Cashback deal unpaid - when/how to escalate claim?

"Lobster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Lobster wrote
>>
>>> How long do people give these outfits before putting the boot in?
>>> Anyone successfully gained cashbacks via the courts (or the threat of
>>> using that route?). (I'm a fairly old hand at cashback deals, with great
>>> success hitherto!)
>>
>> I suspect that 52 days (as of today) is long enough.
>
> Well that's my thought too...
>
>> Send them a "final letter before action" by recorded delivery informing
>> them to pay up within seven days or you'll issue a claim via the small
>> claims track of your local county court.

Except that It's the court who allocate which track a case should be run
under, so the letter should say "I will issue a claim in the County Court"
or "I will issue a County Court claim." No reference need (or should) be
made regarding the track.

> Will do.
>
> I'd probably use moneyclaim.gov.uk to issue the claim. Never done this
> before - how much does it cost to do it?

Not looked recently but the fee to issue a claim for this sum is about £30.
There is a further fee of about £100 if they defend the claim & you choose
to proceed with it.

> Can't seem to find the answer on their site without actually registering
> and actioning it.

It used to be a good site. They re-designed it a while ago - now it's a mess
!

> Presumably if the claim went through and the outcome was in my favour,
> then the phone co would be ordered to pay for my fees, right?

Your Court fees ues, certain other expenses can be claimed.

> But what happens if - as will probably happen in reality - they pay my
> cashback *after* receiving a summons, but before the case is heard (Is
> that how it works?) Do I have to kiss goodbye to my fees then?

No.They would be expected to pay the amount of your claim together with the
fee for issuing the Claim.

Your OP hasn't (yet) appeared on my screen, hopefully I've got the gist of
it

> Thanks
> David


IANAL
Joe Lee

---

› See More: Cashback deal unpaid - when/how to escalate claim?

Paul G wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Lobster
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Oo-er. In fact the BMP payment I'm waiting for IS the second payment,
>> cos I screwed up the first one (misinterpreted their horrendous T&Cs
>> and thought I had to apply one month later than I did, so I was out of
>> time and didn't send it in). I couldn't see anything about
>> invalidation of future payments though, but you've worried me now -
>> where does that come from? (Either way SWMBO's application to is
>> unaffected though).
>
> http://www.buymobilephones.net/store...ms.ihtml?id=12
> Point 16.1 (in the current terms and conditions)
>
> "Acceptance of claims for the second and third installment will depend
> on acceptance of all previous claims"

Miserable bastards! What the hell is the justification for that (other
than providing yet another route for them to wriggle out of their
obligations,of course).

Anyway, I've just checked my own T&C's which were in force at the time I
took out my contract, and there is no such wording there.

My guess is my failure to collect the 1st cashback might lead them into
thinking they can successfully defend a court case, so it might go all
the way.

David

I have once before pursued a claim through the small claims court. One
thing to be aware of (which I was not at the time) is what happens if the
person you are suing ignores you. I issued the claim, the other party
failed to respond so I won the action by default. The other party then
ignored the demand from the court to issue payment and costs to me. It
turned out then my only option was to pay a significant amount of further
money to call in the bailiffs to seize goods from the other party to the
value of my claim. Even that was not assured if the other party didn't
grant access to the bailiffs. In the end, I had won the claim but was left
without the money I had claimed and having sustained further loss with the
fees I had to pay. So, a moral victory but not a financial one!

JP








--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jeremy Porteous wrote:
> I have once before pursued a claim through the small claims court. One
> thing to be aware of (which I was not at the time) is what happens if the
> person you are suing ignores you. I issued the claim, the other party
> failed to respond so I won the action by default. The other party then
> ignored the demand from the court to issue payment and costs to me. It
> turned out then my only option was to pay a significant amount of further
> money to call in the bailiffs to seize goods from the other party to the
> value of my claim. Even that was not assured if the other party didn't
> grant access to the bailiffs. In the end, I had won the claim but was left
> without the money I had claimed and having sustained further loss with the
> fees I had to pay. So, a moral victory but not a financial one!
>
> JP
>

Oh yes! Winning a case is actually the easy bit, and a fact that most
claimants are blissfully unaware of.

As you say, if they simply ignore you (or lose after contesting it in
court) and then decide to ignore the Directions of the court to pay up,
you have to go through the hassle of enforcing judgement.

It's one of the drawbacks of the relaxed regime of claims allocated to
the small claims track - such proceedings are governed by Civil
Procedure Rules - emphasis being on the word "Rules".

