Cash Back Scams

Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
common or just a rogue one off?

Ken

"Reestit Mutton" <NOBODY@NOWHERE.IN.PARTICULAR> wrote in message
news:45e2f6d3$0$8721$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Ken wrote:
>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>
>> Ken
>
> That's certainly not a retailer that I would deal with on my site. It
> looks very much like a rogue site rather than the norm.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the worst sins of the masses are as follows:
>
> (1) subsequent claims dependent on success of previous claims
>
> (2) original bills only - if a network or the royal mail lose one of your
> bills, the duplicate that the network will send you upon request can often
> be refused by the retailer.
>
> (3) additional paperwork (claims voucher, despatch note) also required
> which isn't always included on despatch and for which you only have a
> limited window of opportunity to raise concerns about its absence. For
> some retailers, I hold copies of a lot of this paperwork where it is not
> specific to your purchase and I'm only too happy to email copies to anyone
> who asks.
>
> (4) short claims windows - the worst offenders here only allow 14 days
> from the date on the relevant bill for the claim to reach them. Far too
> short in my view.
>
> I firmly believe that 2007 will be the year that a lot of these practices
> become officially outlawed - Three and Orange have already set minimum
> standards for cashback retailers which effectively outlaw some of the
> above practices. Retailers who do not fall into line could be struck off
> the network's list of approved retailers and also placed on a "do not
> deal" list with the distributors to prevent them sourcing network-supplied
> product via indirect means.
>
> HtH
> Reestit Mutton
> --
> The UK's only 12 months free line rental listing with a built-in price
> history
> http://www.reestitmutton.co.uk/MOBIL...?query=12mfree

I was reading a number of sets of terms for my daughter, some while ago, and
wished I could remember who it was but felt shocked on this new scam.
Just been searching my old emails and papers but can't find the retailer.
Ken

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:

>Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>common or just a rogue one off?
>
>Ken
>

Is that legal ???

"Stuart B" <stuart@xpozureu.plus.com> wrote in message
news:n656u25k856fh9knr7re9k9urhtaeb7upd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>
>>Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>>One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>>maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>>common or just a rogue one off?
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
> Is that legal ???

No idea but because I saw it in the terms I no longer looked very closely at
the offer on the rest of the site>

"Reestit Mutton" <NOBODY@NOWHERE.IN.PARTICULAR> wrote in message
news:45e2f6d3$0$8721$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Ken wrote:
>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>
>> Ken
>
> That's certainly not a retailer that I would deal with on my site. It
> looks very much like a rogue site rather than the norm.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the worst sins of the masses are as follows:
>
> (1) subsequent claims dependent on success of previous claims
>
> (2) original bills only - if a network or the royal mail lose one of your
> bills, the duplicate that the network will send you upon request can often
> be refused by the retailer.
>
> (3) additional paperwork (claims voucher, despatch note) also required
> which isn't always included on despatch and for which you only have a
> limited window of opportunity to raise concerns about its absence. For
> some retailers, I hold copies of a lot of this paperwork where it is not
> specific to your purchase and I'm only too happy to email copies to anyone
> who asks.
>
> (4) short claims windows - the worst offenders here only allow 14 days
> from the date on the relevant bill for the claim to reach them. Far too
> short in my view.
>
> I firmly believe that 2007 will be the year that a lot of these practices
> become officially outlawed - Three and Orange have already set minimum
> standards for cashback retailers which effectively outlaw some of the
> above practices. Retailers who do not fall into line could be struck off
> the network's list of approved retailers and also placed on a "do not
> deal" list with the distributors to prevent them sourcing network-supplied
> product via indirect means.
>
> HtH
> Reestit Mutton
> --
> The UK's only 12 months free line rental listing with a built-in price
> history
> http://www.reestitmutton.co.uk/MOBIL...?query=12mfree
>
>

Why you still list phones2udirect on your site, I don't know. There are
countless complaints on online forums about them, including several that
have had to resort to small claims to recover their cashbacks.


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=262386

http://forum.niftylist.co.uk/index.p...54%3btopicseen

etc. etc.

Stuart B wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>
>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Is that legal ???

Not if the headline cashback offer amount was not claimable in 2 claims.

The cashback is for a set amount, the number of claims they require is
up to them. They could, in theory, require a £150 cashback claim to be
made in 1p chunks if they wanted. But I doubt they could say your
£150 cashback has to be made in 50p chunks, and you can only make 2
claims - simply because it would be a £1 cashback, rather than £150.

D

"David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
news:54ida9F20f4jvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Stuart B wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>>
>>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>> Is that legal ???
>
> Not if the headline cashback offer amount was not claimable in 2 claims.
>
> The cashback is for a set amount, the number of claims they require is up
> to them. They could, in theory, require a £150 cashback claim to be made
> in 1p chunks if they wanted. But I doubt they could say your £150
> cashback has to be made in 50p chunks, and you can only make 2 claims -
> simply because it would be a £1 cashback, rather than £150.
>
> D

It was something like 3 cashback points of £99 each available but with a
maximum of two claims permitted. The deal gave a net £5 per month rental
assuming the 3 cashbacks but given only 2 were claimable and the true cost
would of been £13.33 per month. Still not a lot for the deal but I ought to
have taken them up on it --- but ---- time!!!! I stuck with e2save - better
the devil you know!!
Ken

