The Mobile Outlet

grayme-m

caroline7758 wrote: »

Does anyone else think it's time to end the discussion on how we've all been mugged (or not) and replace it with one on damage limitation- reporting back on how the various networks are responding and the best safe mobile deals available now?

I've received a lot of help from this thread. I've managed to get some of my money back and I've lost some (and some to phones2uDirect probably), and I feel angry at having been ripped off, but I'm not going to take that anger out on people who are trying to help. I think it's a real shame that what started as a "support group" ethos has turned into a slanging match.

That post by mobilejunkie seems pretty fair.

Options are limited, the key thing regarding getting any money back is waiting for that letter from the administrators that will sum up the position.

They will be trying to get as much money in from TMO's debtors as they can and will pay out as much as they can to the secured creditors (think HMRC for VAT, banks with secured loans, etc.) then other creditors like those waiting for cashback.

Confusion will arise with CB claims that were not delivered and accepted before the site closed, including both those that were denied wrongly and those bouncing back, one option may be to send new claims to the administrators as well as communication as to why a claim was wrongly denied?

A company in administration is now unable to be currently sued by court action.

I still wonder how a single person can be £2,400 out of pocket though?

boatman

Looking to get out of my T-mobile contract.
T-mobiles policy of not allowing you to change to a lower tariff before 11months is different from what is printed on the back of my bill, where it states 6 months. They have sent me an email saying that they failed to inform me of the change in the t&c's from 6 months to 11 months. On this basis I believe I have the right to cancel my contract immediately if they change the t&c's to my detriment.

kltpzyxm

boatman wrote: »

Looking to get out of my T-mobile contract.
T-mobiles policy of not allowing you to change to a lower tariff before 11months is different from what is printed on the back of my bill, where it states 6 months. They have sent me an email saying that they failed to inform me of the change in the t&c's from 6 months to 11 months. On this basis I believe I have the right to cancel my contract immediately if they change the t&c's to my detriment.

Hi boatman,
Surely the T&C that were in force when you took out the contract are the ones that apply to you...i.e the six months & not the 11 months

Shelby

grayme-m wrote: »

Bearing in mind that most internet sites out there are designed to make the company behind them look like a multi-national corporation, when in reality it is two people operating out of a spare bedroom, I think it is harsh to blame people for looking any less favourably on a TMO offer to one from e2save. Most won't have heard of either and won't feel the need to research (rightly or wrongly), but 'it's only a phone contract'.

We all start out naive, if we didn't then none of us would have got a single contract from this outfit in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point you make about websites being able to project an image of a company that is dangerously at variance with the reality of its circumstances.

If you turn up at a place and discover that its "offices" are a graffiti-covered bicycle shed with broken windows, halfway up a Welsh mountain and shared with a flock of sheep, you will be differently disposed towards trading with it (particularly if the transaction involves you being paid money) than you might be towards a company with a dazzling website suggesting that it is in the process of rapidly becoming the brightest star in the galaxy of communications technology.

The problem that the latter enterprise may actually be the former, deploying an ancient PC salvaged from a tip, a generator, a weather-beaten telephone line supported by a rickety pole and a daily visit from Postman Pat in a van to project their illusion to the entire world is one that needs seriously to be addressed by the Government and regulators.

People will otherwise continue to derive a false sense of security from the fact that have entered into a contract with such an outfit and believe that their money is thereby safe. Too few of them understand what. and how much, is limited in a limited company.

It is, however, with your second paragraph that I take issue. Your conclusional reasoning in it (as so often in the past) is faulty.

We indeed all start out naïve - which is what the law recognises in withholding contractual liability from those of less than 18 years - but it is most certainly not true to state that buying a 'phone from The Mobile Outlet was an act necessarily arising from, and founded upon, naïvety. Some people did know exactly what they were doing when they bought their 'phones from The Mobile Outlet - what its reputation was, how clear its Terms & Conditions were, what precautions to take when submitting the claims, how to proceed through the courts if the money was not forthcoming and the fact that it could go trotters skyward before this could be achieved.

Much of that knowledge they gleaned from this site, not least from the tireless efforts of "mobilejunkie", when not aggressively in howitzer mode, to apprise everybody of all the information they need when deciding how and from whom to buy a mobile 'phone.

When those who lost out to The Mobile Outlet next need to re-equip themselves with talking technology on the hoof, they would be very well advised indeed to armour-plate their sensibilities and work their way though all "mobilejunkie"s many postings if they wish to avoid making another expensive mistake. They will certainly not emerge from the experience suffering from any naïvety and it is likely to save them a great deal of money.

