The Mobile Outlet

rose28454

chapeau wrote: »

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

Yes it was

Quentin

rose28454 wrote: »

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

As this turns into a LBA, you should give it that heading (for the avoidance of any doubt).

Change "I received my 4th bill on 22.8.7" to "My 4th bill is dated 22.8.7"

Typo in line 6 (...terms and conditions is........)

In last paragraph, where it "turns" into a LBA, you only need to give them 7 days.

And add "from the date of this letter" as in:

if I am not in receipt of my cash-back within xx days from the date of this letter

chapeau

I'd take out "to get my total cash-back for my 12 months contract from yourselves." as you are not entitled to future cashbacks quite yet. For instance, you might stop paying your phone bill, you cannot claim cash back until you have paid it out in the first place.

Make sure you refer to your 'first' cashback claim throughout, and state the amount of money due. Refer them to regulation 7.2 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, pointing out that 'forwarded' is more favourable to the consumer than 'received', and that you forwarded the original documents within the 21 days required. You have therefore complied fully with their terms and conditions and they are in breach of whatever clause says they should pay you within 28 days (or whatever). Point out this is a material breach of contract.

Point out that in your case that the date they received the documents is irrelevant. Any clause in their terms and conditions that attempts to make date of receipt binding on you in this case would be considerded unfair and unlawful under regulation 5 (1) of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Then give them 7/14/21 days (whatever you consider appropriate, I'd go for 14) to pay or you will initiate a civil case in the county court. Remind them that will incur them additional costs.

Make sure you send in all other cashback claims on time, Special Delivery, with a covering letter detailing exactly the documents included, and what clauses you are sending them.

Call Royal Mail and get a letter on their letterhead which details the relevant dates of the letter. They are very helpful, once you get to the correct department..... Make sure it says the date you posted it, the date it arrived at their Shipley sorting office, the date they attempted to deliver to MobileOutlet (or the date it would have been delivered if not redirected first).

James212

Shelby wrote: »

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.

Hi Shelby,

Excellent work, in trying to decrypt TMO's latest incarnation of their T&Cs!
Clearly, if you try to make sense of these (as you have), several inconsistencies and issues crop up, meaning many problems for customers who try to understand them. Certainly, I'm glad my contract was not on these T&Cs. I agree with almost all of the conclusions you have come to, bar one (quoted above).

If I read these new T&Cs at face value, and try to make some sense (out of something that I agree contradicts itself), I would assume* the following:

"Send in the relevant numbered voucher, within 30 days of the instalment date, with a single bill, covering the period that includes the date you need to prove."

(* assumptions should not be required when reading T&Cs)

Whether this is the correct interpretation or not, only TMO knows. I do not know if this is even chronologically possible, or gives you enough time to make a claim successfully.

But ask yourself why they do this. T&Cs should always be clear and easy to understand. In particular, I don't disagree with those who say: "This is the cash back game, and you have to comply exactly with the T&Cs to get your money back", so long as I am at fault, and I haven't been mislead by confusing and poorly written T&Cs.

At least complicated T&C's, customers can understand.
But I believe that in TMO's attempt to ensure that their T&C's are complex and as difficult to follow for their customers as possible, they have transcended into creating T&C that do not make sense, and therefore unenforceable and probably illegal?

But I don't think they're too bothered about this. How many people read this thread? How many customers bother to complain and subsequently sue TMO when their cash back claim is rejected? I bet you it's the minority. And I think this is why these T&Cs will not necessary result in TMO going bust. Indeed, if the number of cash back claims they reject, and are not subsequently pursued for, decreases then they will actually make more money. Someone on another forum said once, TMO is a big enough outfit to have it's own legal advice. As such, I sure they knew exactly what they were doing when they created this T&Cs nightmare. I think it's the ambiguity in their T&Cs that TMO exploits and allows them to reject claims on spurious grounds. I wouldn't be at all surprised if an employee at TMO analyses the % of failed cash back claims by type of reason, and they decide on future T&Cs based on this analysis.

I guess all that remains is to hope that as many people as possible complain when their cash back claim is rejected, and where necessary persue TMO via the small claims route.

Quentin

chapeau wrote: »

I'd take out "to get my total cash-back for my 12 months contract from yourselves." as you are not entitled to future cashbacks quite yet

There is plenty of advice in this thread saying the opposite.

Shelby

Rose,

It would be wise to include a few additional details, such as your account number and your transaction number (these should printed be on your Dispatch Note) so that they can identify more expediently with whom they are dealing and about what!

Personally, I would avoid dragging the UTTCR into it at this stage: it adds a lot of unnecessary complication (ironic, considering who's advising that!). Just stick with the fact that all you were required to do was send it off within 21 days and you did so.

