The Mobile Outlet

rabidelephant

thesaint wrote: »

I don't understand how you had "a completely painfree 12 month cashback" and then state that your:"first cashback took some arguing and it just wasn't worth the grief"?

Quite simple really, the first cashback (6 months) required two or three prompts. Whilst the second cashback (12 months) required nothing other than a little patience.

Hence "12 month cashback" painfree! To be honest I expected a lot more aggro in getting the money back on the 2nd cashback.

Me and my £360 will now depart the building, onestopphoneshop are the next bane of my life!

dasvictim

My 1st cashback has been received (£84 for the 1st 4 months bills) and TMO also admitted that due to sending me different/incomplete terms and conditions with my phone to those on my website they are happy to pay up despite initially rejecting the claim.
I purchased my phone online but this is still obviously a valid claim (one to note down in you little book there shelby).
Thankyou for any of your advice all. I'll be honest I feel Sheby's "advice" has been more than just a little confusing and in some cases simply wrong but hey!! Its a free forum where we can all put forward our opinions...
No hard feelings.

kltpzyxm

Thats good news DV

Grasvenor

I bought a phone through themobileoutlet.co.uk in March 2007. It arrived quickly and all went well until I applied for my cashback. I followed the bizarre rules closely and sent the required receipts and delivery note to them (by special delivery). After a three week wait, I received an email saying my cash back was approved. After a further 3 weeks, I emailed demanding my cashback. I received an automated reply, claiming there might be a delay in responding due to 'technical difficulties' (this standard reply comes back everytime you send them an email). I tried ringing (the geographical number) but this always hung itself up after 2 minutes and 10 seconds (an automatic system, obviously). After a week, I received an email, telling me that my cashback had been paid by BACs that day. However, I was owed £140 rather that the £84 they said I would be paid......so the saga continues.

My advice: avoid these people. Customer service is poor.

Shelby

DasVictim,

I'm delighted to hear that you got your money (although a little less confident than you that TMO was "happy" to pay it!)

It's not important if you find what happened legally a little confusing but what actually occurred was that, faced with the threat that you might challenge the contract by which you were bound, TMO waived the Despatch Note condition rather than risk having to pay you costs as well as your cashback if you challenged your T&Cs in court. At no point did your T&Cs "change".

If you doubt that the contract by which you were bound was the one to which you agreed online, ask yourself what would have happened if there had been no 'Welcome Note" (with attched T&Cs) in the box you received. The extension of the argument you propound is that there would therefore have been no contract at all (and, thus, no cashback at all).

Had you had the sense to do what kltpzyxm did and actually look at TMO's website, observe that TMO's T&Cs require submission of the Despatch Note and then sent it in with your claim (even though the T&Cs you got didn't tell you to) you would have spared yourself a lot of hassle.

Shelby

Grasvenor,

Before posting, did you read this, which is a little earlier in this thread (indeed it is on this very page):

kltpzyxm wrote: »

Hi DV,
You state that you think you are entitled to a first cashback payment of £140.
If your cashback is greater than £201 for a twelve month contract, the cashback is paid in five equal installments, so if you are on a £35 per month contract, then your 1st cashback would be £84. i.e. 1/5th of your yearly bill (12 * 35 / 5) and not 4 months rebate of £35 per month (£140) Thats how mine works anyway. Please correct me if I've made wrong assumptions here...
Hope this helps

or are you proposing to challenge legally TMO's right to pay you your cashbacks in equal instalments over unequal periods of time?

Shelby

Grayme-m,

Earlier in this thread, TMO stated that (in breach of your contract) your cashback would be delayed "10 to 14" days.

By calculation from your previous postings, today (19 June) your cashback would now be 17 days overdue.

Have you received your money? Have you, indeed, received anything?

And, if not, what have you done about this?

Please could you tell us.

Thanks.

kltpzyxm

Grasvenor wrote: »

I bought a phone through themobileoutlet.co.uk in March 2007. It arrived quickly and all went well until I applied for my cashback. I followed the bizarre rules closely and sent the required receipts and delivery note to them (by special delivery). After a three week wait, I received an email saying my cash back was approved. After a further 3 weeks, I emailed demanding my cashback. I received an automated reply, claiming there might be a delay in responding due to 'technical difficulties' (this standard reply comes back everytime you send them an email). I tried ringing (the geographical number) but this always hung itself up after 2 minutes and 10 seconds (an automatic system, obviously). After a week, I received an email, telling me that my cashback had been paid by BACs that day. However, I was owed £140 rather that the £84 they said I would be paid......so the saga continues.

My advice: avoid these people. Customer service is poor.

Hi Grasvenor, you must have different T&Cs to the rest of us. If you bought the phone in March 2007, surely your fourth bill would not have arrived until approximately mid june? The fact that you state you have waited 6 weeks means you must have submitted your claim in early may?....I've checked TMO website and the cashback rules seem to be the same as they were. So I'm confused

Shelby

In all material respects, TMO's Terms & Conditions have effectively been the same since 3 July 2006.

kltpzyxm

Perhaps I should have elaborated more regarding my confusion. If Grasvenor has already waited 6 weeks then the latest the claim could have been submitted was early MAY. Surely he/she CANNOT have received bill number 4 for a deal starting in March? If bill number 4 has not been received, so it cannot have been included in the cashback claim. Surely in this case the T&Cs have NOT been followed. Strange that TMO have not rejected this claim and have indeed emailed Grasvenor indicating that the cashback will be paid.....

Please feel free to highlight any errors in my logic

grayme-m & saint: what are your thoughts?