e2save cashback "month 1"

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

And again...
He had been doing this before writing the guide.
He has been doing this after writing the guide and keeps doing this.
And on a much wider scale than you can imagine. And more professionally than you. That's why, unlike you, he is able to quote the T&C, not some information on the website.

Not that I am saying that this information was of no value.

Who cares how long someone has been doing whatever but if its important, some of us doing it cashbacks in 2005/2006.

As for t&c, still no answer to the obvious questions I asked, when did the t&c change for the OP case?

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

Who cares how long someone has been doing whatever

Nobody - until someone starts using arguments like " I have been using e2save cashback offers for many years..." and "Five years a long time. Just because someone done somthing five yeras back do not mean its valid now".

As for t&c, still no answer to the obvious questions I asked, when did the t&c change for the OP case?

I think they didn't change. They contradicted the information on the website at the time of purchase. If the OP has a copy of the T&C saying "the month you purchased your handset...", they can sue [STRIKE]mobiles.co.uk [/STRIKE]e2save and will win.

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

Nobody - until someone starts using arguments like " I have been using e2save cashback offers for many years..." and "Five years a long time. Just because someone done somthing five yeras back do not mean its valid now".
I think they didn't change. They contradicted the information on the website at the time of purchase. If the OP has a copy of the T&C saying "the month you purchased your handset...", they can sue mobiles.co.uk and will win.

Its not mobiles.co.uk, its e2save - they both have separate cashback terms - the difference being the cashback months to claim on. 6th bill in e2save case.

If the response to post #6

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

then provide some proof of why it is wrong - that is the simple question I have asked and not got any answer to - instead its the usual dribble about how wonderful this bloke is, how crap everyone else, how he has done this, how he loves playing the retailers at their own game, how his "business" is doing cashbacks (what a bore of a life if you make a living like that) - geez who cares. Zzzzzzz.

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

Its not mobiles.co.uk, its e2save

My apologies. I meant e2save.

- they both have separate cashback terms - the difference being the cashback months to claim on. 6th bill in e2save case.

The only problem is what month is the 1st. IIRC, there was a similar problem with mobiles.co.uk - hence my typo.

If the response to post #6

then provide some proof of why it is wrong

If it makes any difference, personally I agree that the tone of the reply was inappropriate and I think you were not wrong. Also, I think, that the information on the website is as important as the one mailed to the customer and similarly can be used to the customer's advantage (not in this case) if there are some discrepancies.

mobilejunkie

It's not "how they do it". The bill numbers and when the first bill arrives are utterly irrelevant. Sometimes (based on your usual incorrect "understanding" of the t&c) YOU would be submitting the WRONG bill - just as you are advising on this thread (at least your advice is consistently bad). I have repeatedly quoted the t&c - not some third party website which is also highly likely to be incorrect and (in any case) completely useless in any court of law (as indeed you would be!). In fact, you have not ONCE quoted ANY actual t&c - everything is referring to third party sources which are totally irrelevant. Even the dates on the site copied on here do NOT say WHEN the order was placed - which IS the key point as the t&c I quoted a LONG time back PROVE. Any subsequent comments on the dates listed ASSUME that it doesn't matter when an order was placed on only goes by the first bill received - which, as the t&c I actually quoted show is completely wrong! But, as always, t&c and any intelligence or understanding are copletely wasted on you. What matter when the t&c changed if you ignore them anyway??? God help anyone listening to your totally misguided pronounciations on anything where cashback contracts are concerned. As for your having done them for five years; a pity then you gave lots of more bad advice about Mobiles.co LONG before you had used them once, when others had used them for a considerable period.

You can ask the same question like a parrot despite the fact I answered it long ago but that merely displays the limitations of your advice and knowledge of what you are doing.

To answer another point; IN my guide I point out very clearly that things change - again, THAT is a fundamental issue with any cashback contract. Nothing new under the sun - including the fools who come on here and give appalling advice to people who need help. The correct advice is clear, unambiguous and simple. I gave it a long time back and if the OP follows THAT instead of the other rubbish they WILL get paid. I would have thought they would be grateful for that and act accordingly, rather than give up because some people have advised them to send in the wrong bill for the wrong month when it's now too late anyway!

