Letter of Demand from Buymobiles.net

Silk

JasonLVC wrote: »

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.

I think this is the fly in the ointment as they are being cute in asking for a replacement instead of charging for the original phone.
They are asking for the customer to pay for a replacement which in effect the customer has to return to them

JasonLVC

Silk wrote: »

They are asking for the customer to pay for a replacement which in effect the customer has to return to them

Oh right, yes, I suppose if the contract forces the customer to buy a replacement and then "send it back" so to speak, to buymobiles that could be seen as a supply of goods....

But isn't that the definition of compensation anyway - to cover the cost of a loss?

You insure your phone, you lose it, the insurance covers your loss (remaining contract term plus phone cost). The insurer doesn't supply you a new phone or contract, they just give you the money you are out of pocket by.

Either way, whatever the technicalities of it, I'd relish a day in court with these clowns and I'd make sure the local media were in attendance to watch them lose in style. *I don;'t have any contract with these people thankfully, but consumers should never be bullied by such legal threats, as often its all a bluff.

caverncity

I have just received this reply. I asked for a breakdown of their loss in me ending the contract early. I told them i bought the contract out. I asked for a hard copy of the terms of the sale which they sent but they could easily be changed in their favour if they think I dont have them.

"In regard to this the payment for the goods or return of the goods has been requested as the network have advised us that the contract has been disconnected during the minimum term.

When you placed the order you entered into two contracts, one for the airtime which is with the network provider and one contract for the goods which is with ourselves. A disconnection of any kind within the minimum term is a breach of this agreement, if you have ended the contract early this is still classed as a disconnection .
We require the debt to be paid to ourselves or the goods returned, the amount due is the handset cost + VAT. I have attached the Terms and Conditions which is your agreement . "

No where did it say I was entering into two contracts. If they are saying the phone was part of a loan agreement then law states they must send me an agreement to which I sign which includes the terms. This didnt happen.

Not too up on twitter starting a campaign, can anyone tell me how to do this or start something off. I am on twitter though. thanks

caverncity

well rang citizens advice, waste of time they said I accepted the terms and thats that, TBH she didnt really know what to say or do but said best way forward is to negociate. I then rang a free legal advice line through the CWU union and again they said I accepted the terms and to get a breakdown of their loss and best to negotiate and if they dont tell them to take me to court and let a judge decide whats fair and then sue them for unfair terms and excessive demands.

mobilejunkie

JasonLVC wrote: »

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

Not for those of us who have excellent cashback deals through them and are quite prepared to:

1) Know what they're doing and wouldn't end the contract early and

2) Are quite prepared to sue if needbe to ensure their side of the contract is honoured.

As usual simplistic reactions to defend the few who failed to read t&c end up harming those who DO. Perhaps you'd prefer CPW to be the only other real player in the market so they could get even worse than they are.

mobilejunkie

caverncity wrote: »

well rang citizens advice, waste of time they said I accepted the terms and thats that, TBH she didnt really know what to say or do but said best way forward is to negociate. I then rang a free legal advice line through the CWU union and again they said I accepted the terms and to get a breakdown of their loss and best to negotiate and if they dont tell them to take me to court and let a judge decide whats fair and then sue them for unfair terms and excessive demands.

As reasonable advice as you're liekly to get from them. Plainly you had no idea how any of this works and are completely WRONG about their t&c. They are clearly on their website (I actually ALWAYS print them out at the point of every sale) and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your contract with the network.

The ONLY thing you could argue in court would be that the TERM of YOUR contract with THEM is unfair. Whilst the size of the debt may be debatable, the debt is not.

I not only speak as someone who DOES now how such contracts work, but who HAS sued THEM several times without any difiiculty - and I always win without going to court. In this situation I would fight, but ultimately would know that I would have to agree and pay something reasonable whether I liked it or not.

JasonLVC

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Not for those of us who have excellent cashback deals through them and are quite prepared to:

1) Know what they're doing and wouldn't end the contract early and

2) Are quite prepared to sue if needbe to ensure their side of the contract is honoured.

As usual simplistic reactions to defend the few who failed to read t&c end up harming those who DO. Perhaps you'd prefer CPW to be the only other real player in the market so they could get even worse than they are.

I use Swisscom for my mobile, we don't actually have that much choice here in Switzerland, so at least the UK gets more choice/options, even if the service isn't brilliant from the likes of CPW.

Its not a "simplistic" view, the contract is ambiguous or at least deviates from the norm of contracts in the sector. Everyone knows the phone is supplied by the shop and the contract by the service provider and that there are two contracts but which are generally presumed to be linked to the service provision, not the goods themselves.

As the key difference with buymobiles is their specific compensation demand for breach of contract, why is it not more visible? Why is not made clear when buying a phone package that this seller works differently to other sellers?

I agree that customers should always read the T&C's, but reading them they are ambiguous because it isn't clear as to terminating a contract early actually means. (ie, terminating early with the service provider or with the phone supplier, or both, and are the two linked or separate? You can read them in more than one way).

JasonLVC

Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on, the CAB and unions are giving bad advice, just because you sign a contract doesn't make it valid. I'd refuse to pay purely on the basis that the penalty for breach of contract appears to be excessive....and this is a breach of contract matter as that is what buymobiles have stated it is.

Why are they charging VAT on a cancelled agreement?

Have buymobiles provided two separate legal contracts to the customer, one for the goods and one for the service provision? Did the customer get one invoice for a combined package of phone and contract or two invoices, one for phone and one for contract? I don't know, but two separate supplies indicates two separate contracts.

All of these sort of things would indicate the true contractual relationship, we can easily disregard the T&C's if the physical behaviour of the business is different to the impression given during the sales process or what the contract says.

JasonLVC

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I not only speak as someone who DOES now how such contracts work, but who HAS sued THEM several times without any difiiculty - and I always win without going to court. In this situation I would fight, but ultimately would know that I would have to agree and pay something reasonable whether I liked it or not.

That's confusing...you always win and you would fight this if it were you but you'd also have to agree to pay something?

Then that is not winning, neither is settling out of court.

It does show that contracts aren't as clear cut as perhaps they are made out to be and that customers should not be intimated by bullying tactics from companies who profit, it appears, by prosecuting their customers.


If there is a rep from buymobiles lurking on the forums, perhaps they can explain why their T&C's are not on the front page and explains clearly to the dozy and idiot customers just exactly what "free" means?

mobilejunkie

I wouldn't have got into this situation in the first place. I have made it perfectly clear why I would fight to mitigate the SIZE of the payment, but whether you like it or not there are two separate contracts and it is VERY clear about the duration and the terms. Anyone who doesn't read it or ignores it risks such a situation. The period is plainly the contract's minimum term and it's also clear that you think you can ignore both English law, good advice from here AND from organisations supposedly set up specifically to give it.

Maybe Swiss law allows people to ignore their contracts and own responsibility when entering one, but fortunately English Law doesn't.