The Mobile Outlet

Shelby

greengriff wrote: »

Basically TMO are saying I didn't send my dispatch note with my claim, I'm saying I did. The bottom line question I suppose is 'how do I prove I sent it' or alternatively 'how do they prove I didn't' depending on which side of the fence you're looking from?

I have a photocopy of it (the dispatch note) now, but that's all :-(

The contract into which you entered (voluntarily) with Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd, - which trades as “The Mobile Outlet” - is one under which the payment of cashback is not automatic.

Had it been so, the onus would have been upon Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. to send you the agreed cashbacks upon the agreed dates without action by you.

Yours, however, is a contract under which, in order to obtain your cashbacks, you are required to trigger the payments by submitting certain specific documents by certain specific dates. Unless you do so, and do so correctly, Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. is not obliged to pay you anything.

That being the case, the onus is upon you to comply with the requirement that triggers the payment - and to do so, moreover, in a way that enables you to be able (if needs be) to prove to a court that you did so.

In short, if it ends up in court, with you claiming money from Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd., the burden will be upon you to prove, upon the balance of probabilities, that you submitted your claim correctly: it is not upon Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. to prove that you did not.

Bear in mind that (provided you have also abided by the other Terms & Conditions, for example in relation to never getting into arrears with the airtime provider) it is only Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. that can breach the contract (by failing to honour your claim). You do not breach the contract if you fail to submit your claim correctly; you simply forfeit your right to be paid cashback.

That is the position under civil law. Civil law is the process by which you extract from retailers, through the County Court (and using bailiffs, if necessary), monies you are owed.

The position under criminal law is that:

1. If it can be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you submitted the correct documents on the correct dates and a retailer falsely and deliberately alleges that you did not, in order to evade paying you monies that you are rightfully owed, the company, its directors and its employees are committing the criminal offence of attempting to obtain money by deception.

On the other hand,

2. If it can be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you failed to submit the correct documents on the correct dates and you then falsely and deliberately allege that you did, in order to obtain from a retailer monies from that you have forfeited, it is you who are committing the criminal offence of attempting to obtain money by deception.

In either of these two situations, the offender should be reported to the Police, or to the relevant authority, for investigation and prosecution.

Criminal law is the process by which people, companies and organisations are punished, in the Criminal Court, by fines and/or imprisonment, for obtaining, for attempting to obtain or for conspiring to obtain, money by deception. The Criminal Court does not provide financial restitution for the victim of the crime.

A respectable retailer would use CCTV in its mailroom and cashback processing department to record what was contained in every envelope or packet submitted in claim of a cashback, together with when it was received and opened. The retailer would do this to protect itself from fraudulent claims. A dishonest retailer, of course, cannot do this because it would provide evidence of its own criminality.

Equally, it follows that it would be wise for anyone submitting a cashback claim to create and retain court-worthy proof of what was contained and sealed within it, the date upon which it was sent to the retailer and the date upon which it was received by the retailer - not merely for the purposes of pursuing the claim but also to be able to prove which party to the contract has acted fraudulently.

I hope that this clarifies the respective legal positions of you and the retailer in this situation. :cool:

ForkHandles_2

Hi,

I had emails from them stating my claims were successful I was owed 3 lots of cashback (they had paid 2 earlier ones on time:eek: ) which the oldest should have been paid in May this year but they totally ignored all my emails, they also ignored my LBA, I even sent them a mail stating I was about to send my claim to the small claims court but if I heard back from them within 3 days I would not send it. Guess what? Yep, they ignored that too. I had no other choice but to claim through the courts.

Once they received the paperwork from the court they eventually paid up via cheque (fingers crossed it won't bounce) with a story about cheques getting lost in the post. If anyone works for Royal Mail I would be eager to find out what the statistical probability is of 2 letters going missing allegedly sent a month apart to one address both getting lost in the post.

It would appear that if you are owed cashback from this company your only chance of seeing it is by proceeding with legal action, threats of legal action simply will not work! You need to be able to prove that you have tried to get the money by sending emails and eventually an LBA sent by recorded mail though.

Incidentally if you have received the ‘photocopy of 2 cheques defence’ from TMO I would be interested in the cheque numbers to see if they match mine.

FH

Neillgb

Shelby wrote: »

The contract into which you entered (voluntarily) with Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd, - which trades as “The Mobile Outlet” - is one under which the payment of cashback is not automatic.

Had it been so, the onus would have been upon Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. to send you the agreed cashbacks upon the agreed dates without action by you.

Yours, however, is a contract under which, in order to obtain your cashbacks, you are required to trigger the payments by submitting certain specific documents by certain specific dates. Unless you do so, and do so correctly, Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. is not obliged to pay you anything.

That being the case, the onus is upon you to comply with the requirement that triggers the payment - and to do so, moreover, in a way that enables you to be able (if needs be) to prove to a court that you did so.

In short, if it ends up in court, with you claiming money from Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd., the burden will be upon you to prove, upon the balance of probabilities, that you submitted your claim correctly: it is not upon Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. to prove that you did not.

Bear in mind that (provided you have also abided by the other Terms & Conditions, for example in relation to never getting into arrears with the airtime provider) it is only Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. that can breach the contract (by failing to honour your claim). You do not breach the contract if you fail to submit your claim correctly; you simply forfeit your right to be paid cashback.

