Cashback sites not paying - legality?

cashdoc

I'm looking to gather opinions on Cashback sites that don't pay out. This isn't about an issue I am currently having, but with the growing popularity of these sites I feel this is a major consumer rights issue and that there needs to be better legal accountability of these firms. Basically, I'm arguing that by accepting and complying with the conditions that the cashback site has laid out, the consumer has entered into a contract with the site, and it is the site's contractual obligation to provide the cashback that was agreed upon, irrespective of whether the site receives reimbursement from its merchants. It is the cashback site - not the consumer - that should assume the risk.

Currently I am awaiting £70 from a Sky contract I took out 6 months ago. That £70 WAS the reason I chose Sky over other firms. I have read much worse all over the internet, with many being refused hundreds despite allegedly complying with all the conditions.

I'm completely bemused as to why consumers are willing to accept the legitimacy of the T&Cs of these sites which state that "Cashback is not guaranteed". I cannot think of any other consumer scenario whereby a firm can choose not to uphold their end of the bargain if the consumer complies with the criteria.

For instance, if I paid Amazon for item x, it is reasonable to expect them to give me what I paid for every time. Amazon can't choose not to supply an item, and it certainly cannot only supply the item 95% of the time. Many then point out that Cashback sites are not retailers; that they are only "middlemen". It's very common for companies to have arrangements where they "dropship" - a practice where the consumer will pay firm x, but firm x gets firm y to package and deliver the item to the consumer. If the consumer does not receive the item from firm y, it is still firm x's responsibility to supply the item, or to refund the consumer.

I cannot see why it should be any different for Cashback sites. At the moment the lowly consumer is assuming all the risk for the transaction, which is completely unfair. If I were an unscrupulous retailer/telecoms/insurance provider, what's to stop me from offering cashback to lure in consumers when I have absolutely no intention of paying the cashback out?

I'd like to know whether people agree/disagree with what I've said and also whether anyone has taken legal proceedings over cashback that hasn't been honoured.

Thank you

(small aside note: I've read many comments where someone has been told it was wrong for them to let cashback alter their decision of whom to buy from, and that they should only see the cashback as a "bonus". For a start, based on what I've said above, it's irrelevant how the consumer "sees" the cashback as they should get it 100% of the time. Additionally, I'm sorry but I think that statement is ridiculous anyway. A reasonable consumer will always shop around and choose what they think is the best value for them. In my case, I could have gone with TalkTalk who were £20 cheaper over the course of the contract, but decided to go with Sky because of the Cashback, basically saving me £50.)

Browntoa

Multiple reasons it could be your fault

Visiting sky in same browser prior to going via cashback site

Not fully complying with the conditions of the deal or meeting the requirements

Looking at deal via quidco then deciding to buy via topcashback , the deal links to quidco but you do not complete deal

Not completing in same session

Use of some advert blocking software or pop up blockers

Then again sky do seem to be famous for declining cashback

JJ_Egan

<<Amazon can't choose not to supply an item >>
Yes they can .


Basically cashback does not enter into my buying decisions .
The principal reason for that would be any terms and conditions i would need to satisfy .

However you really need to address this issue elsewhere as you are going to get two sorts of replies . One i always get cashback paid out and two usually from newbies who complain .


Yes it is about an issue you are currently having as its clear in the OP you have a problem .

unholyangel

cashdoc wrote: »

For instance, if I paid Amazon for item x, it is reasonable to expect them to give me what I paid for every time. Amazon can't choose not to supply an item, and it certainly cannot only supply the item 95% of the time. Many then point out that Cashback sites are not retailers; that they are only "middlemen". It's very common for companies to have arrangements where they "dropship" - a practice where the consumer will pay firm x, but firm x gets firm y to package and deliver the item to the consumer. If the consumer does not receive the item from firm y, it is still firm x's responsibility to supply the item, or to refund the consumer.

I cannot see why it should be any different for Cashback sites. At the moment the lowly consumer is assuming all the risk for the transaction, which is completely unfair. If I were an unscrupulous retailer/telecoms/insurance provider, what's to stop me from offering cashback to lure in consumers when I have absolutely no intention of paying the cashback out?

In your first example, you have a contract with that company for them to provide x in exchange for £y. In contrast, the cashback site is not contracted to provide you with cashback, if its contracted for anything (consideration is required in order for a legally binding contract to exist - it doesn't need to be money but does need to be something of value), its to provide you access to cashback offers.

