The Mobile Outlet

chapeau

This, however, is where it now all starts to get horribly complicated.

Only because you are making it so, it was just slightly complicated before your intepretation. Send in the bills as I said above with a covering letter explaining your reasoning, saying it is the simplest and most favourable explanation you can come up with, and in any dispute you will rely on regulation 7.2 of the unfair terms regulations.

athomick

chapeau wrote: »

Only because you are making it so, it was just slightly complicated before your interpretation. Send in the bills as I said above with a covering letter explaining your reasoning, saying it is the simplest and most favorable explanation you can come up with, and in any dispute you will rely on regulation 7.2 of the unfair terms regulations.

Mmmmmm

I think I'm more inclined to think that Shelby has his finger on the pulse here. I think if I were in this situation I would make a sensible interpretation of the contract, communicate it to TMO (registered post) and see if you get a coherent response (being ignored is also useful in this case). You could then use this communication in any future action against them. :beer:

athomick

Shelby wrote: »

Castillo,

You have no way of proving legally that the T&Cs posted on the Wayback site are correct.

Moreover, they certainly don't show the actual dates on which The Mobile Outlet's various successive T&Cs changed.

I'm curious to know how you EVER prove unequivocally the date of the T&Cs (bar it being on the reverse of your delivery note, which mine was not). I printed mine off from the website when I made the purchase and although it has the date on the printout, I presume this could be easily forged. My sense is that the Wayback machine is as good as anything....

chapeau

athomick wrote: »

I think I'm more inclined to think that Shelby has his finger on the pulse here.

Not really, as if you read MobileOutlet's terms and conditions, and Shelby's intepretation of the same, you will see Shelby hasn't read (or understood) the T&C's he is commenting on. They are slightly confusing, but not as confusing as Shelby makes out.

chapeau

athomick wrote: »

I'm curious to know how you EVER prove unequivocally the date of the T&Cs

You don't need to. It's a civil matter, so the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Print off the terms and conditions, date and sign them. If you come over to the judge as an honest person and you can portray MobileOutlet as being a bit shifty, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

James212

Jinner wrote: »

TMO have rejected my final cashback claim because I sent the 11th & 12th bills together. The same happened for my wife's claim.

Hi Jinner,

This is exactly what I did. Sounds like you have become a victim of the same (I think, ambiguous) T&Cs that I was. I got all my cash back in the end, but not before I made a claim via MCOL, and enforce the court's judgement with a warrant. Some of my earlier posts may help you if you have questions. But assuming your circumstances are the same as mine, you will receive your money eventually.
Good luck!

James

athomick

chapeau wrote: »

Not really, as if you read MobileOutlet's terms and conditions, and Shelby's interpretation of the same, you will see Shelby hasn't read (or understood) the T&C's he is commenting on. They are slightly confusing, but not as confusing as Shelby makes out.

You miss the point. Shelby has experience dealing with TMO and is simply opening a debate. Your simplistic view is not an adequate solution. If you wish to march into court and argue a point of contractual law so be it. I think most people would wish to cover all the bases in advance and sort it out before it gets to that stage.

rose28454

Here is the letter I am about to send Any comments?


Dear Sirs

I am in receipt of your letter on 18.10.7 regarding my cash-back claim. I received my 4th bill on 22.8.7 and forwarded the bills and despatch note to you on 10.9.7 by Special Delivery. I posted them to the address on my despatch note and on the website (Suite 3-4, Riverdale House, Dockfield Road, Shipley, BD17 7AD).

The terms and conditions is operation when I bought my contract state that the documents had to be forwarded within 21 days of bill 4. This I complied with. I note that the documents were not delivered until 12.9.7 as they were re-directed. However this is not relevant to my claim as I adhered to the terms and conditions. I have a certificate of posting to prove date of posting and can provide proof of delivery ( and re-direction ) from the Royal Mail website.

I am writing to give notice that if I am not in receipt of my cash-back within 14 days then I will institute court proceedings in order to get my total cash-back for my 12 months contract from yourselves.


Yours Sincerely

Shelby

chapeau wrote: »

Not really, as if you read MobileOutlet's terms and conditions, and Shelby's intepretation of the same, you will see Shelby hasn't read (or understood) the T&C's he is commenting on. They are slightly confusing, but not as confusing as Shelby makes out.

I’m merely pointing out what is actually written in the T&Cs themselves. I’m not the fool who wrote them.

What I think we can agree upon, without resorting to being offensive and talking though one’s chapeau, is that they are so badly drafted that it isn’t possible to construct them in a legally coherent form at all.

The big worry is that, as a result of this, so many of these contracts are going to wind up in court that The Mobile Outlet will go bust. Once you add legal costs to a contract that is going to be unprofitable if the full amount of the cashback is redeemed anyway, there would be only one way this could end.

If and when The Mobile Outlet does go toes-up, nobody is going to get any cashbacks at all and the ambiguities in its T&Cs will become irrelevant.

(Which would be particularly unfair to those who signed up to pre-August contracts under the previous T&Cs which were commendably clear.)

In the meantime, I’d be most grateful if Chapeau could furnish us all with his unconfusing explanation of how one obtains from a network “a bill showing that you have been connected for a minimum of 120 days.”

chapeau

rose28454 wrote: »

Here is the letter I am about to send Any comments?

you say you received your bill on 22/8. What was the issue date of your fourth bill?