Results 1 to 11 of 11
- 02-26-2007, 07:52 AM #1KenGuest
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
- 02-26-2007, 09:19 AM #2KenGuest
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
- 02-26-2007, 11:12 AM #3Stuart BGuest
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 ???
- 02-26-2007, 11:28 AM #4KenGuest
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>
- 02-26-2007, 01:30 PM #5SchrodingerGuest
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.
- 02-27-2007, 03:52 AM #6David HearnGuest
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
- 02-27-2007, 04:55 AM #7KenGuest
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
- 02-27-2007, 07:06 AM #8David HearnGuest
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
- 02-27-2007, 07:27 AM #9KenGuest
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
- 02-27-2007, 10:51 AM #10guvGuest
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.
- 02-28-2007, 11:34 AM #11guvGuest
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
-
How-to: Get $45 cash back on Sprint
Sprint PCS -
How-to: Get $45 cash back on T-Mobile
T-Mobile -
How-to: Get $45 cash back on AT&T
ATT -
How-to: Get $45 cash back on Verizon
Verizon
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung