Questions for mobile phone contract

[GotMugd]

Hi, since discovering about unfair terms in consumer contracts & using them to get my bank charges back, I wonder if this act can help me get back what I'm owed from my last mobile phone contract.

 

The contract was 1/2 price by way of cashback. On the phone I was told that I pay full price, then after month 6, all that I had paid up till then would be put into my bank.

A few weeks after month 6 I though I'd give them a call because no money had gone into my account. I was then informed that in the T&Cs I had a 2 week window at the end of month 6 in which to send copies of all my bills recorded delivery, then they would pay the money, and I had missed it. The guy on the phone was quite smug about it & told me "well you should have read the T&C's".

If I were to demand copies of my bills using an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) & then filed a moneyclaim to get this back, should I be confident that a judge would rule that this is an unfair term?

It clearly served no other purpose than to keep peoples money.

 

Thanks.

[chris_h]

Hi, since discovering about unfair terms in consumer contracts & using them to get my bank charges back, I wonder if this act can help me get back what I'm owed from my last mobile phone contract.

 

The contract was 1/2 price by way of cashback. On the phone I was told that I pay full price, then after month 6, all that I had paid up till then would be put into my bank.

A few weeks after month 6 I though I'd give them a call because no money had gone into my account. I was then informed that in the T&Cs I had a 2 week window at the end of month 6 in which to send copies of all my bills recorded delivery, then they would pay the money, and I had missed it. The guy on the phone was quite smug about it & told me "well you should have read the T&C's".

If I were to demand copies of my bills using an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) & then filed a moneyclaim to get this back, should I be confident that a judge would rule that this is an unfair term?

It clearly served no other purpose than to keep peoples money.

 

Thanks.

 

This is standard practice for money back schemes with mobile contracts. I hold a contract on behalf of my son, and it is similar. It is £100 cash back. It also kicks in after 6 months and I have to send a £25 voucher in with the latest bill, also within a two week window. This I have done and they have paid up OK.

I think you would be on shaky ground trying to challenge this as there is a set out procedure which does work if you follow it.

 

Chris

[MARTIN3030]

Yes there has been some success on these types of claims.

Although you need to check whether the contract falls within the Consumer Credit act as some do not.

You could try doing a search using the search button at the top of the page and have a read at some cases that have been featured on here.

[soltan]

I've seen these advertised and I think that they are quite misleading in the way they are put across, could there not be any recourse on that?

[buzby]

There are two types of scheme, those run by the networks (minority) and those run as cashback schemes provided by dealers and/or distributors. In the former case, the discount is provided as part of the contract, however the vast majority are in fact 'private deals' that are arranged 'on the side' of the main contract, and without any reference to it.

 

The first thing is the dealer is depending on people not reading the onerous terms and conditions as part of their ploy to knock back at least 50% of those applying, and that includes those who just simply forget anyway.

 

Those who DO remmber and comply with the terms quickly find out the dealership or distributor has ceased trading, and there is no possibility of making any financial return despite the agreement. There is little point in requesting a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from the network, as this will simply reflect the primary contract, as the cashback element has got nothing to do with them, and the actions of agents providing these deals is not enough for the network to set-aside any amount for customers caught this way - 3 has been caught particularly badly this way and has terminated 75 dealers for operating schemes that disadvantage customers, but it is has no responsibility to the customers caught in this way.

[buzby]

Although you need to check whether the contract falls within the Consumer Credit act as some do not.

 

I've not found any that fall within the CCA Martin, can you point me to a network or retailer that does, as I'd be interested to see its T&Cs.

[alvinlwh]

There are two types of scheme, those run by the networks (minority) and those run as cashback schemes provided by dealers and/or distributors. In the former case, the discount is provided as part of the contract, however the vast majority are in fact 'private deals' that are arranged 'on the side' of the main contract, and without any reference to it.

 

I had one moneyback scheme by O2 (i.e. I got from a O2 shop) but the cheque sill come from a different company at the end of month 6. The good thing is that by signing up at an O2 shop is they are unlikely to go out of business unlike some tiny shops down a dark alley.

[buzby]

Agreed, the network-based ones are still fiddly, but at least you've some comeback. The distributor-based ones are more/most likely to go sour, and there is absolutely no comeback againt the network or original contract.

[GotMugd]

The contract was with a dealer called communic8. They're still going & are one of the bigger dealers, so they are chaseable. It was for a 3 phone yes. At the time I contacted trading standards & watchdog, but got no help from either.

 

I just wonder if such a term would fall foul of the UTCCR as it is a deliberate trap & there is clearly no other reason for its existance.

[buzby]

Oh - I agree it's a deliberate trap, but for tohse that chart these things properly, and effectively play them at their own game - benefit. I would agree it's unfair, but not 'illegal' as the goals are achievable a LONG as you are prepared to follow the conditions to the letter.

 

As a network, 3 are blameless on this, but they are narked at these virtual scams and have been axeing dealerships because of problems like these, as they also bring in the wrong type of punter - usually one who cannot hope to pay for the contract without the aid of a cashback, and then when it goes pear-shaped they become a bad debtor... not of the dealer, but of the network. So, they are doing somethnig, but not anything that would help you in this predicament. At best, you lose out only on that month's cashback, but if crafted really sneakily,at worst it precludes you for collecting anying at all.

[GotMugd]

I actually had 2 phones, one for me & one for my wife, at £40 per month.

There was only one cashback payment at month 6 which would have been for £480. After they refused to pay it, I just had the tarriff set to the minimum & used them as little as possible.

 

Has anyone ever claimed their [edit] cashback after the contract has expired? Maybe the contract is not illegal, but the fact is that they owe me this money, and due to their unfair T&C's, I missed the claim window. Would a court not agree with that? Are there any examples?

 

As for 3 not being responsible at all, I can't agree. They knowingly worked with these [problematic] and were extremely unhelpful when I tried to take it up with them. Its a bit like me taking a share of a bank robbery & saying I am not to blame cos it wasn't me who robbed the bank. I will never use them again.

[buzby]

Who can tell what a court decides as 'reasonable' but you run the risk of losing as the vendor could say the whole point of the promotion was to generate sales (which it did) and if the customers chose not to follow the desgnated route to a cashback, then they're not liable. The problem is there are a LOT of promotions where the T&Cs are designed to trip you - I'm in the middle of a problem with Times Newspapers, as a subscriber I get vouchers I can use as a replacement for cutting up the paper each day. The voucher says tender it in place of multiple couponse, but the current promotion contradicts this by saying the vouchers I have are specifically excluded. I don't think it's right - and the value to be is around £380, but take it to court? I can't be bothered - I should have readthe caveats earlier.