For all his combative style, which antagonises and even distresses so many people, "mobilejunkie" is very definitely a :A.

mobilejunkie

Howitzer? Moi? Well, it can get a bit tedius going over the same old ground so many times for people who could have found the same information with a little time (I've put in masses after all!). Actually, some of those I fired my ammunition at ended up very grateful once they understood how things work (cpw companies) and I did save them a lot of grief and money. I reckon that whilst my "style" may at times appear impatient it has to be better than not contributing, since I have given and do give a lot of very good information and advice (if I say so myself) which has come at the price of a huge amount of time and research as well as experience which anyone else could replicate if they invested the same. Hopefully people will understand that my input is sometimes demanding and replicated and therefore I am a little sarcastic at times. There are one or two others on here who amaze me at how patient they are answering the same questions 100 times in as many days for people who can't be bothered to read previous answers before repeating questions. They are the real saints!

I do also think it's a pity that no enough people find and read my little guide on here - it could save most of them a LOT of grief and cost. I wrote it months ago initially, adding bits and pieces occasionally; it has been suggested at least twice by others that it should be a sticky and I think that would be a good idea. Better late than never... but ours is not to reason why!

Shelby

kltpzyxm wrote: »

Hi boatman,
Surely the T&C that were in force when you took out the contract are the ones that apply to you...i.e the six months & not the 11 months

Key to this would also be whether the Terms & Conditions to which he signed up, voluntarily, included any clause entitling T-Mobile to change them.

(e.g. "We reserve the right to alter these Terms & Conditions during the currency of your contract.")

That would, of course, put them on sticky territory if anybody challenged it legally upon the grounds that it was unfair. (Because it is effectively giving them a blank cheque.)

What's necessary, for everybody's sake, is for somebody to dig out an original contract with T-Mobile from a year ago and find out what it contains.

Does anyone know on what date T-Mobile says this change in the T&Cs took place and on what date it came into effect?

I would imagine, incidentally, that the reason T-Mobile (and other networks) are being resistive about permitting changes in tariffs until Mobile Matters (U.K.) Ltd. is actually liquidated is because their own obligation to continue making commission payments continues unless and until that happens.

boatman

I cannot find anything that says about either a 6 or 11 months lock-in on the T-mobile website. The only thing i can find is on the FAQ on the T-mobile website. Anybody??

Looking through other websites the policy change from 6 months to 11 months took place last May, I got contract in June!! Surely if they changed the t&c's we should have been informed(i've got a email from them saying they didn''t!!), and they should change what is written on the bill or put a nice big warning on the bill saying whats written on the back is lies!!!!

brb30

boatman, I had the same problem with T Mobile. When I phoned and asked them, they told me that I had to be with them for 11 months. When I pointed it out that it stated 6 months on my bill. They gave a load of rubish about that just being a "guide" and not the terms and conditions. Anyway I asked to speak to the manager as I wasn't pleased. I spoke to a Scotish woman called Louise. After a lot of complaining by myself, she agreed to change mine and also my wifes. We have been with T Mobile just over 6 months. Give them a ring and be polite but firm is my advice. Good luck. Barry

Piff

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Howitzer? Moi? Well, it can get a bit tedius going over the same old ground so many times for people who could have found the same information with a little time (I've put in masses after all!). Actually, some of those I fired my ammunition at ended up very grateful once they understood how things work (cpw companies) and I did save them a lot of grief and money. I reckon that whilst my "style" may at times appear impatient it has to be better than not contributing, since I have given and do give a lot of very good information and advice (if I say so myself) which has come at the price of a huge amount of time and research as well as experience which anyone else could replicate if they invested the same. Hopefully people will understand that my input is sometimes demanding and replicated and therefore I am a little sarcastic at times. There are one or two others on here who amaze me at how patient they are answering the same questions 100 times in as many days for people who can't be bothered to read previous answers before repeating questions. They are the real saints!

I do also think it's a pity that no enough people find and read my little guide on here - it could save most of them a LOT of grief and cost. I wrote it months ago initially, adding bits and pieces occasionally; it has been suggested at least twice by others that it should be a sticky and I think that would be a good idea. Better late than never... but ours is not to reason why!

For the un-initiated, could you give us a link to your guide?

Secondly, for those of us with CCJ's against TMO, at what point should we contact the administators with a request for a share of TMO's asssets?

Probably looking for a new deal in the next couple of months. I have no problem with complying with "terms & conditions". Is there a list of currently active companies not to be trusted and a list of companies which can be trusted to honour their side of the deal?

Lynsey

There won't be much left, if any after the administrators etc. get their cash for their services.
Customers are pretty much at the back of the queue, I wouldn't hold out much hope, sorry.

Lynsey