Cuz rules is all they are.............like "don't run in the corridor"

Lobster wrote:

>>

>
> Oo-er. In fact the BMP payment I'm waiting for IS the second payment,
> cos I screwed up the first one (misinterpreted their horrendous T&Cs and
> thought I had to apply one month later than I did, so I was out of time
> and didn't send it in). I couldn't see anything about invalidation of
> future payments though, but you've worried me know - where does that
> come from? (Either way SWMBO's application to is unaffected though).
>
> David

Two points. The first is that if there is no exclusion clause in your
T&Cs then there is no excuse for not paying second and third payments. I
have just checked my copy of their T&Cs from early 2006 (Jan?) and they
were not in those. It will advance your case tremendously if you have
stored a copy.

Secondly, although they can refuse to pay if a Court case has gone
against them, they will have a CCJ in their names. Something totally
disliked by banks etc.

Hope it all works out.

Let us know how you get on.

Flop

"Lobster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Miserable bastards! What the hell is the justification for that (other
> than providing yet another route for them to wriggle out of their
> obligations,of course).
>
> Anyway, I've just checked my own T&C's which were in force at the time I
> took out my contract, and there is no such wording there.
>
> My guess is my failure to collect the 1st cashback might lead them into
> thinking they can successfully defend a court case, so it might go all the
> way.
>
> David

They do it to make money from people like yourself, no offence intended.
Normal people, like ourselves, make mistakes, or misread things. They rely
on that to make cash, and have done so in terms of your contract.

Jeremy Porteous wrote:
> I have once before pursued a claim through the small claims court. One
> thing to be aware of (which I was not at the time) is what happens if the
> person you are suing ignores you. I issued the claim, the other party
> failed to respond so I won the action by default. The other party then
> ignored the demand from the court to issue payment and costs to me. It
> turned out then my only option was to pay a significant amount of further
> money to call in the bailiffs to seize goods from the other party to the
> value of my claim. Even that was not assured if the other party didn't
> grant access to the bailiffs. In the end, I had won the claim but was left
> without the money I had claimed and having sustained further loss with the
> fees I had to pay. So, a moral victory but not a financial one!
>

....however, there are two MAJOR differences between the above scenario
and taking a cashback retailer to court.

(1) if you take a retailer to court and win, you could set a dangerous
precedent that others could follow. The first such case to go to court
is very likely to be widely reported on in the industry press and on the
internet as a whole. Many cashback retailers simply don't want their
T&Cs to be placed under such public scrutiny as, if they had to pay out
on ALL their cashback deals, they could conceivably go bankrupt.

(2) mobile retailers are reliant on their suppliers for stock to sell.
The networks simply will not countenance dodgy dealers harming their
reputation by association. They can end direct relationships with some
unscrupulous retailers (and certainly have done in the past) and also
bar distributors who have direct relationships with them from doing
business with dodgy dealers.

If a retailer decides that it doesn't have to pay any attention to the
courts then it only takes a word in the network's ear, with a copy of
the judgement and their supply could be cut off. If a single customer
has little effect in this area, a pattern of such behaviour would
certainly result in the supply being cut off.

With such sanctions in place a retailer would be stark raving bonkers
(or a blatant scam from the outset) to ignore the judgement.

Although I haven't had to issue a court summons myself, the anecdotal
evidence that I have seen suggests that it is commonplace for cashback
mobile retailers of all sizes

(a) to settle swiftly out of court either on the threat of action or as
a result of lodging the claim

(b) to include court fees in their settlement cheque if a case has had
to be lodged

HtH
Reestit Mutton
--
www.reestitmutton.co.uk

Bringing you the best-value mobile phone contract deals in the UK
Presented the way it should be...in plain English

"Flop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobster wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>
>> Oo-er. In fact the BMP payment I'm waiting for IS the second payment,
>> cos I screwed up the first one (misinterpreted their horrendous T&Cs and
>> thought I had to apply one month later than I did, so I was out of time
>> and didn't send it in). I couldn't see anything about invalidation of
>> future payments though, but you've worried me know - where does that come
>> from? (Either way SWMBO's application to is unaffected though).
>>
>> David
>
> Two points. The first is that if there is no exclusion clause in your T&Cs
> then there is no excuse for not paying second and third payments. I have
> just checked my copy of their T&Cs from early 2006 (Jan?) and they were
> not in those. It will advance your case tremendously if you have stored a
> copy.

Yes. Ans when buying off the internet always download a copy of the T&C's
which apply at the time, not least because the retailers can change them
almost instantaneously.
Moral: *Always* keep a copy of a Contract.
>
> Secondly, although they can refuse to pay if a Court case has gone against
> them, they will have a CCJ in their names. Something totally disliked by
> banks etc.

