Jump to content


buymobilephones.net cashback refusal


tifo
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3839 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

Hi,

 

A friend of mine signed up for two contracts in April 2006, one for him and one for me (i have a bad credit score). This was with 12 months free line rental via cashback at months 4, 8 and 12.

 

He sent the invoices to them after 4 months (note 'after' here, as their terms and conditions stated 'months' and not 'invoices'. They refused to pay the money (£140 x 2 = £280) saying it was late, because they needed 4 invoices within 4 'invoice months'. In mobile terms, if i get a contract on 1st Jan, then on 1st Feb i have 2 invoices (for Jan and Feb) therefore this means 2 months to them. To me this means 1 month.

 

Now comes the second cashback, again of £140 x 2 = 280. This time it was sent within the time given, but they now state we have forfeited any cashback claims as the 1st one MUST be accepted by them to claim the 2nd and 3rd. However, the first cashback is still in dispute because of the meaning of '4 months = 4 invoices'.

 

There are no vouchers to send, just a matter of remembering when to send a claim.

 

In total. this may mean a loss of £420 x 2 contracts = £840!

 

They have changed their terms and conditions in June, which state 'Acceptance of claims for the second, third, fourth and fifth installment will depend on acceptance of all previous claims.' I have asked for the terms before this as those will apply to us.

 

So, we are issuing a claim against them in the small claims court, stating that the term 'months' must mean that and not 'invoices' as they want, plus they should make it clear in their terms about this.

 

Shall we also state unfair terms and conditions detrimental against the consumer, as it definitely is by not allowing us to claim the rest of the cashback because the first one is in dispute. They choose the first one because most people are in confusion about months and invoices like we are. Its an easy way to get out of it for them.

 

We are also reporting the matter to Trading Standards, as well as Safebuy and TrustUK, and BBC Watchdog. £840 is a lot of money to lose!

 

Anyone have any advice for me regarding mobile cashbacks?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

A friend of mine signed up for two contracts in April 2006, one for him and one for me (i have a bad credit score). This was with 12 months free line rental via cashback at months 4, 8 and 12.

 

He sent the invoices to them after 4 months (note 'after' here, as their terms and conditions stated 'months' and not 'invoices'. They refused to pay the money (£140 x 2 = £280) saying it was late, because they needed 4 invoices within 4 'invoice months'. In mobile terms, if i get a contract on 1st Jan, then on 1st Feb i have 2 invoices (for Jan and Feb) therefore this means 2 months to them. To me this means 1 month.

 

Now comes the second cashback, again of £140 x 2 = 280. This time it was sent within the time given, but they now state we have forfeited any cashback claims as the 1st one MUST be accepted by them to claim the 2nd and 3rd. However, the first cashback is still in dispute because of the meaning of '4 months = 4 invoices'.

 

There are no vouchers to send, just a matter of remembering when to send a claim.

 

In total. this may mean a loss of £420 x 2 contracts = £840!

 

They have changed their terms and conditions in June, which state 'Acceptance of claims for the second, third, fourth and fifth installment will depend on acceptance of all previous claims.' I have asked for the terms before this as those will apply to us.

 

So, we are issuing a claim against them in the small claims court, stating that the term 'months' must mean that and not 'invoices' as they want, plus they should make it clear in their terms about this.

 

Shall we also state unfair terms and conditions detrimental against the consumer, as it definitely is by not allowing us to claim the rest of the cashback because the first one is in dispute. They choose the first one because most people are in confusion about months and invoices like we are. Its an easy way to get out of it for them.

 

We are also reporting the matter to Trading Standards, as well as Safebuy and TrustUK, and BBC Watchdog. £840 is a lot of money to lose!

 

Anyone have any advice for me regarding mobile cashbacks?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a word? Don't!

 

As you've found, every trick in the book is used to weed out claimants and terms and conditions are made ambiguous on purpose. The icing on the cake is of course the forfeiture of subsequent claims if the first is not met.

 

I don'r think you'll get far with the unfair terms as being detrimental to the consumer. EVERY contract I have read is detrimental (Pay late we wreck your credit score, your personal data will be passed to anyone we like and you waive all rights etc etc etc). You might have more chance in claiming they were operating an illegal lottery - as the chances of completing your claim have about the same odds!

 

There would be little point in pursuing them through MoneyClaim, as they would reject this, however a standard small claims action for the first amount not paid, and let the Judge decide whether the ambiguous phrase in the arrangement were designed to mislead on purpose.

 

Of course, there are more firms who have offered cashbacks and gone bust, than there are offering them today, but the longevity of the trading period of these firms is not guaranteed. The more people make successful claims, the quicker they disappear. Be careful in wasting court enforcement fees on a company that may never pay you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

There is £840 at stake here, which is a lot of money.

