Anyone done a LBA and followed it up?

Silk

The problem here is that intomobilephones.co.uk was part of Shebangs operation ....most of which has been sold off to A1 Comms as dicussed before on here.

If intomobilephones.co.uk has not been sold off, which I'm not sure about, then you would need to move quick before others move in and take the spoils.

The risk would be they may go bump before you can get a judgement against them

ianG

Silk wrote: »

The problem here is that intomobilephones.co.uk was part of Shebangs operation ....most of which has been sold off to A1 Comms as dicussed before on here.

If intomobilephones.co.uk has not been sold off, which I'm not sure about, then you would need to move quick before others move in and take the spoils.

The risk would be they may go bump before you can get a judgement against them

Thanks for that Silk but I can't find any reference in here about Shebangs. So they are possibly sold off to A1 Comms? Looking at Companies House info:

wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7d1fd64934b06f4d2095477593a5d471/wcprodorder?incexc=1 ...I'm not allowed to post links yet...

they do have a dodgy history...

J_B

AGGGG

What's LBA??????????

Silk

J_B wrote: »

AGGGG

What's LBA??????????

Letter Before Action

Silk

ianG wrote: »

Thanks for that Silk but I can't find any reference in here about Shebangs. So they are possibly sold off to A1 Comms? Looking at Companies House info:

wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7d1fd64934b06f4d2095477593a5d471/wcprodorder?incexc=1 ...I'm not allowed to post links yet...

they do have a dodgy history...

Hi Ian,
A1 Comms which is Buymobilephones.net bought Go Mobile and Affordablemobiles from Shebang last month.

Being as Intomobilephones is/was also owned by Shebang it's possible that A1 are buying that too or maybe they don't want it ....in which case it may fold. Sorry to say I don't know the answer

Buzby

Quentin wrote: »

This is ill informed advice, and should be ignored..

Really?

And how many cashback firms have YOU taken to the small claims court? Your advice has all the brave bluster of someone who has not lost a penny in pursuit, and feels that there will be a just end to any pursuit.

By all means disagree - but ignore?

Let's take off those rose tinted glasses.

In the last 4 years there have been so many 'cashback' schemes created that were using an unsustainable model of paying back on future commissions the retailer could only hope of recovering. The networks used clawbacks to deny the dealerships the funding they required (justifiably so, in many cases) and the game became one of making the buyer leap through unreasonable hurdles, each designed to ensure non-compliance.

The cashback model favoured by so many dealers required a failure rate on 80% of respondents to allow them to turn a profit. It was the consumer who was the mug in believing the scheme was there to give them a cheap deal, it was simply to sucker them in - and nothing more.

Moving on to your premise that SC is an effective solution into forcing a dealer to pay up, I've yet to hear of a signle success ful SC pursuit that resulted in a consumer actually being paid wither what they were owed, OR recovered their litigation costs. The usual route is simply to fold the enterprise and start again with a revised trading name and new website. Meanwhile, the old clients can go whistle. As for the customer being able to 'prove' compliance with the terms of the offer? Yes, right. And pigs will fly. You require much more than a statement that 'you did it all correctly'. Assuming they do decide to respond rather than fold immediately, the usual gambit that date milestones were not met, and as time is of the essence the customer has not a leg to stand on. If they are determined to keep to the 80% non-fulfillment, that's the way it works.

Because there are no centralised resource to quantify any national averages, let's go on how many of the thousands of consumers who lost or did not get paid their cashback, and who managed to seek a sucessful SC resolution.

I've not heard of any. And believe me I researched this extensively in 2009-10 when it was at its peak. There IS, however many people who have lost even more money to the courts and bailiffs in the pursuit of a dream in the legal system actually doing something useful for them. Boy have they been disappointed. Of late, I've not heard anything to change this view - just a couple would do, but I've not found them on this or any other site confirming it.

For you to advise that SC is a legitimate way to recover any losses, without even suggesting the risk of failure is negligent in the extreme, however if you care to indemnify the OP's costs, I'm sure this position will not be misplaced.

But I doubt it.

Guys_Dad

Buzby wrote: »

Moving on to your premise that SC is an effective solution into forcing a dealer to pay up, I've yet to hear of a signle success ful SC pursuit that resulted in a consumer actually being paid wither what they were owed, OR recovered their litigation costs.

I can hear the sound of an approaching Mobilejunkie on the horizon. Hatches battened down??? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I would say that it would be the right thing to take a solvent, trading vendor, such as any of the CPW companies, to the SCC, but certainly, if the reseller has or is going to the wall, then it would be throwing good money after bad.

Quentin

Buzby wrote: »

....For you to advise that SC is a legitimate way to recover any losses, without even suggesting the risk of failure is negligent in the extreme, however if you care to indemnify the OP's costs, I'm sure this position will not be misplaced.

But I doubt it.

You seem to have missed this caveat:

post #2:

(Remember winning in court is an expensive victory if the defendant cannot pay - do your checks before spending any money on a court claim)

Silk

Buzby wrote: »

I've not heard of any. And believe me I researched this extensively in 2009-10 when it was at its peak. There IS, however many people who have lost even more money to the courts and bailiffs in the pursuit of a dream in the legal system actually doing something useful for them. Boy have they been disappointed. Of late, I've not heard anything to change this view - just a couple would do, but I've not found them on this or any other site confirming it.

For you to advise that SC is a legitimate way to recover any losses, without even suggesting the risk of failure is negligent in the extreme, however if you care to indemnify the OP's costs, I'm sure this position will not be misplaced.

Thats a bit unfair ...theres been quite a few

How about this one on here when Aginoth issued papers against mobiles.co.uk
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2974230

UPDATE

Put in Court papers on 13th January (effective service on 18th), and as expected they acknowledges and said they would defend on the 31st Jan.

I receved a copy of their acknowledgement on 2nd Feb, giving them until the 15th to enter defence.

Imagine my surprise when on 3rd Feb I received a letter for the solicitor acting for mobiles.co.uk offering me the full amount of the claim plus costs in ful and final settlement. They "obviously" deny all liability and are purely making the payment out of the goodness of their shiny little corporate hearts. So I guess they don't want to defend after all....:)

But what do I care I just want my refund. Now I just have to wait for the money to arrive.

Quentin

Silk wrote: »

Thats a bit unfair ...theres been quite a few......

He's not only "unfair", (in fact downright wrong), but also downright rude - seeing as the thread was started to ask this very question (has anyone suceeded on a county court claim over cashback).

And there is an affirmative given in post #2!!