Cashbacks - Are Mobileshop still OK?

seeeker wrote:

> As 'the contents' are a bit of paper with no monetary value except it's
> value as a small piece of paper you will not be paid out compensation
> should it go missing. If you want compensation for THE CONSEQUENCES of
> that 'bit of paper' going missing ie the value of the cashback claim
> that that 'bit of paper' represented then you needed to send the
> package by RM Special Delivery with the additional 'consequential loss'
> compensation cover to the value of the cashback claim that the 'bit of
> paper' represented had it arrived safely at it's destination - this
> will cost around £5 - £6 per claim and needs factoring in to the
> original cashback deal to see if it's worth it.

This is one of the areas where RM attempt to wriggle and wriggle out of
their legal responsibilities.

"Even though you sent the item by Special Delivery and we lost it and
it cost you over £4, we aint paying you a penny because the vouchers
weren't actually worth the £50 you're claiming"

I'd take my chances before a District Judge in Court every time.

---

› See More: Cashbacks - Are Mobileshop still OK?

Special Delivery includes
> insurance. Under that insurance I'd say that you have a pretty good
> claim for loss of the voucher (because if the voucher cannot be
> re-issued then it effectively carries the full value of the claim).
> You also have a good claim for compensation if the voucher is late
> because you have paid for next day delivery.
>
> regards, Ian

I reiterate my previous post, there's no 'pretty good' chance about it,
RM compensation scheme and rules are unequivocal, THE VALUE OF THE
PHYSICAL CONTENTS of the envelope are what is insured - in this case a
physical 'piece of paper' with no monetary value. If you want the
financial consequences of the loss of that 'piece of paper' insured
against i.e. £X (the value of the cashback claim that that 'piece of
paper' represented), you need CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS insurance only
avaliable with Special delivery. Of course as a separate issue you
have a claim for late delivery, but compensation is for the refund of
your Special Delivery postal cost PLUS £10 maximum only (if over 7
days late), and again not the CONSEQUENCE of the late delivery of that
'piece of paper' i.e. the cashback claim £X. The fact that you lose
£X (value of cashback claim) due to the late delivery of that
valueless 'piece of paper' is again a CONSEQUENCE of the late delivery.
Your logic (and your claim) would be chucked out in three nanoseconds
by RM.

>
> "Even though you sent the item by Special Delivery and we lost it and
> it cost you over £4, we aint paying you a penny because the vouchers
> weren't actually worth the £50 you're claiming"
>
> I'd take my chances before a District Judge in Court every time.

The vouchers weren't worth £50, the vouchers were valueless pieces of
paper.
The consequences of the loss of those vouchers were £50.
This appears to be a difficult concept for people to understand, RM who
make the rules and a district Judge would interpret that concept to the
letter.

seeeker wrote:
> >
> > "Even though you sent the item by Special Delivery and we lost it and
> > it cost you over £4, we aint paying you a penny because the vouchers
> > weren't actually worth the £50 you're claiming"
> >
> > I'd take my chances before a District Judge in Court every time.
>
> The vouchers weren't worth £50, the vouchers were valueless pieces of
> paper.
> The consequences of the loss of those vouchers were £50.
> This appears to be a difficult concept for people to understand, RM who
> make the rules and a district Judge would interpret that concept to the
> letter.

It's not a difficult concept at all; if the vouchers are
"non-replaceable" then they're worth £50 because without them you're
£50 out of pocket. My uniquely numbered ticket for a Madonna concert
(clearly marked non replaceable and non-transferrable) is worth £75 -
it's not a worthless piece of paper.

RM may make "the rules" but thankfully they dont make the law.

First question a District Judge would ask is "where is the Claimant's
package which he paid a premium for next day guaranteed delivery with a
signature as proof of receipt".

The moment the RM solicitor (even though they wouldn't defend such an
action) states "we lost it, we're in breach of contract", it's game
over.

>
> RM may make "the rules" but thankfully they dont make the law.
>
> First question a District Judge would ask is "where is the Claimant's
> package which he paid a premium for next day guaranteed delivery with a
> signature as proof of receipt".
>
> The moment the RM solicitor (even though they wouldn't defend such an
> action) states "we lost it, we're in breach of contract", it's game
> over.

You assume RM didn't write "the rules" to skate within the boundaries
of legality, again I state the RM compensation fine print is
unequivocal. The moment the RM solicitor states "we lost it, we're in
breach of contract, and our terms in such an event state the physical
contents value is insured not the consequence of the loss of those
contents, what were the contents physical value and we'll refund as per
our terms, or pay the consequential £50 value if that option was
selected at outset".
You are correct it would be game over before it started, and your free
30 minute legal opinion would advise you of that I suspect.
I concede that in the event of a small claims court hearing, RM may
just pay up to avoid the cost of contesting the hearing for a trifling
£50 + costs claim, but that's a different issue to the legalities of
the claim and the basis of this debate.
My money's with RM and the district Judge interpreting the
aforementioned, apparently still difficult to grasp concept.

seeeker wrote:
> >
> > RM may make "the rules" but thankfully they dont make the law.
> >
> > First question a District Judge would ask is "where is the Claimant's
> > package which he paid a premium for next day guaranteed delivery with a
> > signature as proof of receipt".
> >
> > The moment the RM solicitor (even though they wouldn't defend such an
> > action) states "we lost it, we're in breach of contract", it's game
> > over.
>
> You assume RM didn't write "the rules" to skate within the boundaries
> of legality, again I state the RM compensation fine print is
> unequivocal.

Well, your posting here as a RM employee is admirable but I suspect you
have failed to grasp the meaning of "consequential loss".

