Phoneboxdirect (merged threads)

buster1970

If you have some info on e2save / CPW then why not just say what it is. Dont let people order from them, have problems & then say I told you so. Better to avoid now rather than complain later.

mobilejunkie

I have been on various threads. However, it is very complicated and involves a number of things. A warning that all is not what it seems should be sufficient to make a reasonable person investigate before buying. In essence as a starting point they are not following the relevant t&c you now sign up to - but they don't make it clear what they are doing and it will probably be difficult to establish what that is with certainty beforehand. Anyone prepared to stick to the t&c they accept at the time can easily sue, but they know that most won't.

fedupwithphonebox

If you are with T-mobile get on the phone to them ASAP, I have copied them in on my recent correspondance to phonebox and have had an immediate response, absolutely brilliant-they are looking into it and have already said they feel this is unfair and they will be expecting phonebox to cough up.

fedupwithphonebox

alwayslearning wrote: »

Wow, good luck, I'm thinking of taking this road myself and am very surprised that they are going to defend it in full. Perhaps the more that sue, the greater chance we'll have?

Best wishes for your claim xx

Best of luck with your claim, I would suggest relying on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the new code of practice. I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs so to speak, but if I can be of any help let me know.

alwayslearning_2

fedupwithphonebox wrote: »

Best of luck with your claim, I would suggest relying on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the new code of practice. I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs so to speak, but if I can be of any help let me know.

Hi
If you were offering me a little help, I'd gladly accept it, as I'm really unsure whether I'd stand a chance in court? If they defended I would be able to attend as I live in Nottinghamshire, only about 20 miles away from them.

Any help greatly appreciated, as I feel like rolling over at the moment!

fedupwithphonebox

alwayslearning wrote: »

Hi
If you were offering me a little help, I'd gladly accept it, as I'm really unsure whether I'd stand a chance in court? If they defended I would be able to attend as I live in Nottinghamshire, only about 20 miles away from them.

Any help greatly appreciated, as I feel like rolling over at the moment!

You may wish to consider writing to the provider first, but if you do go to court then I would suggest you have a good chance on the basis of the 99 regs. s5 states

• A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

within Schedule 1 to the Act specific examples are given including:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;



In addition, the term which states ‘cash back files will be closed and cannot be re-opened’ which they seek to rely on to invalidate future claims is insufficiently clear to allow this as it is a general doctrine of contract law as referred to in section 7 of the legislation that

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.



I would also refer to the new Code of Practice which states that giving less than 60 days to claim is regarded as unfair. The retailers have a due diligence requirement to ensure those they deal with act under this code of practice, hence my suggestion to also contact them direct.



Hope this helps!

alwayslearning_2

fedupwithphonebox wrote: »

Hope this helps!

Great, thanks for that, think I'll start with Vodafone and the new code of practice......................

Neillgb

Alwayslearning,

Also remember that they will be required to attend the County Court closest to you. Another positive.

Good luck,

Neill

alwayslearning_2

Neillgb wrote: »

Alwayslearning,

Also remember that they will be required to attend the County Court closest to you. Another positive.

Good luck,

Neill

Thanks for your well wishes.

But are you sure that the location thing is correct? I took someone to small claims court and the case had to be based near their home address, they subsequently took me to court and it had to be heard near my home address, they were in London, I was in Notts..............

alwayslearning x

Quentin

The venue of any hearing depends on the status of the Defendant.

If the Defendant is a business, then the hearing is at the court nearest to the claimant.

(If the Defendant is an individual, then the hearing is at the court nearest to the Defendant).