 

However, they will have to first explain what they mean by 'months' in their terms, and why they do not simply use the word 'invoices' or 'billing period'. They are rejecting the first claim on the basis of it being late, but my friend did send it after 4 'months' which is what they stated. It was late because of 'invoices', but there is no mention of this word in the terms.

 

Secondly, they have changed their terms and conditions and are making us stick to the new ones, without any notice etc. My friend simply did not agree to the current terms but the ones which were in force at the time in April, which are very different (different cashback periods and different method of claiming).

 

They will have to show to a judge why they don't clearly state what happens if we miss the 2nd, 3rd or 4th period, as they are only mentioning the 1st one. This is misleading and causes deliberate confusion.

 

We'll be sending them the court papers this week. They've had over 4 months to pay up (1st period, even the 2nd one is now due - a total of £560).

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot change the terms of your contract after you have entered into it.

 

Any term within the contract which claims to allow them to do this would be classed as an unfair term and not enforceable.

 

In addition, the word "months" in your contract would, to a reasonable person, mean calendar months and I am confident that a judge would agree.

 

I doubt you can claim that having to send a bill in would be an unfair term unless it would be impossible to comply with it - for example, wanting the invoice by a certain date when it's not even send it out to you by this time.

 

Cashback offers are a nightmare, to be honest.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi yes, i agree ... we are stating the 1st invoices were on time because we sent them after 4 calendar months within the 28 days given, which is what it said in the terms (they had the word 'months', not the word 'calendar') and which is what 'months' means to most people. Therefore they are in the wrong when they say they meant something else, i.e. invoices or billing period.

 

Once they have to pay the 1st cashback, they automatically have to pay the 2nd because it was in time according to their 'invoices'.

 

Trading Standards say this is also the case, because we have to establish what they mean by 'months' as it applies to most people.

 

The term about 'miss the 1st and miss the rest' is also debatable as they don't make it clear what happens if we get the 1st one on time but one of the next ones are late? They should foresee this and have it in their terms, otherwise customers just do not know what is happening.

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

We are taking them to court for refusal to pay our rebate. Posting on the seemingly unlimited sites with complaints about them to see if people want to join us.

 

Really if we don't stop this nonsense, it will just continue (just read the email itself to see how complex the structure is for obtaining the rebate and how confused and convoluted they make the process).

 

Get in touch. We will win...but it doesn't make sense to me to have every one of us have to clog up the courts. Lets do it together in one and end this now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are taking them to court for refusal to pay our rebate. Posting on the seemingly unlimited sites with complaints about them to see if people want to join us.

 

Really if we don't stop this nonsense, it will just continue (just read the email itself to see how complex the structure is for obtaining the rebate and how confused and convoluted they make the process).

 

Get in touch. We will win...but it doesn't make sense to me to have every one of us have to clog up the courts. Lets do it together in one and end this now.

 

Hi, yes I would love to join you!

I purchased over the phone (as website was having problems) 2 phones 1 for my Mum who does not have internet (which I did tell them) and 1 for myself. When the welcome packs arrived we both noticed other than cashback vouchers there were no details of how to claim. I phoned and was told to wait until bill 6 in my case August arrived then send that bill (original copy) recorded delivery with the voucher within 14 days of date on Bill.

My mum concerned and aware that unless it is followed to the letter these companies do not pay cashback actually rang them in August before posting off checking if she was following the right instructions and was told by the call centre member yes everything she had ready to post off was fine. ie. voucher the august bill. I then did the same but neither of us got anything back.

I emailed them after being told I couldn't speak to anyone on the phone and got an email telling me as I had not adhered to the terms and conditions I would not get any cashback now or in the future! My mums claim was the same.

I have emailed back to say I never got any terms or conditions to adhere to so followed buymobilephones.net staff instructions to the letter. They are still refusing to admit there staff gave my mum and myself dud advice on at least 2 seperate occassions! I am going to see the Citizines Advice tomorrow. I have sucessfully claimed cashback with E2 Save (who are decent enough to provide all the details on how to claim cashbacks in there welcome pack so am fairly savvy but was aware all companies have different rules.

This afore mentioned company are a bunch of crooks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Hey every site has their terms and condition. Many of the terms are common like they are not responsible of any kind of damages. once product sold cannot be replace only in some special case only it changes. First it was risky but now the website has been advance coding and are now secure.

 

You can get it for Https: url site that are secure and safe for online purchasing. And many of the sites have their certificate that their website is safe and secure for online purchase. One best example for buy mobile phones you can get it from here. You can even see all this features in this site

Link to post
Share on other sites

though this is an old thread, just to let you know that as soon as we issued an N1 in the local court, they paid up in full with costs. That was in Dec 2006 or Jan 2007.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...