The Mobile Outlet

ticobassie

grayme-m wrote: »

You were 'careless' you didn't meet the condition 'Once you are in receipt of your sixth bill you need to forward the original bills from month 1-6 within 21 days from the bill date illustrated on your sixth bill.'; maybe you have a point with t&c's changing but you have failed to meet any.

This isn't a case of TMO trying to con you, IMHO a legal action should decide against you.

I'm not denying I sent in bills 1-6 too late. But if you read the original T&C carefully you will notice that the consequences of not making the claim within this time period (i.e 21 days) are that "the cash back entitlement is lost for your 2nd due installment at month 12".

It does NOT say that "the cash back entitlement is lost for the whole of the cash back".

Hence, the point that I've tried to make here is that under the valid T&C I should be given the first, but not the second cash back.

nilocmac

but since you did not forward the original bills from month 1-6 within 21 days from the bill date illustrated on your sixth bill. then you did not fulfill the terms and conditions.

or am I reading this wrongly?

ticobassie

In my opinion yes...

I don't know how I can avoid saying the same thing a third time.

Any T&C should be read as it is written, that is literally. Indeed I did not comply with the "21 days" clause, the condition set for receiving the two cashbacks. The consequence of not doing so is stated explicitly in both versions of T&C. But the consequences are different!!! Only the T&C that were sent to me at the time of entering my contract are valid (referred to in previous posts as original / old). That T&C explicitly states that if "a claim is not made within this time period the cash back entitlement is lost for your 2nd due installment at month 12".

Please see my first and second post for a more complete argument.
If you excuse me, I will leave it at that.

grayme-m

ticobassie wrote: »

I'm not denying I sent in bills 1-6 too late. But if you read the original T&C carefully you will notice that the consequences of not making the claim within this time period (i.e 21 days) are that "the cash back entitlement is lost for your 2nd due installment at month 12".

It does NOT say that "the cash back entitlement is lost for the whole of the cash back".

Hence, the point that I've tried to make here is that under the valid T&C I should be given the first, but not the second cash back.

True, it does just say that if you don't claim the first lot on time you won't get the second, but I think you're really pushing it to try to get the first.

There were people on here who had misunderstood ambiguous t&c, for me (and nilcomac) it is clear what they were saying and I can't see how a court would see otherwise.

Still, I'm not a court...

grayme-m

They don't literally say they will give you your cashback at any point though.

Aren't you heading to American territory where you're suing the microwave manufacturer because they don't literally say 'not to be used as a dog drier'?

ticobassie wrote: »

In my opinion yes...

I don't know how I can avoid saying the same thing a third time.

Any T&C should be read as it is written, that is literally. Indeed I did not comply with the "21 days" clause, the condition set for receiving the two cashbacks. The consequence of not doing so is stated explicitly in both versions of T&C. But the consequences are different!!! Only the T&C that were sent to me at the time of entering my contract are valid (referred to in previous posts as original / old). That T&C explicitly states that if "a claim is not made within this time period the cash back entitlement is lost for your 2nd due installment at month 12".

Please see my first and second post for a more complete argument.
If you excuse me, I will leave it at that.

GunJack

tico - have to agree with the other two posters, sounds like you messed up (by your own admission you did) and now want recompense for your mistake. As for the involvement in this forum by TMO, and the fact that they have helped people with a (genuine) problem, good on them I say, don't see CPW, e3save et al involved in this forum doing the same, and people have problems with them, too.......

thesaint

ticobassie,
The point that you have made is a valid one in law, if not in principal.

I would guess that a court would rule in your favour if you took it that far, as their sloppy wording is not your concern. I doubt if the Mobile Outlet would bother to turn up to defend it.

Some will defend the Mobile Outlet to the death, as is their right, your failed claim would mean more money in the pot for the rest waiting for a claim.
Think about it, publicly support The Mobile Outlet's sloppy busineess practices, and put in a cashback claim with a note pointing out that they have defended them on a public forum... Casback paid with minimum fuss.

As long as we are allowed to post our experiences, feelings, observations etc, the rest who read this thread can make up their own mind.

grayme-m

thesaint wrote: »

ticobassie,
The point that you have made is a valid one in law, if not in principal.

I would guess that a court would rule in your favour if you took it that far, as their sloppy wording is not your concern. I doubt if the Mobile Outlet would bother to turn up to defend it.

It would certainly be an interesting case, I'm not so ready to offer legal advice, but good luck.

thesaint wrote: »

Some will defend the Mobile Outlet to the death, as is their right, your failed claim would mean more money in the pot for the rest waiting for a claim.
Think about it, publicly support The Mobile Outlet's sloppy busineess practices, and put in a cashback claim with a note pointing out that they have defended them on a public forum... Casback paid with minimum fuss.

This is a bit low. :eek:

g33za

if you took a company to court and lost, what do you really loose? I read earlier that they cannot claim solicitors fees... so is it worth doing ?

Hugh_Jampton_2

If it's the small claim process, I think you only loose court fees. I think they can ask for costs but these aren't normally granted unless your claim was grossly unreasonable