e2save.con!

jackieb

No, he didn't. He did send it by recorded delivery (this isn't a case of 'sour grapes' as someone has pointed out earlier in this thread. Everything was done by the book.) He actually got a text from them saying they'd received his claim and his cheque would be sent out within 45 days, then he got a letter saying he'd sent the wrong bill.

The following time he sent in 2 bills. He got his money that time. They could hardly tell him he'd sent in the wrong bill that way.

nick1234

as pointed out by steve what annoys me the most is how they say send it recorded and when u do they dont sign for it and then dont accept claims saying its lost!

rash.m2k

nick1234 wrote: »

as pointed out by steve what annoys me the most is how they say send it recorded and when u do they dont sign for it and then dont accept claims saying its lost!

I think everyone has made good points.

BUT it's clear why this has happend. The online 'My Account' system on their website is incorrect.

The reason for this is that YOU FIRST MONTH STARTS ON THE DAY YOU ACTUALLY PLACED THE ORDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

But the online system does it from the day you RECEIVED THE ORDER - so if they were out of stock and you got you're phone 3 weeks later it's still the date you placed the order.

This is the reason for EVERYONE's problems


You don't see loads of threads about onestop do we? No because their system it OK. It's ONLY e2save thats system is messed up.

Hence why I probably will not use them again.

Steve_xx

If anyone has a problem with their mobile phone contract they might consider contacting OFCOM about it. It may well be that people may have some redress under The Unfair Contract Terms Act. Here is a link to a simple step-by-step approach to raising a query:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/

Merlin_of_Camelot

I've been working in the industry for 10 years and it is quite simply that because people do forget to claim cashbacks so they are able to offer a higher amount of cashback if you CHOOSE to have to a manual cashback then a 'guaranteed' ( I have known some go wrong but are normally sorted out quite quickly) automatic cashback.

When you buy a phone you CHOOSE what deal you want and if you don't like the terms and conditions then don't buy. If this whole concept hadn't been invented we'd still be paying £30 -£35 per month for a mobile and not getting some of the great deals provided by all different retailers.

Nick123 - don't bother even replying to this as I won't answer to you because your personal vendetta is getting boring!

Steve_xx

Merlin_of_Camelot wrote: »

When you buy a phone you CHOOSE what deal you want and if you don't like the terms and conditions then don't buy. If this whole concept hadn't been invented we'd still be paying £30 -£35 per month for a mobile and not getting some of the great deals provided by all different retailers.

It isn't an issue of people not liking the terms and conditions, but rather, that those terms and conditions are so onerous, often ambiguous, and purposely set in such a way as to make it nigh on impossible to claim successfully. These terms are verging on what is commonly known as "sharp practice".

There is also the distinct reality that people are sending their valid claims via recorded delivery and they are not being signed for remotely. Therefore, this fact alone allows the seller to avoid a payment. This cannot be fair and just and nor should people accept it as so.

It is blatantly unethical for a company to base its viability on frustrated cashback claims.

If as you put it, "people do forget to claim their cashbacks", then there is no claim because they have forgotten to claim it, and presumably in this instance there is no complaint either.

gtz101

Steve_xx wrote: »

Rebecca, e2save certainly do hope that their customers will not make their cashback claims appropriately. If this was not the case then why is it that they insist on their customers having to send in around 5 separate claims per handset? Why are all the cashbacks not automatic? Why is it that an email to e2save with the relevant invoices attached is not sufficient? Why is it exactly that e2save want to increase their paperwork load up to 5 claims per individual handset? I, and many other believe that e2save are seeking to avoid payments due.

Absolutely. You've hit hammer on the nail there.

Thats how this game is played, not just by e2save but pretty much all the retailers who offer the cashback scheme. If retailers paid everyones cashback , these retailers would simply go bust.

As I said earlier, because the person works for e2save, obviously they are not going to come out here and tell the gospel and I don't blame the individual. I would have done the same but I am no longer affiliated with any mobile phone company anymore.

thor

Merlin_of_Camelot wrote: »

I've been working in the industry for 10 years and it is quite simply that because people do forget to claim cashbacks so they are able to offer a higher amount of cashback if you CHOOSE to have to a manual cashback then a 'guaranteed' ( I have known some go wrong but are normally sorted out quite quickly) automatic cashback.

Merlin I think you have missed the point. There are loads of people who have followed the terms and conditions meticulously only to find that these cashback companies are trying it on and avoid payment. Of course you have the option of not taking up a cashback contract but why should these companies get away with ripping you off if you do?

brettles

Rebecca.e2save wrote: »

If the claims are sent by recorded delivery as we do advise they will always be honour as this provides us with proof the claim was made within the correct time frame.

I can assure you, we do not try to make it difficult for our customer to make there cashback claim and if any mistakes are ever made by ourselves we do everything possible to rectify the problem.

NONSENSE. WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS e2save staff member to use this forum at all?

I,m just having to sue e2save for failing to pay a cashback. The company has a culture of mendacity and litigation. Their defence is 'never received'. Strange that as I sent three in the same (registered) envelope and 2 were paid.

Oh by the way Rebecca, you also use incompetent lawyers. They didn't even manage to send me the correct case defence...sent one for another litigant also suing for the same issue. Wonderful breach of the DPA.

When Ben Bogal owned/ran e2save his policy was that if there was a problem he just paid the full cashback in one. If CPW was reputable it would do the same.

It si just pathetic that they employ people to avoid paying sums due.

rash.m2k

Theres not much anyone can really say is there???

Like it or LUMP it. Simple.