Watchdog next week

michaels

If the industry were willing to publish more info on what commissions the retailers were making it would be possible for consumers to take an informed view on whether the cashback deals were either likely to lead to excessive rejections or the retailer going broke. Instead this is a closely guarded secret and now some dealers are trying to reduce payouts by 'banning' cashbacks and instead handing out freebies which obviously cost them a lot less than the RPI - do they think we are all stupid.
Has anyone tried offering a cashback equal (less £10 profit) to the network rebate payable when the retailer is paid and credited automatically?

grayme-m

michaels wrote: »

If the industry were willing to publish more info on what commissions the retailers were making it would be possible for consumers to take an informed view on whether the cashback deals were either likely to lead to excessive rejections or the retailer going broke. Instead this is a closely guarded secret and now some dealers are trying to reduce payouts by 'banning' cashbacks and instead handing out freebies which obviously cost them a lot less than the RPI - do they think we are all stupid.
Has anyone tried offering a cashback equal (less £10 profit) to the network rebate payable when the retailer is paid and credited automatically?

Why should they tell though?

Car dealers don't publish how much they pay for the cars they sell, Tesco doesn't tell you how much it makes (or loses) on a tin of beans...

If a dealer doesn't offer cashback, isn't that is their call; if they offer something else as a sweetener then that is theirs too?

The problem is that people are now better at obtaining cashback, we put the times into our diaries and thanks to sites like this, rather than give up, people take them to court for unfair rejections.

It seems either we continue with only a few lucky ones getting all our cashback, or all getting some or a free gift or nothing.

I can't see how everyone can happily have free phones and connections as so many on here seem to desire.

Making it all easier and safer to get all your cashback just can't work inho, a policy where cashback is equal to the commission earned may be better given that some will just fail to claim without the need for proper claims to be rejected.

alnsv1000s

As an aside, the dealers are not protected if the customer defaults on their contract, and has all their commission clawed back by the network, when it is the network that accepted the customer in the first place.

We are then left with a loss in the cost of the phone which can equal many hundreds of pounds.

As Matt Alwright says before the cameras come out, "propostorous"

Its not only dealers that can be untrustworthy.

Some people just want their pound of flesh.

Do Virgin Media or BT or any of the other fixed landline companies, give out free fax machines, cordless phones, Answerphones etc, on a 12 or 18 month basis.

A lot of people want cashback and then are not prepared to put in the work to claim it back and then complain, which leads to regulation and a lessening of the deals.

With the lessening of the deals, more people will successfully get their cashback and then people will moan that the offers are not as generous as before.

No win situation.

michaels

Not sure I agree - if 12 months free is not economically viable then it shouldn't be offered. Chatterbox claim they were forced to go to a 40% redemption model even though their experience was 80%. To me this is fradulent trading and the directors should be prosecuted.

If the networks pay the retaillers a commission then it fairer that the cashback paid offered reflects a realistic estimate on the proportion of claims paid than that it results in either retaillers dishonestly denying claims (by for example claiming not all pages of a bill were sent) or the retailler going broke when new commissions fail to keep up with successful claims (with the retailler no doubt having paid themselves a nice salary/dividend before this happens) It also seems a strange business model that the networks are allowed to deny all responsibility for their 'agents' actions even though these actions are driven by the networks comission structure.

In summary I think the UTCCR 1999 is a good place to start and commission should be set at viable levels based on compliance with these regulations - and may be if the networks were forced to take responsibility for their retailers as well a fair compromise could be reached. Yes this would mean no more 12 months free but it would also mean less customers being ripped off.

alnsv1000s

It would mean more like 3 months free if you want a fairer model. The days of us earning £200 to £300 are long gone on consumer connections. Especially on higher end phones.

I pay cashback direct onto customers phone account on production of the first bill but this may only amount to up to £10 a month discount but it is all done and dusted and everyone is happy.

Up until recently the networks also had very high levels to get volume bonuses.

They are thankfully slowly moving away from that model.

thor

alnsv1000s wrote: »

A lot of people want cashback and then are not prepared to put in the work to claim it back and then complain, which leads to regulation and a lessening of the deals.

With the lessening of the deals, more people will successfully get their cashback and then people will moan that the offers are not as generous as before.

No win situation.

The reason why people are so unhappy with the dealers is that they are being denied their cashbacks even after doing all the hard work in making their claims. Also what kind of clowns rely on a business model which plans for a percentage of their customers failing to claim their money back . It is obvious that this rate would lessen as people got the hang of cashbacks? thus leading to cashback retailors engaging in more and more underhand deceit. If they can't afford to maintain good offers then they should cut back. So you may no longer be able to get a free phone and good contract on the cheap but on the other hand you won't be losing hundreds of pounds on something you would not have gone for had it been at a sale price.

grayme-m

thor wrote: »

Also what kind of clowns rely on a business model which plans for a percentage of their customers failing to claim their money back .

....all of them....? :rotfl:

The more people that clock onto the facts of cashback (can't fault your synopsis) the better, people are still posting that they threaten company x or y with not using them again as a way to get their cashback... :rolleyes2

jana777

just a quick note to everyone, today i had money £609 (incl court fees) refunded by Chatterbox after i filed 'money claim online'. they filed a defence giving them 28 extra days to respond but paid up on the last day before judgment could be entered against them.

DaveyWavey_3

jana777 wrote: »

just a quick note to everyone, today i had money £609 (incl court fees) refunded by Chatterbox after i filed 'money claim online'. they filed a defence giving them 28 extra days to respond but paid up on the last day before judgment could be entered against them.

Well done, I'm having a bit more 'fun' (read no luck :mad:) going the same route for my cash-back. Turns out that Chatterbox's Director (Kevin Patel) may well have mis-registered his Company with Companies House.

I'm posting via another well known consumer web-site:

• MoneySuperMarket.com

• http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/t/chatterbox-no-cashback-4231.aspx?PageIndex=22

And will be trying to get hold of the BBC Watchdog & Daily Mirror team who have both also reported on this issue:

• The Daily Mirror:
  • 20th September 2007
    • http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/investigates/2007/09/20/phoney-cashback-traps-customers-89520-19817817/
  • 11th October 2007
    • http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/investigates/2007/10/11/number-up-for-3-89520-19932181/
• BBC Watchdog
  • 17th October 2007
    • http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/reports/consumer_goods/consumer_20071017.shtml