Letter of Demand from Buymobiles.net

JasonLVC

mobilejunkie wrote: »

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.

English law does allow you to disregard T&C's, its called unfair contract terms act 1977 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50 and there are various other iteratgions of this and revised amendments.

I agree with you that the OP should have avoided the situation in the first place, I'd be like you and trawl over every word, but it isn't very clear that terminating the network contract terminates the goods contract imho. It does state that in words, but in the same sentence as defining the contract period as that which is with the network and I can see how someone can read them together and misunderstand. If they are misunderstood then this opens potential for unfair contract.

Presumably the OP felt if they cancelled their contract and settled in full with the network provider they have met their obligations with buymobiles also.

But hey, no point us two arguing over something that doesn't really affect either of us personally! the fact we are not agreeing would indicate the T&C's aren't clear, even if you are sure you are right...I think I'm right too, and we can't both be right and therefore, the terms must be unclear.


Re. Swiss law, it leans more towards the consumer but follows UK and EU laws generally. I am UK resident but mostly live abroad so am familiar with UK laws.

Silk

JasonLVC wrote: »

English law does allow you to disregard T&C's, its called unfair contract terms act 1977 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50 and there are various other iteratgions of this and revised amendments.

Fully agree with this and other aspects of the "Law" the problem is with this situation and all the other threads is that unless it gets to court there is no way to enforce it.


I cannot see buymobiles.net taking it to court as in my opinion the best they could hope for is the market value of a two year old phone if they are lucky.


As it stands the T&C's do indeed mean there is a debt owed to buymobiles.net but it's the value of the debt that is arguable.
At the moment the good thing is that buymobiles.net are unable to put a blight against the customers credit history without it going to court. The worst that will probably happen is that they will unleash the hounds of the debt collectors to harass people into payment.


The debt collectors will no doubt make many threats about taking it to court etc but for the same reasons as above I doubt they would do that IMO.


Because there is a debt due to the scandalous T&C's if the customers wish to get buymobiles.net to court they would have to make a reasonable offer ie. the market value of a two year old phone and hope they decline.


This would do two things, first show reasonable action by the customer and second put the debt in dispute.


If any action was taken by the debt collectors you could show the debt was in dispute and issue a cease and desist to get rid of them. In order for buymobile.net to take it further they would have to take proceedings.


On saying all that it sticks in the throat to even suggest making an offer to them considering the way they have gone about it but at the moment I can't think of any way round it unless someone has any better idea's ?

mobilejunkie

The unfair t&c part isn't as suggested. It may nort be clear to some (it is to me) but it is the term itself and not the ambiguity which would potentially be unfair. Since there is a logic to it, it's unlikely to be deemed unfair - hence the value of the phone etc. is the only real defence.

in_the_Cotswolds

What about looking on Ebay and other sites that are selling the phone you had taking an average and offering them the same?

mobilejunkie

It's not the value of the phone which is relevant - another red herring. It's the loss of income for the company from the network if the contract is terminated before the minimum term. Plus the costs of collecting from the customer. Anything else (it could be argued) was unfair as the t&c (although valid) led to an amount higher than the loss.

System

You're taking a far too simplistic view of the whole issue.

The contract was to enter into and meet the terms of the mobile service agreement - end of story. Assuming that the OP has done that by paying off the remaining X months obligations, then his/her obligations are over.

The subsidy payment between the network and retailer is neither here or there.

mobilejunkie wrote: »

It's not the value of the phone which is relevant - another red herring. It's the loss of income for the company from the network if the contract is terminated before the minimum term. Plus the costs of collecting from the customer. Anything else (it could be argued) was unfair as the t&c (although valid) led to an amount higher than the loss.

mobilejunkie

Heng_Leng wrote: »

You're taking a far too simplistic view of the whole issue.

The contract was to enter into and meet the terms of the mobile service agreement - end of story. Assuming that the OP has done that by paying off the remaining X months obligations, then his/her obligations are over.

The subsidy payment between the network and retailer is neither here or there.

You obviously have no idea whatever about English law or how all this works. I suggest you learn about contract law before coming out with such nonsense - it's the opposite of "simplistic" - which is, in fact, the nature your statement, not mine.

caverncity

I have emailed a letter with an offer for the average cost of the phone in todays market or a replacement phone but I will need to buy another phone. I have not heard anything back in relation to my offer but received a new letter of demand instead this time headed A1 Comms, the other was headed buymobiles.
Not sure if its being ignored so will have to post it recorded instead.
I have found the Sales of Goods Act 1982 which refers to supplying goods free during a contract but as a layman its a bit hard to understand most or all of it or if any applies to this and if in my favour or not.
If they choose to ignore my offer then that wont go in their favour and if it does got to a debt recovery I shall as mentioned be sending a Cease & Desist letter for the amount they are asking.

It has been brought to my attention by A1 that i had two contracts this wasnt pointed out and no way was I aware of it. If this is the case of two contracts one being with T-Mobile and one with A1 then the phone was surely lent to me for a period of 24 months and in my eyes that is a loan agreement to which I never signed nor did I receive by post a hard copy of an agreement to sign. Unless I am wrong thinking it is a loan?

boatman

Perhaps they have a right to take you to court, in which case you would have to take tmobile to court for your loss of a phone. Or just tell them it broke, send them a few pieces ;-). Do the t&c's say it has to be a working phone you send back?

d123

boatman wrote: »

Perhaps they have a right to take you to court, in which case you would have to take tmobile to court for your loss of a phone. Or just tell them it broke, send them a few pieces ;-). Do the t&c's say it has to be a working phone you send back?

Did you read the whole thread before posting?

The OP posted the T&Cs in post #2.

The relevant section says:

b) If the contract Phone or Sim-Only and any associated Promotional Products are in good working order, fully functioning and intact you can return them to us”;