That is the position under civil law. Civil law is the process by which you extract from retailers, through the County Court (and using bailiffs, if necessary), monies you are owed.

The position under criminal law is that:

1. If it can be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you submitted the correct documents on the correct dates and a retailer falsely and deliberately alleges that you did not, in order to evade paying you monies that you are rightfully owed, the company, its directors and its employees are committing the criminal offence of attempting to obtain money by deception.

On the other hand,

2. If it can be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you failed to submit the correct documents on the correct dates and you then falsely and deliberately allege that you did, in order to obtain from a retailer monies from that you have forfeited, it is you who are committing the criminal offence of attempting to obtain money by deception.

In either of these two situations, the offender should be reported to the Police, or to the relevant authority, for investigation and prosecution.

Criminal law is the process by which people, companies and organisations are punished, in the Criminal Court, by fines and/or imprisonment, for obtaining, for attempting to obtain or for conspiring to obtain, money by deception. The Criminal Court does not provide financial restitution for the victim of the crime.

A respectable retailer would use CCTV in its mailroom and cashback processing department to record what was contained in every envelope or packet submitted in claim of a cashback, together with when it was received and opened. The retailer would do this to protect itself from fraudulent claims. A dishonest retailer, of course, cannot do this because it would provide evidence of its own criminality.

Equally, it follows that it would be wise for anyone submitting a cashback claim to create and retain court-worthy proof of what was contained and sealed within it, the date upon which it was sent to the retailer and the date upon which it was received by the retailer - not merely for the purposes of pursuing the claim but also to be able to prove which party to the contract has acted fraudulently.

I hope that this clarifies the respective legal positions of you and the retailer in this situation. :cool:

Whilst I find this post enlightening I have to say the posting of point '1' above is irresponsible to say the least. The prison service is under enough pressure as it is!!!:D

Joking aside I think there is a 'Statement of Truth' involved when these organisations file their various 'defences' on MCOL

'Truth'..... sorry can't resist.......:rotfl:

Shelby

Her Majesty's Prison Service may not be the institution that is called upon to resolve the problem.

The hazardous aspect of the whole operation is that The Mobile Outlet has no idea whom its customers actually are.

Many of them, in all probability (and to judge from some of the postings in this thread), are from cultures which do not behave with the stoicism and inhibitions customarily associated with the British middle-class tradition of genteel restraint.

Sooner or later, The Mobile Outlet is going to try to deny cashback to the favourite daughter of somebody whose reaction to being shafted is not to wring their hands and quietly give up on their efforts to obtain the money to which they are entitled nor to post their distress on Money Saving Expert, nor to get involved in long and complicated court procedures but who, instead, resolves such matters by dispatching a couple of very large gentlemen armed with a baseball bat, bolt-cutters, a blowtorch and very little sense of humour to enquire of the directors of the company what they think they are doing.

Whilst I, personally, would not condone this solution in any way, I do perceive the inevitability of it occurring nonetheless, and, when it does eventually happen, the resultant effect of it upon the enthusiasm of The Mobile Outlet to honour its cashback commitments to its other customers will certainly be interesting to observe.

psollich

Hi, am new to this forum but (for the usual reasons) checked with Insolvency services this morning whether TMO was still trading. They told me the company has (just?) applied to be struck off, on the grounds that it hadn't been trading for a while and is no longer required. Companies House confirmed this but say that the request is suspended because someone has objected to it.

If anyone has any information on what this means for any of us still trying to get cashbacks out of TMO, I'd be very grateful.

P

Quentin

If you read the thread you will see that this is a red herring. The TMO we are discussing here is just a trading name, so not registered at Companies House.

The firm you have enquired about is unrelated.

psarinuk

2 of my claims have been accepted but not paid so far from TMO.

1 claim that I sent more than 1 months ago has not been confirmed... I suspect this company trying to do a runner...

maplewood2

When you submitted your county court claim, what value did you use for the monthly rebate - £35 or £29.79 (i.e. with or without vat) and for the purposes of interest, how did you start the interest due date - from the end of the initial 28 days of receipt - was receipt determined by the date your recorded delivery mail was delivered, or from the date of the email from TMO suggesting they had received your application (which is usually many weeks after it has been delivered).
Also if you received the email saying they were sorry but very busy and had extended the time to pay from 28 to 45 days, would you have to use that date or the original one in the t&c?
Also does anyone have a copy of the T&C's from early June 2007, as mine have not been returned to me from TMO after sending in with original bills (despite a self addressed envelope being provided) although i had made notes of the timelines.

please help - many thanks.

kltpzyxm

maplewood2 wrote: »

Also does anyone have a copy of the T&C's from early June 2007, as mine have not been returned to me from TMO after sending in with original bills (despite a self addressed envelope being provided) although i had made notes of the timelines.

please help - many thanks.

Hi maplewood,
I took a copy of the T&Cs from the TMO website on June 20th 2007, which were the same ones as when I took out my contract in October 2006. PM me with your email address and I will send them to you

HTH

Quentin

You should claim the full amount inclusive of VAT (Unless you are VAT registered and are reclaiming the VAT via the VAT system)

The interest is due commencing from the day after the stated deadline when you should have received the payment. Start the countdown from the date you have from the recorded delivery records.

You use the period for payment which was agreed when you took out the contract - ie the time period set out in the ts + Cs that you had to agree to at the time of purchase.