Mobile Affiliates (CoolNewMobile+PhoneBoxDirect+Phones2YourDoor) in Administration

mouseclick

SED wrote: »

looks like we beat them to their own game!- but theyve had the last laff

apparently theyre in dubai having a "nice time"

scumbags!

Info source? Hotel? Hotel phone no? :whistle:

mouseclick

Micky wrote: »

Isn't that bordering on fraud?

I shall wheel out my age-old plan of holding 3 responsible for the actions of their agent.

To be fair, they are responsible. They pay huge commission to resellers - which comes from our line rental payments, so much that the resellers can get rich from the commission alone. These "hired hands" promise us phones for free. Then they run off with the commission, leaving end users to cough up.

I thought that's what this was all about...

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/mbp/cop.pdf

Keith_F

mouseclick wrote: »

So what exactly were the company's expectations, in terms of percent out of 100? I wonder if the administrators would give out this information?

To be viable they needed to pay out on less than 15% of deals.

They have achieved this quite easily until the last year, then people got very wise and made sure they remembered to claim.

At this point the business was in deep trouble. That is why they have pulled evrry trick in the book to try to avoid paying up. Now the ease of using MCOL has done for them. They have been unable to hide.

yabbas

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Get real. More fool you! I have two contracts with them and blame no-one but myself. I knew the risks and went for it and don't regret it that much either. I put off a third contract until I got below an acceptable level of exposure - which I had just done after getting three cashbacks (two on time). No doubt you and many others will run around like headless chickens blaming and accusing everyone you can think of with everything you can think of - except yourself, of course! You were forced to gobble up all those too-good-to-be-true never-mind-the-risk contracts. I actually feel a degree of sympathy for the owners; my impression was they tried very hard to stay in business or would have vanished a long time back. No doubt they made mistakes and got things wrong and resorted to dishonest tactics to try to stay afloat and ensure the same problem didn't recur - but I'm sure that too will fall on deaf ears. Besides, like you, I have no inside knowledge of the company but am not so quick to blame. You DIDN'T buy anything on your credit card. Trading Standards DID get involved a while back - but that's not always a good thing in any case. Tough. That's the game. If you don't like the rules, don't play! First hand I appear to have lost so I'm not complaining, however disappointing it may be.

You may continue your ranting now!

Numpty. :rolleyes: Seriously, don't try to teach your grandma to suck eggs. The "rules" are there to protect all parties involved - unfortunately some chose not to follow those. Nobody can create a contingency plan for those who decide to flex those bounds - to suggest that fraudulent company actions are known risks is absurd. [I'm building the straw man argument here.]

At every corner - despite having "no inside knowledge of the company", coffering up the suggestion that they MIGHT have resorted to dishonest tactics and that you "are not so quick to blame"; you still sound like you're singing praises re CNM. I'd imagine with what you say, you've not _really_ had any dealings with said company.

Having experienced first hand a great deal of dishonesty from the company in question, I can safely point the blame to the farcical administration and customer services teams that ran it. I can also blame TS officials that choose not to share or disclose information on related cases such as my own with the general public for any unfortunate customers who have only recently taken out a "deal" with CNM - they could have saved a lot of grief for a lot of indiviuals. I stand by my original rant - its clear the government can see flaws with the system in place [and are addressing them http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/content/17258.asp?men=0&sub=1 .] More fool me? I think not.


The risks were simple - don't send your claims in correctly and on time - you lose the game.

Insolvency due to malpratice, fraud and dishonesty wasn't part of the game plan at the time.

Creating a straw-man business that relies on breaking a few eggs to make omelettes from 85% of their customers, foundations that were clearly crumbling - and keeping the business afloat by throwing more fuel on the fire, and so on...that's not part of the game plan.

Keith_F

TS are in a difficult position.

If they are aware of claims failures and address it with the company, who then put thier house in order, everything is great.

BUT if they tell the public about the problems and as a result people choose to stop using it, the company will go down the tubes and current customers will lose out. Then everybody blames TS for causing a lack of trust in the company.

If they do not tell the public and the company still cannot make it work, they get blamed then as well.

neates

I cancelled my contract on the day of liquidation Wed 14th Nov, but had already paid £89.99 for the phone on my card. Is there any way I can get my money back?

mobilejunkie

If you sent the phone back the credit card should indemnify you. I'm not sure if there's a minimum spend though - but it's definitely worth a try.

Quentin

Minimum spend for the statutory protection is £100.

But they may be able to claw it back somehow. As mj says, it's got to be worth a try.

fista

I received a cheque from them on Fri after I threatened them with court action for £180- dya think that'll bounce?

mobilejunkie

Pay it in and you'll find out soon enough. My bank doesn't charge for an incoming bounced cheque so I wouldn't hesitate.