Read RM's own website definition and interpretation. If they lose your
passport application and you have to travel to Swansea in person to
sort the mess out, you can claim compensation for rail fairs, hotel
expenses etc - that's what's meant by "consequential loss". Not,
repeat NOT, simply failing to fulfil the contract which they've entered
into and accepted a very high premium for............to send a mobile
phone bill and voucher by 1st class mail costs 32p, the same items by
Special Delivery costs almost £5, a 1500% markup.

Going by what you've posted, I suspect you don't pay your council tax,
your telephone, gas, electricity or mobile telephone bills because
they're just worthless bits of paper that have no value? And no court
in the land would enforce judgement against you because the paperwork
on it's own is clearly worthless?

Now behave and stop misleading the sheeple in here.

> Well, your posting here as a RM employee is admirable but I suspect you
> have failed to grasp the meaning of "consequential loss".

> Going by what you've posted, I suspect you don't pay your council tax,
> your telephone, gas, electricity or mobile telephone bills because
> they're just worthless bits of paper that have no value? And no court
> in the land would enforce judgement against you because the paperwork
> on it's own is clearly worthless?
>

Dear o dear o dear, the point has been made now over three posts and I
suspect this is becoming tedious to all. I pity you for spending the
last two hours trawling through RM small print trying to disprove it,
and further wonder at someone who in this age of direct debits and
online banking still pays their paper bills by post.
The only way forward here is by the voice of experience if any come
forward, and I bow to your (misgiuded) admiration.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
seeeker wrote:
> > RM may make "the rules" but thankfully they dont make the law.

Well, your posting here as a RM employee is admirable but I suspect you
have failed to grasp the meaning of "consequential loss".

Read RM's own website definition and interpretation. If they lose your
passport application and you have to travel to Swansea in person to
sort the mess out, you can claim compensation for rail fairs, hotel
expenses etc - that's what's meant by "consequential loss". Not,
repeat NOT, simply failing to fulfil the contract which they've entered
into and accepted a very high premium for............to send a mobile
phone bill and voucher by 1st class mail costs 32p, the same items by
Special Delivery costs almost £5, a 1500% markup.

Going by what you've posted, I suspect you don't pay your council tax,
your telephone, gas, electricity or mobile telephone bills because
they're just worthless bits of paper that have no value? And no court
in the land would enforce judgement against you because the paperwork
on it's own is clearly worthless?

Now behave and stop misleading the sheeple in here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that Seeker is correct with regards to the Royal Mail. I
appreciate what you say in that Royal Mail alter their services to imply
that if you want consequential loss you have to pay for it to make people
think that they have no ownership for when things go wrong with standard
post, but unfortunately whatever Royal Mail imply, if they do lose mail,
there is nothing that you as the consumer can do.

Royal Mail lose so much mail every year through 1st and 2nd class post that
if everyone could get away with suing them, they'd already have gone under.

The gas/electricity bill example you gave is not of the same league. When
you take out a utility, you sign a document confirming a written contract
for these services. This is a far cry from putting a stamp on a letter.

Standard post isn't contract driven on content - you simply pay for a
service to move a package from a to b that is on par with a paper boy
delivering a newspaper. With these kind of services you are not in a
position to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Royal Mail have not
delivered as the service does not include the requirement for you and
specifically only you to sign for the package. Furthermore, the service
provided specifically states that it does not insure against high value
items which are sent at the original sender's risk. If Royal Mail could be
held to high value items, the majority of businesses would not use Securicor
etc and simply send by Royal Mail for the price of a stamp and then claim in
court.

There is no chance of anyone claiming against a service that does not insure
against that value.

Nothing will convince a court of law otherwise. If it could then you
wouldn't see insurance payment as a requirement in additional to P&P in ebay
services etc.

AMO

seeeker wrote:
>> Well, your posting here as a RM employee is admirable but I suspect you
>> have failed to grasp the meaning of "consequential loss".
>
>> Going by what you've posted, I suspect you don't pay your council tax,
>> your telephone, gas, electricity or mobile telephone bills because
>> they're just worthless bits of paper that have no value? And no court
>> in the land would enforce judgement against you because the paperwork
>> on it's own is clearly worthless?
>>
>
> Dear o dear o dear, the point has been made now over three posts and I
> suspect this is becoming tedious to all. I pity you for spending the
> last two hours trawling through RM small print trying to disprove it,
> and further wonder at someone who in this age of direct debits and
> online banking still pays their paper bills by post.
> The only way forward here is by the voice of experience if any come
> forward, and I bow to your (misgiuded) admiration.

What about his point of a £75 (non replaceable, uniquely coded) concert
ticket being lost/delivered late when sent via Special Delivery?

Would this also be classed as worthless paper and therefore not eligible
for £75 compensation?

If the ticket was eligible, then I think the question comes down to
whether the cashback voucher (which in essence is no different to the
ticket with a particular 'value' an expiry date and non-replaceable) was
actually worth the amount written on it, or whether it was worth just
it's value as paper.

What constitutes value?

What if the contents was the last remaining copy of a Penny Black?
Would that be worth just the paper, or it's 'value'?

Special Delivery is the only method RM suggest sending cash by. Cash
has a clear value. What about gift vouchers? These aren't true cash
(they're only accepted in particular stores/situations). Would these
also be ineligible?

I would suggest that if RM accepted that a concert ticket had a monetary
value associated with it, even though it's just paper, then a Judge or
Magistrate would agree that a cashback voucher *should* also have the
same value. Whether they could force RM to accept the claim is another
matter.

D