The Mobile Outlet

kltpzyxm

DazzaMc wrote: »

I sent my 1st cashback off over a month ago and have heard nothing. it's so annoying, I know it's a lot of money but I don't know if I can be doing with going to court over it!! Over driving to bradford! We shouldn't have to be doing this, has anyone informed trading standards about this? It's fraud at the end of the day.

Dazza,
this is what TMO count on...discouraging people..you need to pursue this via the courts...otherwise they have won...I would rather not go to court, but there is no way that I am going to be swizzed out of what I am owed...better do do it sooner than later....keep watching the thread for developments....Keep Hold mate

despatchdave

fatboyonadiet wrote: »

I went this morning and no joy! Basically the woman on reception told me that no-one from TMO is in and she doesn't know when they will be in, I said are they in tomorrow and she said they're supposed to be.

I'll be interested to know how any other visitors get on, might be worth going in and saying you've got an appointment with them and naming a member of staff???

The postcode and maps take you to Valley Parade which is round the corner, most of the streets round there you can park on, it's actually on the grounds itself and is round the corner from the football merchandise store and next to the ticket offices..

But given my experiences be prepared for a wasted journey... I'd be interested to hear how others get on...

Maybe they were all in court.......

fatboyonadiet

despatchdave wrote: »

Maybe they were all in court.......

Hmmm, maybe...

I just rung the call centre apparently I'll have all my cashback in 28 days, I'll believe it when I see it...

Lynsey

fatboyonadiet wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe...

I just rung the call centre apparently I'll have all my cashback in 28 days, I'll believe it when I see it...

Lynsey

silentbob10

Ok, looks like we have some bad news...

Just rang the bailiffs who have told me that TMO have closed their office. Theyve been told that the Bradford office is only closed "temporarily", but it doesnt look good.

She did say that one of the directors were going to see her early next week with some money, so could be that a few get paid out then - no idea if mine will be included, or how many people will get settled

She said not to give up hope just yet, but it doesnt sounds too good at the mo...

taz63

Just spoken to the bailiff at Bradford and she has advised that tmo office is closed until Monday as they have staffing issues. Well this is what they've told her, lets see if they are ever going to re-open their office again.
So those of you that were planning to visit them this week, just put it on hold until we have any more info.

pt01

I have been following this forum for a while and found that the information provided here is very helpful.

I have another thought: there are three parties in this kind of business: The mobile Outlet, The phone networks and customers. The Mobile outlet encouraged customers to purchase phones provided by networks by making cashback promises. In general, customers purchase phones (contract with higher rental fees)) from the Mobile Outlet, mainly due to the cashback promise. Networks are happy to allow the Mobile Outlet to help them selling contract phones to customers. This means that Networks must have contract with the Mobile Outlet.

In this business model, the Mobile Outlet plays as an independant middle agent, who links networks and customers.

The problem is that the middle agent breaches the contract by the failure of paying cashback to customers.

In this case, do you think networks should have some responsibility to the problem? I think they should take some responsibilities, simply because they provide products/services to customers via the moddile agent. Without the middle agent, most of the customers might not purchse their products/services. I think they should at least allow customers to either cancel their remaing contract or reduce their rental fees if customers request.

I have had a chat with one of the staff at O2. He insisted that O2 do not have any financial responsibility.

What do you think?

pt01

Neillgb

Wonder if Directors have managed to get the commission payments due from the networks yet from the period they were last offering the tasty deals. Timescale for receiving commissions was mentioned as being about 3 months by an earlier poster i think.

Wonder if their other creditors, banks, tax man etc., know they have 'staffing problems' ? Hint, hint.

Neillgb

pt01 wrote: »

I have been following this forum for a while and found that the information provided here is very helpful.

I have another thought: there are three parties in this kind of business: The mobile Outlet, The phone networks and customers. The Mobile outlet encouraged customers to purchase phones provided by networks by making cashback promises. In general, customers purchase phones (contract with higher rental fees)) from the Mobile Outlet, mainly due to the cashback promise. Networks are happy to allow the Mobile Outlet to help them selling contract phones to customers. This means that Networks must have contract with the Mobile Outlet.

In this business model, the Mobile Outlet plays as an independant middle agent, who links networks and customers.

The problem is that the middle agent breaches the contract by the failure of paying cashback to customers.

In this case, do you think networks should have some responsibility to the problem? I think they should take some responsibilities, simply because they provide products/services to customers via the moddile agent. Without the middle agent, most of the customers might not purchse their products/services. I think they should at least allow customers to either cancel their remaing contract or reduce their rental fees if customers request.

I have had a chat with one of the staff at O2. He insisted that O2 do not have any financial responsibility.

What do you think?

pt01

Wholeheartedly agree with sentiment of your post with regard to these dodgy cash back companies, networks know the business is not viable in the event of people correctly making cashback claims and they therefore know that people, their customers, are going to get conned. Meanwhile they take the new custom, sit back and watch the cash roll in. When it goes belly up they use varying techniques to try and retain conned customers custom. They only care if they lose your custom. Simple.

On the other hand I doubt, in this commission/retailer/agency driven economy, cover all legistlation will ever be made to make suppliers/manufacturers wholly responsible for retailers/middlemen. Would it be fair, for example, if you bought a Sony TV from a local retailer that you could require Sony to reimburse you if the retailer did a runner with your telly/money before delivering it? Most people would say no I think. Then there is the small matter of the British economy collapsing.

The people that should face the music for this and similar cases are local Trading Standards. They are, as far as I can see, next to useless with regard to this and similar cash back problems. The advice they give is limited and blindingly obvious. Frankly they would have been serving people better to refer them to this site with regards to the various cashback companies. But then they have to justify their own salaries don't they

I don't like OFCOM either!!

Rant over.

Sorry to all people involved here, probably throwing good money after bad now if you go down the legal route. I was involved with Coolnewmobile so have similar experience. Best to check out that thread(Mobile Affiliates) now to try and get networks to reduce tariffs etc

Good luck

fatboyonadiet

Lynsey wrote: »

Lynsey

LOL, why did I think the same!