The Mobile Outlet

thesaint

Jay22 wrote: »

hi Saint:

i sent my correct bills and a letter to TMO asking them to pay my cash back as usual as this time i have encosed my correct bills, as las time i sent them my bills earlier than i should have,,,, and i also sent them copies of the bills i sent them b4. and they got the origonals. and typed up and letter asking them to respond to me within 10 days whether they are agreeing to pay me or not.. and i mentioend tothem that i spoke to Consumer Direct about the matter and stated the Referance number in my latter to them..

I read your previous posts about your situation.
In your positon, I wouldn't have mentioned sending the 'Correct' bills in any correspondence with them, I would've pleaded ignorance.

I would sit and wait for their reply now, you don't have a cat in hells chance of receiving a reply within 10 days.
They do read this thread, so hopefully they have enough info to identify you and respond in a timely manner for once in their sorry business lives.

Jay22 wrote: »

hi Saint:
i sent it through special delivery on friday and RM tried to deliver it to them on Saturday but somehow they werent there to receive it or soma so they left a card to then to rearrange the delivery or collect the item from RM..

i think there is soma fishy bout their Mail address too.. as som times whn you send some they have redirected their post and som times its just doesnt get to them....

They aren't open on a Saturday,so the postman wouldn't have even attempted delivery on a Saturday even if you paid the extra fee for saturday delivery.

The mail address (As has most of what you ask about) has been covered more than once in this thread, you should really have a read through before asking any more questions.

I read all 3 threads on The Mobile Outlet about a month ago, so reading 1 is not beyond anyone seeking clarification of their plight. :A

Good luck.

DanG_4

Don't forget that on the basis of the case won against phones2udirect at Tunbridge Wells provided you abide by the spirit of the terms and conditions current UK legislation states that the clauses of these unfair contracts which do not conform to the current Ofcom code signed by all the major networks are not binding on the consumer to their detriment. So if you cannot send particular invoices by the required date due to postal or billing issue problems you are still entitled to the cashback, because you have a justifiable reason, as there is no way in which you as the consumer could retrieve the situation.

You may have to enter a claim in the County Court though in the end, if The Mobile Outlet still try to avoid paying. (In reality they know they are on a losing streak now which is why most of the larger cash back deals are no longer being offered.)

thesaint

DanG wrote: »

Don't forget that on the basis of the case won against phones2udirect at Tunbridge Wells provided you abide by the spirit of the terms and conditions current UK legislation states that the clauses of these unfair contracts which do not conform to the current Ofcom code signed by all the major networks are not binding on the consumer to their detriment. So if you cannot send particular invoices by the required date due to postal or billing issue problems you are still entitled to the cashback, because you have a justifiable reason, as there is no way in which you as the consumer could retrieve the situation.

You may have to enter a claim in the County Court though in the end, if The Mobile Outlet still try to avoid paying. (In reality they know they are on a losing streak now which is why most of the larger cash back deals are no longer being offered.)

I do not believe that the case you refer to has any baring on any other case.

People have being taking resellers to court for ages, and continue to do so for a variety of reasons.

The "Current Ofcom code signed by all the major networks" is only a voluntary code and not signed by all the major networks(I think virgin is a major network).

DanG_4

Well thesaint, you are entitled to your opinion of course (as with what are Premium numbers), but if you are not a lawyer I am not sure how valid that will be in this instance?

Virgin are not a network provider as such! They operate on the T-Mobile network I believe as a wholesale interface provider only. This is essentially why they are not a signatory to the code. Yes it is an optional code, but Ofcom have stated that if the volume of complaints to them do not reduce dramatically and if the network providers do not sack their distributors who fail to keep to it they will introduce much tougher measures. It is up to everyone affected by these charlatan distributors to ensure that they complain to make sure the wings of these cheaters are well and truly clipped.

murdoc82

It has been nearly a year since I bought my handphone from The Mobile Outlet. Like many others, I too have become a victim of their cashback offer and have been denied all of my cashback. The reason they said is because I did not send the dispatch note and when I did send it afterwards, I was told that it is outside the 21 days timescale.

I am not suprised to see that The Mobile Outlet has been discussed very long in this forum. In my opinion, it truly reflects the nature of The Mobile Outlet company that will do whatever they can to deny cashback to their customers.

As a frustrated customer, I really feel I have been tricked by this company and will never ever do any business with them again in the future. To those who are in process in claiming their cashbacks I wish you good luck. And to those wo are thinking of taking any mobile deals with this company I would say just stay clear out of this company because personally I think it is not worth the hassle and the worries.

After this one nightmare experience, I wonder if there is any online mobile company that I can really trust for their cashback offer...

Shelby

murdoc82 wrote: »

It has been nearly a year since I bought my handphone from The Mobile Outlet. Like many others, I too have become a victim of their cashback offer and have been denied all of my cashback. The reason they said is because I did not send the dispatch note and when I did send it afterwards, I was told that it is outside the 21 days timescale.

