Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Ken
    Guest
    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





    See More: Cash Back Scams




  2. #2
    Ken
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams


    "Reestit Mutton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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





  3. #3
    Stuart B
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams

    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 ???



  4. #4
    Ken
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams


    "Stuart B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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>





  5. #5
    Schrodinger
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams


    "Reestit Mutton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.





  6. #6
    David Hearn
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams

    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



  7. #7
    Ken
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams


    "David Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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





  8. #8
    David Hearn
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams

    Ken wrote:
    > "David Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> 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



  9. #9
    Ken
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams


    "David Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ken wrote:
    >> "David Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>> 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





  10. #10
    guv
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams

    On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:03:29 +0000, Reestit Mutton
    <[email protected]> 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.




  11. #11
    guv
    Guest

    Re: Cash Back Scams

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:17:58 +0000, Reestit Mutton
    <[email protected]> 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.




  • Similar Threads