Mobile Cashback Petition

NitroBN

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I'm not sure people have learnt much at all judging by the mistakes they repeatedly make. Life isn't "fair" and no regulation or wishful thinking will make it so - usually it has the reverse effect. If this is a "crime" the police would prosecute (except, of course, they too have been "regulated" to only worry about the spin). Maybe the market is a crime - if so I prefer it to the alternative.

Anyone "denied" a claim for unjust reasons can sue; the fact so many DID learn THAT much is partly to blame for the demise of some of the merchants. There is leagl recourse in most cases. Anyone who put a substantial amount into a clear minnow was taking a disproportinate risk. Everyone seems to have been quite happy to get something for nothing - they didn't want to worry about how it was possible or anyone but themselves. Only when they lost out did they start to take umbridge. I still do these deals without hesitation if they are right. I criticise the practises of the dealers, but then I could do the same of most other organisations nowadays. Unfrotunately we live in a world of "spin" - crying to the absolute masters of that will be no-one's salvation.

My views may not be popular but this isn't a popularity contest. Maybe it would be easy to keep quiet; but there is such nonsense on here that my contribution at least challenges the apparently popular views. I repeat; I have lost money too with one dealer but have never thought of them or described them as crooks as a result. I have no interest as supplier and or affiliations with networks. I've probably done far more deals than most on here and therefore feel just as qualified to put what I believe is a more balanced and far less hysterical view. I am perfectly aware most won't agree; such is life and it doesn't mean I'm wrong!

Most follow the civil path becasue that is the path a solicitor will usually advise on, mainly because that is the path that is most financially viable for the solicitor and may also gain some finance for the client. Myself I could really careless about the over payment I have already made on the deal, I had already put in the written intention to cancel notice to them and offered them the oportunity to simply walk away and feel lucky they got away with that extra, they have declined, made no effort to apologize and elected to take it to the next level not me, now I will be going down the road of willfull fraud and deception, followed up by attempted blackmail and extortion of which I have written proof. So I will be pressing for criminal charges and getting the entire board including the CEO into the criminal courts first before I consider any civil action. To be frank I could really careless about any compo at all, all I want is true justice and as there is no doubt this method of trade is fraudulent then the only path to follow to get the message across that this kind of trade ragardless of what the goods are is intolerable is to get it into the criminal court room. Just because you can hide behind a board room and a few LTD's or PLC's does not mean you can do what you like criminally and then try to make it a civil matter.

Fact: If you are selling goods you knowingly cannot deliver in full prior to going to market with those deals that is will full fraud. Fraud on any scale is a crmininal and prisonable offence. The larger the scale the worse the sentence is likely to be, period. Also if you premeditatedly use any hidden documentation to fail to deliver the due goods and fulfil your obligations then it would be subject to the simailar laws of will full fraud and deception . Any company or sole trader that knowingly places itself into a position of insolvency by marketing offers it can not ever hope to fulfill is without doubt acting fraudulently.

The way I feel right now the board of the company would not be able to offer me their entire wealth to distribute across all they have robbed with this scam as a satisfactory settlement. I am not for sale, the money is really irrelevant, the principle is the company has since pushed it to far, tested my patience to its extreme and that is a path to walk down of which there is no return. Although I will be following up my complaint with Otelo as soon as I can, that side of the compalint will simply become an advisory because its the proper procedure to follow and needs to be in place, however the nature of the complaint has gone beyond the capability of Otelo to actually handle now as I do not believe they are equipped to deal with any criminal actions and there is certainly a case for blackmail and extortion on top of the initial fraud.

You see the petition is really quite superficial, it is however doing its job of making those in apropriate places well aware there is some major issues within the mobile industry yet again, the fact is there is rin general sufficient laws already in existence to cover most of the issues in currently being endured by the consumers including most of these cash back issues and in either court room.

