Help Buymobiles.net claims i owe them money.

Silk

nickthegreat wrote: »

because sticking to buymobiles' T&Cs relies on BOTH your network provider and yourself adhering to the terms of your contract, or you accepting that they can do whatever they like with no recourse (which is clearly contrary to the contract).

you shouldn't be punished for the other party breaking their contract when the terms of both companies, who work together, are so inherently linked.

I agree that if you were in the position where the network ended the contract early because they were unable to continue you might have a case against the network.
However it is usually in the T&C's you agree to from the network that they do not accept liability for consequential loss.
Either way you wouldn't be able to claim against the network for the loss without first settling with buymbiles.net

nickthegreat

kk20 wrote: »

People can argue the toss all they like, at the end of the day the OP signed a contract with buymobiles and their T&C required you to keep your contract running throughout the term. They do not care that T-Mobile breached contract - buymobiles only cares about a contract you signed.

how can you be required to be responsible for the networks behaviour? its nonsense imho, especially when one is a reseller for the other. regardless - it isn't adequately highlighted. ownership of the phone is so central to the contract that the fact that people DIDN'T know is evidence that it wasn't.

OP is quite within their rights to argue the matter in court and let the magistrate decide if this is an unfair term.

At this moment in time the OP broke a term in the T&C set out by buymobiles. The clause wasn't hidden and is quite easy to read. It wasn't hidden on the site and presented at the time of ordering (I know because ive used buymobiles before). OP owes them money until the OP challenges this in court.


speculation: Why do you think buymobiles can offer phones + contract at (often) £5 to £10 below the operators monthly quotes? This is because they probably get kickbacks for customer retentions; leave early (for whatever reason) and buymobiles wont get the kickbacks so they chase people for money instead. Unethical? Personally I think not really, you got a cheaper contract out of them and the caveat you need to stay with the comms provider throughout the term. Odds are no one read this clause.


Personally I don't think this is an unfair term due to the cost savings you gain going via the reseller. Your contract is both with tmobile and buymobiles, tmobile breached theirs and you get out of that contract but not necessarily buymobiles contract. That is for a magistrate to decide not keyboard warriors.

well if you know no-one will read it, and you're selling network packages in a way that looks like you're just reselling the original package, then its not unfair to suggest that you're misleading the customer with the thought that this is just a standard contract from the network. because that's the norm, and that's the appearance on the site, network logos and all

- and to answer your question with another question - how do you think Carphone warehouse undercut o2 on my contract?

they are disguising this as if its any other phone contract. it isn't.

nickthegreat

Silk wrote: »

I agree that if you were in the position where the network ended the contract early because they were unable to continue you might have a case against the network.
However it is usually in the T&C's you agree to from the network that they do not accept liability for consequential loss.
Either way you wouldn't be able to claim against the network for the loss without first settling with buymbiles.net

fair enough. i'm just of the opinion that T&Cs shouldn't override consumer law. the latter is there because the former is generally bs!

ConsumerGuy0016

kk20 wrote: »

OP owes them money until the OP challenges this in court.

OP owes them money if the magistrates decide he does. Not before.

speculation: Why do you think buymobiles can offer phones + contract at (often) £5 to £10 below the operators monthly quotes?

Operators are making large margins, clearly.

This is because they probably get kickbacks for customer retentions; leave early (for whatever reason) and buymobiles wont get the kickbacks so they chase people for money instead.

BuyMobiles should probably renegotiate their contract with the networks then, to prevent it from being so contingent on events out of their control.

Personally I don't think this is an unfair term due to the cost savings you gain going via the reseller.

Well, it's not really a cost-saving if you're purchasing a contract whereby you don't actually own the rights to the phone. So an entirely different contract to one that would be entered into directly with the network. Cannot compare the two (according to your earlier logic, anyway).

That is for a magistrate to decide not keyboard warriors.

I suppose this means we should close this sub-forum. kk20 has requested that there be no discussion on topics related to BuyMobiles.

edit: OP could (of course) take T-Mobile to small claims and claim "losses" due to breach of contract. Doubtful this would fly but another avenue if you have nothing to lose.

Lol.

mobilejunkie

All wrong as always.

The OP owes them money unless the "magistrate" (not a magistrate in the small claims court) agrees otherwise.

Do you even understand what a "margin" or "profit" is? I doubt you're any more knowledgable on these than you are on English and contract law.

If they "renegotiated" their own business model wouldn't work and we'd all have even fewer dealers to use instead of the networks. As a customer, their business model works fine for me and long may it continue.

Again, you DO own the phone - from day one. Something you'll never grasp.

So if you want to close the discussion perhaps there's a chink of daylight that you don't know what you're talking about? One can live in hope.

ConsumerGuy0016

mobilejunkie wrote: »

If they "renegotiated" their own business model wouldn't work and we'd all have even fewer dealers to use instead of the networks. As a customer, their business model works fine for me and long may it continue.

Ahh okay, so this whole charade about defending BuyMobiles's T&Cs wasn't about giving the OP the correct information it was about ensuring BuyMobiles continues to operate shoddily so the knowledgeable can benefit and the unaware can be fleeced.

Again, you DO own the phone - from day one. Something you'll never grasp.

You don't own the phone. Your ownership is contingent on BuyMobiles receiving their commission from the network. A contract that you, as the buyer, are not party to. You really really seem to be struggling with this basic point.

What we've established from your posts are: "I'm fine with people being scammed as long as it doesn't harm me"

nickthegreat

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Again, you DO own the phone - from day one. Something you'll never grasp.

it seems quite clear you don't though. if you are convinced otherwise, then by all means explain

I don't think anyone is arguing the meaning of Buymobiles T&Cs, the phone is theirs, we are arguing whether it is fair and/or enforceable.

boatman

On the basis of a lack of hire purchase agreement, i think it is reasonable to say that you own the phone.
The confusion is the fact that they will accept the phone back instead of money as compensation for their loss if the contract is not completed, the phone is not theirs its just a means of returning some form of monetary value to them.
It then becomes a bit more difficult because you have paid monthly line rental and an element of repayment for the phone each month, you have had the use of the phone,
and the phone also has a value once the contract has ended.

nickthegreat

boatman wrote: »

On the basis of a lack of hire purchase agreement, i think it is reasonable to say that you own the phone.
The confusion is the fact that they will accept the phone back instead of money as compensation for their loss if the contract is not completed, the phone is not theirs its just a means of returning some form of monetary value to them.

maybe its my mistake then!
my opinion is that you own the phone (because as you said, it would otherwise be hire purchase) but if we assume that the T&Cs are valid then you don't. correct?

that's just based off the thread, so what do i know! interesting if they don't mention the phone, just compensation. wouldn't they have to justify the amount then?

Scoodard

Good Afternoon,

I too have had a bad time with Buy Mobiles. Nov 20th 2013 I took out an upgrade with Buy Mobiles, I received notification that a new line had been ordered by them for my contract. I contacted them the following day to advise it should have been created as an upgrade and not a new line. I was advised that the handset which was despatched would be added to the upgrade order and that the new line would be cancelled. A few days passed by and the line had not been cancelled, I chased T Mobile and Buy Mobiles and finally received notification from Buy Mobiles on Dec 10th that the line had been cancelled. I contacted Buy Mobiles and was assured no charges were owed as the order was created incorrectly in the first place.

In the last month or so The Burlington Group have been in touch to state that I owe £312 as I did not cancel the incorrectly ordered new line back in 2013. I have been in constant communications with Burlington group highlighting the whole saga but they keep on saying I owe the money. What can I do