Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cool New Mobile - cashback con - what can I do now ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6011 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

6 months ago started a mobile contract where after x months you send a

bill in and claim cashback....

Anyway, did this a few months ago, and send all the relevant docs as

per the terms and conditions of the offer. Today I have had a letter

telling me my claim has been disallowed because the handset despatch

note was missing from my claim. Funnily enough, this letter was

recieved 1 day after the 60 day limit on claims had passed, so I cant

sort it out, so they're not going to pay at all...

 

However, a few things to note:-

 

1. I did sent the despatch note with my claim - and I sent it all

recorded delivery. Bit convenient that one important doc has now gone

missing.

2. The original T+Cs (which I printed out when I took out the offer)

did not mention the despatch note in any case. It appears the T+Cs on

the website have since been changed.

 

I've pointed this out in writing to them, and am hoping they're going

to see sense.

 

All sounds like a bit of con here by this company. Surely they cant

carry on like this?

 

If they say no, what can I do about it? OK. I can take them to small

claims court but what are my chances? Amount is £84, so how much would

that cost to start a claim?

 

BTW. My wife also did the identical same offer, but started a few days

after me. Whats the betting that shes about to recieve a similar claim

denial letter ??? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulk of them work in this way, and the cashback scheme for mobiles is justly derided as a con in the truest sense of the word. You were never meant to get your money back, ever.

 

You can take them to court to force them, but if they defend it will be your word against yours unless you took steps to have independent verification of contents. You run the risk of spending more money with the possibility of getting none of it back, especially if a non-high street operation. The biggest collapse to date, Dialamobile of Birmingham proved that schemes like these should be avoided at all costs.

 

Your best recourse is to contact your network and explain what has happened, they will usually agree to a contract tariff reduction (but not much else) to keep your monthly payments close to what you thought they should have been with the cashback. You will of course see a loss in the number of inclusive minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulk of them work in this way, and the cashback scheme for mobiles is justly derided as a con in the truest sense of the word. You were never meant to get your money back, ever.

 

You can take them to court to force them, but if they defend it will be your word against yours unless you took steps to have independent verification of contents. You run the risk of spending more money with the possibility of getting none of it back, especially if a non-high street operation. The biggest collapse to date, Dialamobile of Birmingham proved that schemes like these should be avoided at all costs.

 

Your best recourse is to contact your network and explain what has happened, they will usually agree to a contract tariff reduction (but not much else) to keep your monthly payments close to what you thought they should have been with the cashback. You will of course see a loss in the number of inclusive minutes.

 

It seems that this sort of behaviour is pretty much the norm for Cool New Mobile judging by this:-

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=187496

 

Looks like quite a few people have issued a summons, and then CNM have paid up eventually.

 

I guess its easier for them to pay these instances rather than have the hassle of going to court and pick on the people who dont bother to fight it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, and it is a pity there isn't a central database consumers can refer to to see how many actions have been initiated (and settled prior to judgement). However the risk remains, you may spend money raising the action, confirming the default and then getting bailiffs to enforce, only to discover there's nothing for you. Shame the courts will not assist potential litigants with this data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

psychocandy, I have a similar situation. I am taking CNM to court using money online. my claim is as follow, (i hope it will help you)

 

On [ ] the claimant entered into a contract with the defendant to

purchase a new mobile phone. The terms of the contract promised cashback to the claimant of 5 equal payments of £84, total of £420, subject to compliance with terms and conditions, namely the submission of claim forms and original network bills (“Papers”) within 1 calendar month. The claimant had sent the Papers and despatch note by recorded delivery on [ ] but due to Royal Mail strike, the defendant received the Papers on [ ].

