The Mobile Outlet

Quentin

patwa wrote: »

If I do downgrade I'm then deliberately violating the TMO contract

Take the time to catch up and read through the last week's posts.

Your only hope now to see any savings is to forget about tmo and see if your network will allow you to downgrade your tariff.

mcmanlyn

You might want to have a look at the million page thread already discussing MO's problems.

Battway

Yes I did. Shame it wasnt last July when via MSE I got the phone in the first place. Buyer beware etc etc

Shelby

Allan87 wrote: »

Mine is from September and it does say I can downgrade after 6 months - though I took them up on the £5 discount mentioned earlier for the Flext 35 so now get £120 allowance for £30/month, if you can't get the downgrade perhaps try the discount?

In negotiating anything, you usually emerge in a better position by asking for something additional that they can supply at less cost to themselves than what it represents in value to you, rather than by asking to pay them less money.

Allowing you more minutes/texts/data is less expensive to a network than receiving less money from you, so they will more readily agree to the former than they will to the latter.

boatman

Good advise. Unfortunately most of the contracts people have already give them more than they need!! They only went for them because of the cashback making it virtually a free contract. I've moved from Flext35web'n'walk at £42.50 to Flext25 for £20 based on the 6 month info on the back of my bill.

Patwa- Don't worry about changing tariff, TMO broke the rules long before you did!!

Shelby

Xabi_Alonso wrote: »

Looking back at the last 12 months, I do think the networks and other suppliers should have done more in effect to try and help the end consumers. If all these companies did know about the model companies like Mobile Outlet/Cool New mobile/Phones 2u direct operated, maybe they should have done something sooner.

Rather like the whole scandal over mis-selling of endowment (and other) policies, what bears scrutiny and investigation, with a view to penalty and compensation, is whether or not the networks, or agents acting on their behalf, knowingly or negligently, induced, pressured or obliged dealers to work to a business model (i.e one founded upon the projected failure of 60% of customers to submit cashback claims correctly) that was unrealistic and thereby doomed to failure.

What has to be borne in mind is that it was the business model urged by the networks' agents and adopted by the dealer that prompted the generosity of the deal being offered to the customer.

The other retailers, with whom they were competing, were then faced with either matching these deals themselves (however reluctantly) or losing so many customers that they could not remain in business themselves.

What I see as highly significant is the reported comment that it was agents of the networks who also advised the dealers to switch to a five-stage redemption process, and reduce the time given to customers to file their claims, in order to cause more customers to fail to submit valid claims for their cashbacks.

By doing this they were actively trying to create failure of cashback claims.

The point at which the whole industry crossed the line of acceptable behaviour was when it progressed from offering deals that were using obsolete or surplus stock as loss-leader promptions and moved on to the far more predatory tactic of urging retailers to offer deals that were founded upon finding ways to prevent customers obtaining the cashback monies that they were offering.

Anybody who denies that these deals were indeed predatory need look no further than the fact if a customer (perhaps by going on holiday) failed to submit just one claim correctly he lost his entitlement to all future entitlement to claim for the subsequent stages of cashback.

Were the deals not designed deliberately to prevent people obtaining cashback, failure on one claim would have carried only the penalty of losing that particular instalment of the cashback and would have permitted the customer to continue to claim for his remaining cashbacks.

The seedy aspect of the whole scheme was that it relied not on people simply forgetting to file claims but on dealers actively finding ways to exclude cashback from those who did remember to file them.

It may be acceptable for an airline to sell 15% more tickets for a flight than the number of passengers it can carry, based on past experience of that being the percentage of customers who fail to check-in for their flight for a variety of reasons unassociated with the airline, but if an airline pressures its agents to sell 150% more tickets than it has seats on the plane, based upon a plan to erect misleading signs to, and at, the airport which will result in people failing to check in for their flights on time and losing their entitlement to fly, with no refund, it is behaving in a manner which is unacceptable.

If compensation is to be obtained and penalty exacted in this failure of The Mobile Outlet, it is the role of the networks in the promotion of these schemes that needs to be investigated.

Part of the reason why the networks are so anxious to maintain their stance that it is all a matter between the dealer and the customer is because they want to distance themselves from what happened.

If the networks give in to the argument that people should be entitled to cancel their contracts or lower their tariffs because the network was partly to blame, they are admitting their guilt for what happened. And the legal and financial consequences that would flow from that - in fines and compensation claims - if that liability becomes clear, would dwarf the cost of waiving or lowering the tariffs of those who were the victims of it.

It is to the public exposure of the role of the networks that those who seek compensation need to look if they are to obtain anything - not least because the networks can afford to pay it (although they will fund the cost of doing so by raising their tariffs) whereas the insolvent dealers have no money left with which to pay anybody anything.

coolio_2

A thread was running a long time before July on problems with TMO

boatman

gecko_101 wrote: »

Hi,

Does anyone think there is a possibility of the cashback coming through?

Orange have offered to drop my monthly contract from £40 to £25, this is a big saving but if I do this I break the TMO cashback rules....

Have a look through the last few pages.

alnsv1000s

Just to clarify. The only network to promote cashback deals at a 40% redemption model was Three.

I know because i was advised to offer this model by a senior Manager from 3. It seemed like it was being sold to me with pointers of how not to pay.

The other Networks have never promoted the Idea but have let it continue until the end of last summer when they started getting pressure due to the bad press and cut off dealers connector codes.

This resulted in these companies not being able to trade and as we have seen
Go into liquidation.

The networks still have the customers who are paying line rental and the losers are the customers and the staff.

I have no sympathy with the directors as they did not have to offer this business model but they took the bait and should take the blame.

Tomorrow at 6pm ITV CENTRAL are doing a news story on Cash Back and Mobile Outlet. this is subject to no other major news stories occuring.

DazzaMc

alnsv1000s wrote: »

Tomorrow at 6pm ITV CENTRAL are doing a news story on Cash Back and Mobile Outlet. this is subject to no other major news stories occuring.

Nice one. To be honest I saw a few people saying how claiming cashback was difficult on here before I signed up and I thought I'd be OK so it's my fault, really for not erring on the side of caution