Help Buymobiles.net claims i owe them money.

mobilejunkie

PeterMan wrote: »

I have just had the same.

I took a contract out in Feb 2013, paid the last 6 months off at full price a few months back, and have no been emailed demanding £474!!

How can that be fair and reasonable?

o2 confirm the account is paid in full, but also state i shouldn't pay them...

O2 didn't supply the phone; Buymobiles did. On mine they also pay cashback. Their t&c do state that if a contract ends prematurely they can claim m oney back from you.

Whether it is fair and reasonable is ultimately up to the court.

PeterMan_2

In that case, why would I have to pay the full financial commitment to 02? If it was solely an airtime agreement and the phone was separate, it would not have been c£40 a month?


Surely as I have paid the full amount, the claim is between Buy mobiles and O2?


Either way I cant afford to pay, so what do I do?

grumbler

PeterMan wrote: »

In that case, why would I have to pay the full financial commitment to 02? If it was solely an airtime agreement and the phone was separate, it would not have been c£40 a month?

Because, unlike "O2 Refresh" contracts, it was an overpriced airtime only contract with O2.

Surely as I have paid the full amount, the claim is between Buy mobiles and O2?

It's their business, not yours. You had two contracts - with O2 and with Buymobiles. It's a separate question whether the latter one is fair and can be enforced.

Either way I cant afford to pay, so what do I do?

If you can't, then you don't pay, and see what they do. It would be nice to keep us informed (in this thread).

Pablo99_2

I had a similar email saying i owe them £350.1

However, i had never heard of the company before and I'm certain I didn't order any phone from them!

Are they looking for email addresses and sending out fake claims in the hope that someone out there will pay? Seems kind of...... Criminal!

mobilejunkie

No. It's generally all valid. They go by various names, so it could be one of several dealers if it came from A1comms.

ashfp

Has anyone got an update on the outcome of this? As they're chasing me for £360 now, exact same situation. I will never deal with this company of t-mobile/EE again - they're all suit wearing thieves! :mad:

mije1983

ashfp wrote: »

Has anyone got an update on the outcome of this? As they're chasing me for £360 now, exact same situation. I will never deal with this company of t-mobile/EE again - they're all suit wearing thieves! :mad:

People have reported offering the current value of the handset as a negotiation, which they seem to then accept and close the account.

mobilejunkie

ashfp wrote: »

Has anyone got an update on the outcome of this? As they're chasing me for £360 now, exact same situation. I will never deal with this company of t-mobile/EE again - they're all suit wearing thieves! :mad:

Only for those who don't bother reading the t&c they sign their name to.

It also has nothing to do with the network - AGAIN! It could have been any network bought through this dealer (though they now don't have many).

[Deleted User]

Sneaky - yes.
Fair - no.
Enforceable - only a court can decide.

ashfp

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Only for those who don't bother reading the t&c they sign their name to.

It also has nothing to do with the network - AGAIN! It could have been any network bought through this dealer (though they now don't have many).

The problem is, majority of people won't have read the terms and conditions as you don't expect there to be anything like this in them! I was able to get out of a contract early before and I was never chased by the original company I bought the contract through.

I had trouble with EE chasing my for over £400 after CISAS siding in my favour, and me ending the contract (without penalty). When checking my credit history they have marked a month as payment not having been received, even though I was no longer in contract. They are a terrible company!

I do see where you are coming from, and yes it is my fault for being lazy and not reading the long contract. This is probably why there should be change in legislation that mean "key" (not sure how you would define these? Perhaps a separate governing body?) facts in the T&C's should be pointed out, as 99% of people are never going to read them overwise.