Jump to content


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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4862 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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

n6600 - do you have your own thread in relation to your problems?

..

.

 

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...