Ken wrote:
> "David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:54ida9F20f4jvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Stuart B wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>>>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>>>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>>>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>> Is that legal ???
>> Not if the headline cashback offer amount was not claimable in 2 claims.
>>
>> The cashback is for a set amount, the number of claims they require is up
>> to them. They could, in theory, require a £150 cashback claim to be made
>> in 1p chunks if they wanted. But I doubt they could say your £150
>> cashback has to be made in 50p chunks, and you can only make 2 claims -
>> simply because it would be a £1 cashback, rather than £150.
>>
>> D
>
> It was something like 3 cashback points of £99 each available but with a
> maximum of two claims permitted. The deal gave a net £5 per month rental
> assuming the 3 cashbacks but given only 2 were claimable and the true cost
> would of been £13.33 per month. Still not a lot for the deal but I ought to
> have taken them up on it --- but ---- time!!!! I stuck with e2save - better
> the devil you know!!
> Ken

That in my mind would be false advertising of the deal. If the deal
claims £5 per month rental (after cashback) yet you could never make the
3rd claim, and therefore was actually £13.33 per month, then I think
that would be false advertising. I don't know the legality of such
things, but I suspect it is 'illegal' in some way.

D

"David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
news:54iomoF213uj0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Ken wrote:
>> "David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:54ida9F20f4jvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Stuart B wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:52:56 -0000, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>>>>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said
>>>>> a maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is
>>>>> this common or just a rogue one off?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>> Is that legal ???
>>> Not if the headline cashback offer amount was not claimable in 2 claims.
>>>
>>> The cashback is for a set amount, the number of claims they require is
>>> up to them. They could, in theory, require a £150 cashback claim to be
>>> made in 1p chunks if they wanted. But I doubt they could say your
>>> £150 cashback has to be made in 50p chunks, and you can only make 2
>>> claims - simply because it would be a £1 cashback, rather than £150.
>>>
>>> D
>>
>> It was something like 3 cashback points of £99 each available but with a
>> maximum of two claims permitted. The deal gave a net £5 per month rental
>> assuming the 3 cashbacks but given only 2 were claimable and the true
>> cost would of been £13.33 per month. Still not a lot for the deal but I
>> ought to have taken them up on it --- but ---- time!!!! I stuck with
>> e2save - better the devil you know!!
>> Ken
>
> That in my mind would be false advertising of the deal. If the deal
> claims £5 per month rental (after cashback) yet you could never make the
> 3rd claim, and therefore was actually £13.33 per month, then I think that
> would be false advertising. I don't know the legality of such things, but
> I suspect it is 'illegal' in some way.
>
> D

Yes like too many things these days where there is false hope in the main
message but the drawback is in the detail.
Ken

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:03:29 +0000, Reestit Mutton
<NOBODY@NOWHERE.IN.PARTICULAR> wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>> Can't remember who but I have learnt to read the terms thoroughly now.
>> One company were offering three cashbacks but in the small print said a
>> maximum of two cashback claims were allowed under the contract. Is this
>> common or just a rogue one off?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>
>That's certainly not a retailer that I would deal with on my site. It
>looks very much like a rogue site rather than the norm.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, the worst sins of the masses are as follows:
>
>(1) subsequent claims dependent on success of previous claims
>
>(2) original bills only - if a network or the royal mail lose one of
>your bills, the duplicate that the network will send you upon request
>can often be refused by the retailer.
>
>(3) additional paperwork (claims voucher, despatch note) also required
>which isn't always included on despatch and for which you only have a
>limited window of opportunity to raise concerns about its absence. For
>some retailers, I hold copies of a lot of this paperwork where it is not
>specific to your purchase and I'm only too happy to email copies to
>anyone who asks.
>
>(4) short claims windows - the worst offenders here only allow 14 days
>from the date on the relevant bill for the claim to reach them. Far too
>short in my view.

Interestingly *ALL* of those apply to Buymobilephones.net.

Its a real pain to me personally. My 4th bill date is 22 March. I go
to America on the 25 March for 3 weeks, so unless i get someone to
come round, I have no way of forfilling within the 14 day window.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:17:58 +0000, Reestit Mutton
<NOBODY@NOWHERE.IN.PARTICULAR> wrote:

>guv wrote:
>
><SNIP list of common cashback gotchas>
>
>>
>> Interestingly *ALL* of those apply to Buymobilephones.net.
>>
>> Its a real pain to me personally. My 4th bill date is 22 March. I go
>> to America on the 25 March for 3 weeks, so unless I get someone to
>> come round, I have no way of forfilling within the 14 day window.
>>
>
>Alas, the vast majority of non-CPW retailers use very similar T&Cs in
>almost all respects. Much as I would love to do so, if I were to raise
>the bar to obtaining coverage in my database by imposing mimum standards
>within the T&Cs, I would be left with very few retailers, many of which
>would be carphone-warehouse owned...and, even then, some people have
>bones to pick with them too.
>
>Oh well...such is life.

Yeh, I realise that - and it wasn't a reflection on you! (Im sure you
realised!)

>
>Personally though...I think you have a good argument for testing the
>fairness of the contract between yourself and BMP in the courts. I don't
>think it has been done yet but, if you were to intimate to BMP that you
>would be prepared to do so, they may well capitulate prior to the hearing.

Hopefully I can get someone round to collect and post it for me. I
really dont want to take a gamble!

>Also, if your contract is with Orange or Three you also have a stick to
>beat BMP with as both networks are prepared to cull retailers who do not
>allow at least 60 days to make their claims.

Alas its with O2.

I did actually phone them on the day I received the phone to argue my
case - but they were having none of it. I told them I was told I had
28 days to return the bills - they just said I was mistaken. I know
for a fact the previous 2 were 28 days! No doubt they would argue that
I have accepted the phone and can have no argument I was aware.