Something many may not be aware of but if you take out a mobile phone on contract from an independant retailer the contract of sale is with that retailer and not as most believe with the network provider. The network provider and the retailer are the ones carrying your main contract between each other. Therefore if the retailer fails to provide what it has promised to deliver at any time during the contracted period under the terms of the sale and/or contract that is sufficient grounds to cancel regardless of what the network provider has to say about it. The same goes if the network provider fails to deliver something, you are then well within your rights to take your argument to the retailer, it is then up to the retailer to provide redress which they will often do via contacting the network provider first. You should also note that if your service is cut due to a cancellation becuase of various changes by the providor or the retailer then those parties are usually legally liable to compensate you for having to find an alternative provider, this means if you had run a contract with xx for 3 months and they then made some change or failed to deliver on somehthing, not only are they obliged to permit cancellation there would also be the liability to reimburse you for the period you had use of the phone. The grounds for this is because just about all phones are network locked meaning they cannot just dump you unless they offer to leave you with the phone and it be made sim unlocked by the network of course, but if they cannot do this then they are either obliged to reimburse what you have already paid, less some for use or pay sufficient redress that you would be at the same position you were at on a new network. This could also be deemed to include any extra costs you incurred looking for a new deal as it was not your fault the provider or retailer failed to deliver or maintain the terms of the contract and it had to be cut short. So you see the law is actually very much already on the side of the consumer when its nessecary, as long as you know how to apply it.

In repsonse to your supermarkets analogy there is no similarity at all, they run the loss leaders to get customers into their store, they make sufficient profit by delivering on other goods they sell in store to those customers to cover the loss leaders while their customers are in there and not by simply failing to deliver at the expense of other customers, or are you sugesting that its now become a lottery as to wether anymart will actually let you out the doors of the store with your groceries after going through the checkout ?

The real loser are already the customers, and in the 1000's if not the tens of 1000's and not the dealers or the networks, a network is highly unlikely to go bust, a dealer can if it needs to and then another member of the family takes up the business. A year down the road your all in the clear again.

mobilejunkie

Well, interesting how the law can be made up by each individual. It's pretty basic that you have two contracts and they are quite separate. Still, wishful thinking and wild accusations are the norm with lynch mobs. I have strong principles too, money notwithstanding; I like my freedom of choice AND freedom of responsibility and as far as I'm concerned the deelars DO pay. I've sued a majory holiday company twice and won - not yet had to sue a mobile dealer despite using them much more. If I do, I won't need a solicitor (neither does anyone else to do that!).

Still, you are (like me) entitled to your views and have taken the time and trouble to set them down, which is commendable.

alnsv1000s

Well at least everyone can be relieved that there is one large company out there whom is honerable, as per a report in Mobile Today:

Carphone Warehouse has defended its cashback deals in light of greater scrutiny on cashback promotions from Ofcom and bad publicity surrounding cashback.

CEO Charles Dunstone said: 'Cashback deals are a reflection of the aggression people have to get new connections. Subsidies are now significantly higher than the cost of the phones and the margins people are looking to make, so the residuals are given away as cashback.'

Several thousand customers were left with unpaid cashbacks after Dialamobile and Mobile Media Systems collapsed last year. 'Although Ofcom is looking at it, it is an issue for customers who have bought from very small outlets, and been promised cashbacks and [the companies] have gone bankrupt. It's an issue of fraud of people setting up a business, promising cashbacks and then collapsing the business rather than coming from networks or reputable businesses like ourselves.'

Dunstone added: 'It [cashback] will continue because that's the way the market is. If it was to stop we would make a lot more money, but I can't see that happening.'

So going Bankrupt is Fraud, but making offers and then making it extremely hard for people to get was was offered, as per the hundreds of threads on this forum and many others.

Or the misery caused to thousands of people with TalkTalk or Breaching the Data Protections Act.

Hardly an angel.