OneADay

mobilejunkie wrote: »

It's not "how they do it". The bill numbers and when the first bill arrives are utterly irrelevant. Sometimes (based on your usual incorrect "understanding" of the t&c) YOU would be submitting the WRONG bill - just as you are advising on this thread (at least your advice is consistently bad). I have repeatedly quoted the t&c - not some third party website which is also highly likely to be incorrect and (in any case) completely useless in any court of law (as indeed you would be!). In fact, you have not ONCE quoted ANY actual t&c - everything is referring to third party sources which are totally irrelevant. Even the dates on the site copied on here do NOT say WHEN the order was placed - which IS the key point as the t&c I quoted a LONG time back PROVE. Any subsequent comments on the dates listed ASSUME that it doesn't matter when an order was placed on only goes by the first bill received - which, as the t&c I actually quoted show is completely wrong! But, as always, t&c and any intelligence or understanding are copletely wasted on you. What matter when the t&c changed if you ignore them anyway??? God help anyone listening to your totally misguided pronounciations on anything where cashback contracts are concerned. As for your having done them for five years; a pity then you gave lots of more bad advice about Mobiles.co LONG before you had used them once, when others had used them for a considerable period.

You can ask the same question like a parrot despite the fact I answered it long ago but that merely displays the limitations of your advice and knowledge of what you are doing.

To answer another point; IN my guide I point out very clearly that things change - again, THAT is a fundamental issue with any cashback contract. Nothing new under the sun - including the fools who come on here and give appalling advice to people who need help. The correct advice is clear, unambiguous and simple. I gave it a long time back and if the OP follows THAT instead of the other rubbish they WILL get paid. I would have thought they would be grateful for that and act accordingly, rather than give up because some people have advised them to send in the wrong bill for the wrong month when it's now too late anyway!

Stop ranting and being abusive and answer the question - why is December correct and not January - and don't be a parrot and repeat yourself.

You have not repeatedly quoted the t&c, you have failed to put the exact wording on here - failed to explain why in May 2011 the offer I linked to hotukdeals uses the same bill calculation method as now in April 2012.

I don't care about your guide, never read it, never will - tough tits!

I am not asking for "fundamental issues with any contract"- talk about this case !

If you do not like "the fools who come on here", then ignore them, no one is asking you for permission on what to say or do on here - if you don't like it, tough - its a free forum and country.

mobilejunkie

OneADay wrote: »

I don't care about your guide, never read it, never will - tough tits!

I am not asking for "fundamental issues with any contract"- talk about this case !

Yes, I can WELL believe that (first sentence). Yours though, certainly not mine!

I have. You just ignore my quotes from the ACTUAL t&c instead of your irrelevant links to third party websites - which are as useless in law as they are in fact as far as you're concerned.

Posts 5 and 11 are DIRECT quotations from the T&C - you ignored them and dribble on offering poor substitutes which are completely irrelevant (and incomplete in any case) and help the OP not one jot!

OneADay

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Yes, I can WELL believe that (first sentence). Yours though, certainly not mine!

I have. You just ignore my quotes from the ACTUAL t&c instead of your irrelevant links to third party websites - which are as useless in law as they are in fact as far as you're concerned.

You have what? - you have FAILED to publish the proof because your carrier pigeon are two slow

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I'll send them over by carrier pigeon in brail, though it wouldn't make any difference if I sent a judge over to read them out to you word by word and slowly, so you can go at a pace where you might be able to digest them.

or you can't simply understand the question and try to hide that fact with abuse (you got something against the blind ????)

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Nah; Mensa intelligence isn't for those who can't do basic maths or read simple English.

mobilejunkie

OneADay wrote: »

You have what? - you have FAILED to publish the proof because your carrier pigeon are two slow



or you can't simply understand the question and try to hide that fact with abuse

What I can't understand is why someone who has been so completely wrong so often still ignores the basics and sends the OP down completely the wrong path. Maybe it's the Walter Mitty desperation of pretence at being an accountant to somehow justify nonsense rather than bothering to know what you're talking about.

OneADay

mobilejunkie wrote: »

What I can't understand is why someone who has been so completely wrong so often still ignores the basics and sends the OP down completely the wrong path. Maybe it's the Walter Mitty desperation of pretence at being an accountant to somehow justify nonsense rather than bothering to know what you're talking about.

What you can't understand is rather a lot. First the fact that I have not offered any advice to the OP but you have. The OP can choose and do what they see best. You contradict someone else with your witty abusive comment

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

and when asked to explain, fail miserably and has to resort to another argument in another thread in the past to hide your abuse or to talking repetitive gibberish you talk on almost all threads about a company you hate and trying to promote some lousy guide of yours.

You know you are talking porkies and can't explain it - face it or come up with the exact wording of the t&c at time the OP got their contract (if you want to justify your "nonsense" comment).