How about writing something like this:


This document is a Letter Before Action to be taken against you in the County Court for payment of money owed by you. It is of formal status and you should take qualified legal advice if you do not understand fully the ramifications of it.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I purchased a mobile ‘phone from you on ((day)) ((month)) 2007. The transaction number was ******** and my account number with you is *****.

The Terms & Conditions in force on that date, and with which both of us are required to comply under our contract, state,

At Clause 11.3:

“1. In month 4 of your contract you will need to forward bills 1 through to 4 to us within 21 days of the issue date on bill number 4.”

And at Clause 11.5:

“You must include your original dispatch note with your first claim for any cash back application to be successful. If your order is submitted without or with a copy of your dispatch note your cash back application will be void.”

The date on my fourth bill (of which I include herewith a photocopy) was ((day)) (month)) 2007. I sent this to you - together with the three bills that preceded it, the original of my Dispatch Note and a covering letter - on 10 September 2007 and I enclose a photocopy of the Royal Mail proof of this. This was within the 21 days specified in our contract and I addressed it, correctly, to the Shipley address quoted on the Dispatch Note and on your company’s website.

You have conceded that it reached you and that the documentation contained in it was correct.

You have, nonetheless, in a letter dated 18 October 2007 of which I enclose herewith a photocopy, rejected my claim for cashback upon the supposed grounds that it took too long to arrive.

I would respectfully point out to you that my sole obligation under our contract was to send the required documentation to you within 21 days of the date on the fourth bill: the date upon which it actually arrived is relevant only to your obligation then to pay it within 28 days.

You state that you received it on ((day)) ((month)) 2007. My claim was thus payable by you on or before ((day - 28 days later)) ((month)) 2007.

It is, therefore, you, not I, who is in breach of our contract. Unless I receive from you the first instalment of my cashback by ((day)) ((month)) 2007, I shall initiate proceedings through the County Court for payment to me immediately of the entire sum of my cashback payable under the contract, namely ((£***)), plus costs and interest.

I trust that you will see the wisdom of now remitting to me the first instalment of my cashback by return and thereby avoiding the considerable additional expense that will otherwise and unnecessarily be incurred.

Yours faithfully,


Send it by fax (if you can) and with a hard copy by Recorded Delivery.

Hope this helps you.

mobilejunkie

I am somewhat puzzled by the discussion about their new t&c. Plainly I must be missing something. I am considering a deal with this company - but only considering; as far as I can see it's one of the worse three cashback dealers (excluding those who have actually gone bust) so I must be either brave or stupid. However, the t&c are VERY similar to many others now - and seem pretty straightforward to me compared with those in past times. The present t&c state there are 60 days to claim from the claim date; no judge would say have to send it ON the claim date, therefore. In addition, a bill showing a given period of connection (again common to most dealers' t&c nowadays) merely has to show that it is dated that number of days after connection to satisfy any judge with half a brain. In fact, the word "inclusive" makes it even clearer than with other dealers.

I can fully appreciate why people are extremely wary of this place - I am too which is why I've never taken out a contract with them before. I am not convinced that they are more likely to go bust than many of the others either (though that is always a consideration, of course!). I would expect to have to at least threaten to sue to get my money - but again, that is happening elsewhere - even with companies which used to have a much better reputation until recently. In fact, the things which have struck the most worrying cord with me are the late filing of accounts recently and the apparent non-payment on occasion even when bailiffs are employed. However, they seem to be the exception (suing isn't!).

All companies' t&c are designed to thwart cashback claims - but these new ones actually seem more "comfortable" to me. I would still think carefully 20 times or more before getting into the water with these particular sharks (and may well decide not to!) but are they now SO different to the other species?

chapeau

Quentin wrote: »

There is plenty of advice in this thread saying the opposite.

And the advice is wrong. You can only claim for the amount which would restore your position to that you would have been in if the tort had not taken place. Currently, she is out of money by one claim only. She has not 'lost' her subsequent claims because she hasn't yet spent the money, and the (possible) breach has not yet occured, so she cannot claim for subsequent cash backs.

Remember, she is still going to get phone service.

Loads of nonsense on the Internet.

Quentin

Why is the advice wrong?

It is a matter of law!

But I am not going to argue with you.

chapeau

Quentin wrote: »

Why is the advice wrong?

er, didn't I just tell you? The sentences in my first paragraph that come after And the advice is wrong.

It is a matter of law!

But I am not going to argue with you.

And a good job too.

You have been watching too many American LA Law type programs. We don't have punitive damages in the UK like they do over there.