I am not suprised to see that The Mobile Outlet has been discussed very long in this forum. In my opinion, it truly reflects the nature of The Mobile Outlet company that will do whatever they can to deny cashback to their customers.

As a frustrated customer, I really feel I have been tricked by this company and will never ever do any business with them again in the future. To those who are in process in claiming their cashbacks I wish you good luck. And to those wo are thinking of taking any mobile deals with this company I would say just stay clear out of this company because personally I think it is not worth the hassle and the worries.

After this one nightmare experience, I wonder if there is any online mobile company that I can really trust for their cashback offer...

I'm sorry for you personally that you lost your cashback but it really isn't fair to The Mobile Outlet to accuse it of trickery if you failed to read properly the Terms and Conditions of a contract you signed up to involving several hundred pounds and did not comply with it.

These deals, at the prices that attracted you to The Mobile Outlet in the first place, are only made possible because they are funded by careless people losing their cashback entitlements though their own oversight.

Everybody rightly condemns a retailer (any retailer) that lies about the documentation it receives from those claiming cashbacks but it's not fair to criticise The Mobile Outlet for your own failure to comply with the extremely clear terms and conditions that you agreed to stick to.

Fair's fair. Don't lower yourself to their standards of morality. This one was down to you and it's now funding the cashbacks of others who were properly diligent.

Shelby

Quentin wrote: »

The conditions do say you have to make 5 claims altogether, and if the rules are broken you lose your cashback. Jay22 has broken the rules of this game by having to make another claim.

With respect, Quentin, they don't "say you have to make 5 claims altogether."

What the Terms and Conditions prior to 1 August 2007 actually state is that, “...you need to comply with the following 5 stages listed below. If you do not comply with the exact terms of each of these stages you will loose your entitlement to your cash back...”

The thing that's actually "loose" in this thing is its wording. Whoever drafted it for The Mobile Outlet should be disbarred.

It’s pertinent to point out that these Terms and Conditions neither define nor restrict what a “stage” may consist of and that nowhere do they state that a “stage”, far less the constituent part of it that is a claim, must be comprised of a single submission of documents.

The T&Cs then continue:

“...It is your responsibility to ensure that the relevant documentation reaches us within the relevant period. The stages of claiming the cash back are: ...”

(Stage) “2. In month 7 of your contract you will need to forward bills 5 through to 7 to us within 21 days of the issue date on bill number 7.”

It’s also relevant that each of these five “stages” are individual, self-contained and occur at intervals several weeks apart.

I would argue that there is no legal requirement here for the documents necessary for a valid claim to be submitted in one instalment provided that they are all received within 21 days (either way) of the date printed on the final invoice relevant to the claim, and that doing this is quite permissible within a "stage".

What say you, Quentin?

thesaint

DanG wrote: »

Well thesaint, you are entitled to your opinion of course (as with what are Premium numbers), but if you are not a lawyer I am not sure how valid that will be in this instance?

The reason I say that the ruling you mentioned has no baring on any other is because I do not believe that it set any precedent, it was not like it was a High court/ European court ruling.

If you could tell me what difference the case you refer to has with someone taking The Mobile Outlet to court this week/next week, please post it here, there are lots of people that would be glad to know. Can they make reference to it, and is the beak forced to take note?

What has being a lawyer got to do with anything? If it is pertinent, are you a lawyer?

My opinion on premium rate numbers is actually a fact, if you still doubt me, go to the ICSTIS website and try and put an 0870/0844 number in, I assure you that everyone who stated that an 0870 is a premium rate number is wrong, and i'm right.

DanG wrote: »

Virgin are not a network provider as such! They operate on the T-Mobile network I believe as a wholesale interface provider only. This is essentially why they are not a signatory to the code. Yes it is an optional code, but Ofcom have stated that if the volume of complaints to them do not reduce dramatically and if the network providers do not sack their distributors who fail to keep to it they will introduce much tougher measures. It is up to everyone affected by these charlatan distributors to ensure that they complain to make sure the wings of these cheaters are well and truly clipped.

Your description of Virgin is not accurate(Nor was mine), but that's by the by.
The OFCOM voluntary code of practice is actually geared towards mobile operators, and not networks, so Virgin could've signed up to it.

Could you show me where OFCOM states that the networks will face tougher measures if they don't "sack" their distributors that fail to comply, I can't find reference to it. Or if you've 'Exaggerated to emphasise your point', I think you should point this out. :A

Tyler_Du

Anyone actually have a cashback claim paid recently, how late was it ?

webmode

I sent my frist cashback claim on 24/09/2007 but i havent recieved any relply from them. email and pm the mobile outlet yesterday asking what happening?:mad:

waiting for reply