 

 

The defendant refused the first claim on [ ] stating “Failure to claim correctly within 21 days” as the defendant received the Papers within 26 days. This therefore “invalidate this claim and future claims”

 

 

Firstly, the claimant is still within the 1 calendar month, secondly it is unfair and unreasonable to invalidate future claims according to reg 6 Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 and s3 UCTA 1977 and finally the Ofcom Code of Practice has regarded the defendant Original Terms & Conditions as unfair. The claimant claims the full sum owed under the terms of the contract which the defendant has breached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't really use this? For a start nobody enters into a contract 'to buy a mobile phone'. You enter it to receive phone service - which is not the same thing. Secondly, unless your dealer also asked you to agree terms in writing for the cashback, it was most likely a marketing process - not a contract. You will be asked for evidence of the the contract with the dealer as principal (as you are suing them), your mobile network contract won't do.

 

As such, everything else based on this assertion is inaccurate, and the dealer could easily walk away from this at your expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby, thanks for your reply.

 

Does this mean there is no ground for me to take them to the court as i have no contract with them? barring in mind that phone services is provided by T-mobile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Surely they cant

carry on like this?

 

They can, and probably will, if people roll over and let it happen.

 

I imagine that those same T&Cs would also state that all future cash-back claims are void if you fail to meet the claim criteria on one claim? This would mean that, if you don't push for this payment, you will not be able to claim the reminder from them, then it works out to be VERY expensive.

 

Don't let it happen.

 

You have met your responsibilities as per the contract you were given. You should inform them, by post, that you intend to start legal action for the recovery of these funds - and all the future payments, if they do not give you an assurance in writing that future claims will be honoured - plus costs and interest. (This is your 'Request For Payment')

 

Give them 14 days to respond.

 

If they fail to, or refute your claim, then issue a 'Letter Before Action' giving a further 14 days.

 

If they still don't sort it out, issue a small claims action against them for breach of contract -any costs associated with the claim are added so that, if you are successful, they will also be refunded.

 

Keep thinking sensibly here - they are trying to shake you off with dubious excuses and this simply wouldn't hold up in court - they know it.

 

The fact that they have acknowledged your initial letter (albeit claiming a part was missing) would mean that you wouldn't need proof of posting the items, but if you have that then keep it.

 

Make sure you get a proof of posting with all letters you send to them - you don't need proof of delivery so don't pay out for those services.

 

I'm afraid you will find that some users here are quite happy for you to give up the ghost, not least because it MIGHT be difficult. I wonder if they would be so quick to dismiss the prospect if it were their money at stake.

 

P.S. If you are coming toward another claim, make sure you stick to the deadlines - don't fall foul of the timescales just because you are chasing this one up.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

jonni2bad, I don't have my own thread (my own topic?)

 

After reading CNM T & C, i have amended my Particulars of claim slightly. I hope i can put more in but there is a restriction in money online, 24 lines or 1080 characters!

 

On 22.5.07 the claimant('C'),entered into a

contract with the defendant('D'),to

purchase a mobile phone, 12 month minimum

term agreement with t-mobile.The terms and

conditions of the contract ('TC'),promised

cashback to the C of 5 payments of 84,total

of £420, subject to compliance with TC,

namely the submission of claim forms and

original network bills('Papers') within 1

calendar month.The C sent the Papers and

despatch note by recorded delivery on

4.10.07 but due to Royal Mail strike,the D

received the Papers on 22.10.07 The D

refused C's claim on 1.11.07 stating

failure to claim correctly within 21 days

and invalidate this claim and future

claims.Firstly,the C's claim is within the

1 calendar month, secondly it is unfair and

unreasonable to invalidate future claims

according to reg 6 Unfair terms in consumer

contracts regulations 1999 and s3 UCTA 1977

and finally the Ofcom Code of Practice has

regarded the D's TC as unfair. The C claims

£420 as the D has breached the contract.

 

Any comments are very welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby, thanks for your reply.

 

Does this mean there is no ground for me to take them to the court as i have no contract with them? barring in mind that phone services is provided by T-mobile.

 

Nooo - you can still hit them where it hurts, but you cannot call on your T-Mobile contract because the cashback deal was arranged outwith this, and although you couldn't have one without the other - you can still hit the dealer for unfairness, but just don't refer to the T-Mobile contract other than your dealer was an agent of T-Mobile and your cashback deal was conditional in taking out this contract. After that, you'll be 0K!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...