, it might not be Ben - answer will be interesting.

In all honesty it probably isn't "Ben" anymore and is more likely to be his buddy Richard Cridford who took over as Online Marketing Manager last September ...which would explain the gaps and lack of knowledge over PM's and stuff etc etc....meanwhile untill they intoduce themselves I will carry on calling him Ben :rotfl:

I suppose it doesn't matter what he/she wants to call themselves be it Ben, James, Richard or even Faceache the fact remains the company is dire to deal with and the CS is pathetic.

Guys_Dad

Chunks wrote: »

If mobiles.co.uk wants to be seen as having turned over a new leaf (big assumption) give Daddy what you owe him, Ben (or whatever your name is).

I'm with MJ on this one, Chunks. If Daddy did send all his bills in line with t&c, then mobiles.co.uk should have paid up. Equally, he should have looked at the rules before playing the game and, unless he can reproduce what he sent back to them - the correct bills within the correct timescale - he can't prove that he followed the process.

I don't subscribe to the view that all MSE members are right and all suppliers are wrong. In many cases this may be true, but we have had examples on here where it is members who have made mistakes.

Their t&c on cashbacks - well the current one anyway - is to my mind pretty clear and has been improved over the time I have been reading this forum, no doubt as a result of the hardy core of members who have banged on at them about previous versions. see http://!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/cashback.html

Now it is reasonably clear from that what you have to do, when you have to do it and when you will get paid. You can't expect to play the game if you don't bother to read the rules.

If the cashback model that benefits many members is based upon a certain percentage of customers not claiming, claiming incorrectly, not doing their homework etc, then some will fall by the wayside.

For Daddy, it's a matter of proving it with events over a year old. I hope he can, but it is not right to write that mobiles.co.uk should pay up regardless if Daddy can't now prove at this late stage that he did comply.

One thing that is better now is at least if his last bill went in correctly on time then the "miss one - miss the lot" rules have been outlawed.

Guys_Dad

Silk wrote: »

Hi GD,
It won't make any difference to MCOL, the OP has 6 years in which to make a claim and wouldn't even need to account for reasons of delay.
I can quite easily see the confusion of the OP thinking he would get the cashback when he had finnished paying for the contract at the end.

Again thats understandable, up to now the OP did not suspect anything was wrong, why should he think about saving a mere ackowledgement.
It's ok for us because we and a few other members on here are well aware of the lengths mobiles.co.uk will go to to save a quid but the OP was flying blind and not aware ....although he will be now :rotfl:
As for not getting replies or cashback it's not exactly the first time thats happened is it ??? How many times do you read on here about them not responding to emails etc etc.

Hi Silk. How's it going?

Can't agree with you 100% on this one and I think you may still be a little coloured in your views based on history.

When you write "I can quite easily see the confusion of the OP thinking he would get the cashback when he had finnished paying for the contract at the end." you can't really mean that, surely?

You have to concede that the t&c on when to claim and when you get paid are pretty clear and the only reason for thinking that you get paid at the end is if you don't bother to check what you are signing up for.

It's like claiming when caught doing 45 in a 30 mph zone that you weren't watching out for traffic signs!

As far as not responding to emails, they appear to have done just that as Daddy says. Possibly the only mobiles.co.uk's customers who has ever said that ! :rotfl::rotfl:

Something's not quite right about this one and I wait for events to unfold in due course.

Silk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

- he can't prove that he followed the process.

Why can't he prove he didn't follow the process ???

He can prove he sent the emails as requested within the 2 weeks quite easily with copies of the emails with headers ....if he takes action then mobiles.co.uk have to put up or shut up ...the only way they can prove they didn't receive any (which they've already admitted they have by the way) is to provide their data for the dates in question.
If there was any problem with the attachments or missing detail it would be deemed unreasonable not to raise the issue at the time.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

One thing that is better now is at least if his last bill went in correctly on time then the "miss one - miss the lot" rules have been outlawed.

Thats going to depend on the date he took out the contract as I'm sure that was one of the changes made in Sept 2009

mobilejunkie

It's unwise to commence on court action without being able to prove you complied with the t&c. It's not the time which has passsed - it's the proof. I am likely to be commencing procedings in due course aginst this dealer; but I am at least able to prove that my case is correct and their pathetic defence is a sham. I fully expect them to change their position but will pursue it should they not. It is dangerous to assume they will NEVER go to court; E2Save used to and CPW ultimately decides whether or not to go all the way, methinks.

Again, not knowing (or even being able to produce) the full written (and I do NOT mean emails) t&c at the point of sale doesn't inspire confidence in a court of law where the plaintiff is claiming breach of contract.