The Carphone Warehouse allowed customers to view other people's account details, passed inaccurate information on to debt collectors and opened accounts in the wrong name, according to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

The actions were in breach of the Data Protection Act and the ICO has issued Carphone Warehouse and sister company Talk Talk with enforcement notices ordering them to comply with the Data Protection Act. If they fail to do so they risk a criminal prosecution. "Both companies failed to meet the basic principles of the Data Protection Act," said an ICO statement.
Carphone Warehouse said that the incidents happened when the company was extremely busy.
"We are aware that a very small number of our customers raised concerns with the ICO some time ago," said a Talk Talk statement. "The issues were primarily caused by the significant interest in TalkTalk’s introduction of free broadband, over 18 months ago. We take these matters very seriously indeed, and as soon as these concerns were brought to our attention we took immediate steps to resolve them and to ensure we are fully compliant with the Data Protection Act."
The ICO detailed its findings. "The investigation revealed that Carphone Warehouse and TalkTalk had been opening customer accounts in the wrong name and passing inaccurate information on to credit reference agencies and debt collection agencies," it said. "Security failings had also led to customers being able to view other customers' account details online. In addition, the ICO found that the companies had not responded to requests by individuals for information held about them." "The Data Protection Act gives us all important rights, including the right to correct inaccurate information and to find out what information an organisation holds on us," said Mick Gorrill, assistant commissioner at the ICO. "Organisations that process personal information must comply with the Act and, where we find that this is not the case, the ICO will take enforcement action."

bindiboo

just had a email...almost forgot about signin the petition. I think I signed this when I got stung by phoneboxdirect.


Mobilescashback - epetition reply

17 July 2008
We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make mobile phone network operators legally responsible for the cashback deals offered on their phone services."
Details of Petition:
"Massive mobile phone discounts are offered in the form of a 'cashback redemption'. This has to be claimed from the retailer, yet the conditions are designed to be difficult, time consuming and easy to mess-up. These offers are based on the prediction that not enough consumers will fulfill all the conditions to get the cashback, and this misleading premise means many end up paying much more than they think they will. The networks pay commission to retailers for each new contract signed to their service, and often encourage retailers to promote cashback deals in the full knowledge they can't all be successful. Yet now, growing waves of savvy consumers are succeeding in meeting the cashback retailers' terms; meaning the retailers can't afford to pay out and therefore go into administration, as in the case of phoneboxdirect and coolnewmobile; leaving 10,000s in the lurch but with no recourse to the networks who encourage these irresponsible deals. The current situation affords network operators continued benefit whilst consumers are disadvantaged and regulation needs to be put in place to protect consumers and rebalance the market."

• Read the petition
• Petitions home page

Read the Government's response

Thank you for signing the e-petition calling for mobile phone network operators to be made legally liable for the cash back deals offered on their phone networks.
Last year, the five mobile phone network operators signed up to a voluntary industry code aimed at dealing with certain misleading practices in the sales and marketing of mobile phone contracts. Abuses by a minority of sales staff, agents and retailers have included customers being given false or inaccurate information when taking out a contract; slamming, where customers are transferred from one operator to another without their knowledge or consent; and the use of "cash back" promotions, where the companies involved subsequently fail to reimburse the consumer.
The independent regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) welcomed the industry's attempt to put its own house in order, but warned that, in the consumer interest, the industry needed to demonstrate that the code would have a significant and swift effect on the abuses. Although the code led to some reduction in the level of complaints and flushed out a number of cash-back operators with unsustainable models, the level of consumer complaints have continued at unacceptably high levels.
Following a formal investigation at the end of last year, Ofcom is therefore now proposing a new mandatory code that will require mobile operators:

• not to engage in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct and to ensure that those selling their products and services similarly do not mis-sell;
• to make sure the customer intends and is authorised to enter into a contract;
• to make sure consumers get the information they need at the point of sale;
• to ensure that the terms and conditions of cash back deals offered by their retailers are fair; and
• to carry out due diligence and a number of checks in respect of its retailers.

The proposed maximum penalty for breaching the new code will be a fine of up to a maximum of 10 per cent of relevant turnover.
The full text of Ofcom's proposals can be found on the website.
In these Ofcom canvass a range of options for dealing with cash-back schemes, reflecting the wide span of views raised during its investigation. Ofcom's central proposals on cash-back recognise that 80% of consumers receive the proper amount of cash-back, with no difficulty, from sustainable providers. Ofcom's aim therefore is to ensure that all retailers who offer cash-back in future offer it on fair terms and can deliver on those terms. Ofcom propose to place a duty on the mobile network operators to ensure that retailers do this. The consultation has now closed and Ofcom is reviewing the responses, and will issue its final statement later on in the year.
Further Information

bindiboo

bump.........