Letter of Demand from Buymobiles.net

Silk

ConsumerGuy0016 wrote: »

I've seen the other threads regarding A1 Comms/buymobiles.net but was wondering if any of the OPs in those threads had updated to say whether or not they had been chased to court for the amounts supposedly owed?

I've not seen anyone come back with a result unless I've missed it.....I feel if someone had a victory to report they would have done so by now ???

mobilejunkie

The phone was supplied by Buymobiles NOT the network. Whatever EE's t&c are has nothing to do with the phone. If you read the t&c (rather than just the cover order page) it is clear that they will charge for the phone when a contract is terminated early. All else is irrelevant. If you want to fight it can only be on the basis of an unfair t&c for the contract in question - which is Buymobiles and NOT ee.

ConsumerGuy0016

What's strange is that most (if not all) 3rd party sellers have the same Clause in their T&Cs, yet I've only really read about Buymobilesnet actually chasing people up.

Silk

ConsumerGuy0016 wrote: »

What's strange is that most (if not all) 3rd party sellers have the same Clause in their T&Cs, yet I've only really read about Buymobilesnet actually chasing people up.

Which ones have T&C's that says title does not pass to the buyer until the contract is seen out and fully paid ?

boatman

Has anyone spoken to any legal advice service? I would have thought they could only claim the current market price of the device, if a product keeps going wrong you only get back what its worth because you have had use it of since you bought it, would the same not apply?

Guys_Dad

If someone pays off their contract in full before the 2 years, does the network reduce the amount that they pay the retailer?

If so, then one can see why Buymobiles are trying to get money back from the customer, although the amount claimed is ludicrous.

If not, then there seems no basis for them to include that condition in their t&c.

d123

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If someone pays off their contract in full before the 2 years, does the network reduce the amount that they pay the retailer?

If so, then one can see why Buymobiles are trying to get money back from the customer, although the amount claimed is ludicrous.

If not, then there seems no basis for them to include that condition in their t&c.

They will lose the ongoing commission paid out at intervals over the contract term.

JasonLVC

Just on the aspect re. VAT.

VAT is charged when goods are supplied, if goods are supplied free of charge, then no VAT is due.

If, 18 months later the supplier suddenly decides to charge for the phone, they can charge VAT on the value of the goods but the VAT is still due at the time of the supply being made and so I would ask if buymobiles/net will be declaring the VAT under declaration to HMRC.

If they are claiming it is breach of contract (by customer selling the phone early), then they have clearly stated in their T&C's this is a breach of contract whereupon, any compensation payment cannot be subject to VAT.

It may still be a valid "contract" to seek an amount of money from the customer, an amount based on market value, etc, but is not VATable.

They cannot say it is compensation and charge VAT or if they want to charge VAT now then they have to declare to HMRC the fact they supplied goods but failed to collect the VAT and declare at the time of sale.


I think a massive twitter/internet campaign to hound this company into administration seems a reasonable response!

Silk

JasonLVC wrote: »

Just on the aspect re. VAT.

VAT is charged when goods are supplied, if goods are supplied free of charge, then no VAT is due.

If, 18 months later the supplier suddenly decides to charge for the phone, they can charge VAT on the value of the goods but the VAT is still due at the time of the supply being made and so I would ask if buymobiles/net will be declaring the VAT under declaration to HMRC.

I thought about the VAT aspect too but it seems they are charging for a replacement phone due to the supplied one not being able to be returned. In which case as they are in effect selling them a new phone they would be allowed to charge VAT

JasonLVC

Silk wrote: »

I thought about the VAT aspect too but it seems they are charging for a replacement phone due to the supplied one not being able to be returned. In which case as they are in effect selling them a new phone they would be allowed to charge VAT

I see what you are saying, but VAT applies where there is a supply of something in return for payment.

Here, the customer is making a payment but is not receiving any supplies in return. The customer doesn't get a new phone, there is no supply of any goods to the person (customer) paying.


This is why when you cancel a phone contract mid-term there is always a discount, which is the VAT not being charged on the reminder of the contract......the mobile operator cannot charge VAT for a service it isn't supplying to you anymore, its compensation from you breaching the contract by cancelling early, hence compo = no VAT.

So it can only be compensation in my view.

We had the same nonsense with the clampers who were arguing they were issuing "fines" but they were charging VAT (as if providing a service). HMRC and the courts eventually established, as we all know, that these are not fines and VAT is applicable....and so if parking tickets are VATable then it cannot be a fine and if its not a fine, then there can be no "compensation for actual loss"