If sky are offering cashback, you comply with the T&C's and still don't get it, then you may have a claim against sky, but not the cashback company.

As for the part in bold, I'll take the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for 200 please bob.

cashdoc

Except it's not my fault because:
a) I read the conditions beforehand and I know it isn't
b) they've told me, after several nudges, that my case has been sent to its "affiliate network" for review as part of a "large outstanding file". Presumably Sky haven't been administrating this correctly for many people.

Regardless, technical reasons such as cookies etc shouldn't be grounds on which to reject cashback (they're not anyway).


Yes Amazon can choose not to but they'd have to reimburse. It would be cost neutral for the consumer.

And no, it's not about my issue. That's the whole point. My case was merely to illustrate. I specifically said "this isn't about an issue I am currently having" i.e I do not want this thread to be about my cashback issue but the legal issue generally, as was hopefully clear from the direction of the rest of the post, the thread title, etc.

And the fact that cashback doesn't enter into your buying decisions is fine for you but not for me. I mean, I find it odd that you don't consider the total cost with cashback versus the total cost without. But it's your money and your decision. And as I said, it's irrelevant to the central point that this concerns the cashback companies not honouring a fair contract.

cashdoc

unholyangel wrote: »

In your first example, you have a contract with that company for them to provide x in exchange for £y. In contrast, the cashback site is not contracted to provide you with cashback, if its contracted for anything (consideration is required in order for a legally binding contract to exist - it doesn't need to be money but does need to be something of value), its to provide you access to cashback offers.

If sky are offering cashback, you comply with the T&C's and still don't get it, then you may have a claim against sky, but not the cashback company.

As for the part in bold, I'll take the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for 200 please bob.

Ah, I was unaware about consideration, thank you.

In that case, there are 2 ways to approach this.
1) Argue that your "contract" is with the cashback site AND the merchant jointly, with the cashback site acting merely as a client of the merchant.
2) Say that the laws as they stand are not fit for purpose. Because I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree that the way things currently stand, where risk is assumed by the consumer and cashback sites can reject cashback seemingly on a whim with no legal recourse, is unacceptable.

visidigi

cashdoc wrote: »

This isn't about an issue I am currently having.

cashdoc wrote: »

Currently I am awaiting £70 from a Sky contract I took out 6 months ago.

:huh::huh::huh:

You are beating a horse that has well and truly bolted. A forum search would have shown you how many times its come up and been discussed...

unholyangel

cashdoc wrote: »

Ah, I was unaware about consideration, thank you.

In that case, there are 2 ways to approach this.
1) Argue that your "contract" is with the cashback site AND the merchant jointly, with the cashback site acting merely as a client of the merchant.
2) Say that the laws as they stand are not fit for purpose. Because I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree that the way things currently stand, where risk is assumed by the consumer and cashback sites can reject cashback seemingly on a whim with no legal recourse, is unacceptable.

1) Your contract isn't with the cashback site for the reasons I explained earlier. They may have a contract with sky in which they're paid to advertise/per click of skys offer, but you still have no contract with them and its only the contracting party who owes you any liability. Any contract between sky and the cashback site is independent of your own contract as they are not ancillary/linked contracts.
2) Again, if sky are offering cashback, you fulfil the terms of the cashback offer and they refuse it, then you may have a claim against them for breach of contract - but its got nothing to do with the cashback company.

Dizzy_Ditzy

It took two years of chasing TCB for a result but they got there in the end

JJ_Egan

cashdoc wrote: »

And the fact that cashback doesn't enter into your buying decisions is fine for you but not for me. I mean, I find it odd that you don't consider the total cost with cashback versus the total cost without. But it's your money and your decision.

But you are telling me they don't pay out .

bris

If they are advertising £70 cash back then yes legally you should get it so if they are not paying out for everyone then for me the liability would lie with Sky as it ultimately them you conclude the contract with.


If however the cash back is working for most people then post 2 explains why these deals sometimes fall through from no fault of the site or the retailer. It's Easy to break the link by mistake and not know it.


The cash back sites T&C's cover them quite well but are they legal or unfair? Well for that answer we would need case law on it but for me I know that things go wrong on these sit so use them as a bonus rather than a deal maker.