It's also much more difficult for a corporation to frustrate bailiffs, which
I'm pretty sure is one of the reasons why they generally 'settle up' when
they lose the case/

> Hope it all works out.
>
> Let us know how you get on.

Joe Lee



> Flop

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:03:56 GMT, Lobster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>SWMBO and I both have substantial outstanding cashback applications; one
>from buymobilephones and one from phones2udirect; both sent in by
>recorded delivery on 31 July. Both are the first cashbacks applied for
>on the respective contracts; in both cases I followed the complex
>instructions to the letter

Needless to say my advice has been for a while not to take a cashback
deal from anyone.

If you go to the "clearance" section on the Three website, you will
see some excellent half price for 18 month deals. No cashback
involved, no forms to fill in. £17.50 a month got me an N70 and 400
anytime minutes, texts and free internet. Reception is excellent in
all areas as it roams on o2.

--
http://www.unimobiles.com | http://www.unlockyourphone.co.uk
UK Specialists in Refurbished Mobile Phones & Accessories

Reestit Mutton wrote:
>
> If a retailer decides that it doesn't have to pay any attention to the
> courts then it only takes a word in the network's ear, with a copy of
> the judgement and their supply could be cut off. If a single customer
> has little effect in this area, a pattern of such behaviour would
> certainly result in the supply being cut off.
>

Whilst I bow to your undoubted expert knowledge in the field of mobile
communications (as evidenced by your excellent website), I think you
are being naive here.

Money talks.

If someone's putting £50k (say) worth of business per month my way
(not unlikely in this industry) I certainly wouldn't come down too hard
on them if I get a letter from a disgruntled customer telling me their
business practices are borderline.

It always makes me laugh that computer magazines undertake "impartial"
reviews of machines from retailers. Yeah, Dell are putting £100k per
month of advertising revenue their way so they're really going to say
"this Dell machine is awful, don't buy it".

Money talks.

Unimobiles.com wrote:

>
> If you go to the "clearance" section on the Three website, you will
> see some excellent half price for 18 month deals.

No problem, if you want a badly re-conditioned handset. Mine arrived
in a box clearly marked re-conditioned. The video calling doesn't
work - the camera causes an error. I have no use for video calling,
so it doesn't bother me.

Not a deal I'll ever go for again.

regards, Ian

In message <[email protected]>, Unimobiles. com
<[email protected]> writes
>If you go to the "clearance" section on the Three website, you will
>see some excellent half price for 18 month deals. No cashback
>involved, no forms to fill in. £17.50 a month got me an N70 and 400
>anytime minutes, texts and free internet. Reception is excellent in
>all areas as it roams on o2.

Glad to read that you've been all around the UK to prove this. Hope you
used public transport wherever possible (to avoid causing additional
traffic congestion; not that it's relevant). Unfortunately you appear
to have missed East London in your travels as Three/O2 reception is most
definitely not excellent here or elsewhere on my travels. The handover
between 2G and 3G isn't great either (aka "non-existent"). Ok let's be
accurate - the handover works 2G becomes 3G and vice versa just any
calls currently in progress are dropped.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking and finally fleeing Three in two days

Unimobiles.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:03:56 GMT, Lobster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> SWMBO and I both have substantial outstanding cashback applications; one
>>from buymobilephones and one from phones2udirect; both sent in by
>> recorded delivery on 31 July. Both are the first cashbacks applied for
>> on the respective contracts; in both cases I followed the complex
>> instructions to the letter
>
> Needless to say my advice has been for a while not to take a cashback
> deal from anyone.

Have to say I don't go along with that advice, notwithstanding my
current issue. I've been doing cashback deals for years now, and this
is the first time I've ever really had a problem. It's simply a case of
studying the T&Cs *very* carefully at the outset to work out what's
needed, then put the cashback dates for the year in your diary (or Yahoo
Calendar, which then emails me 9 months later or whatever to tell me to
send in statement X).

Yes I ballsed up the first tranche of my cashback on this contract which
is my own fault (and is probably why BMP are now trying it on with the
second tranche) but until now neither SWMBO nor me have barely spent a
penny on mobile phones or mobile calls for years, where others seem
quite happy with a monthly spend of 20-30 quid for an equivalent service.

I do agree that it's not sensible to 'overstretch' - ie for somebody who
only makes 20 minutes of calls a month to take out an unlimited calls
package costing 100's of GBP per year just to get the cashback; but with
that proviso, IMHO going for cashback deals is a no-brainer.

David

(OP update!: phones2udirect finally emailed SWMBO back yesterday to say
her claim had been 'escalated'; BMP still keeping schtum on me so I've
just written my Final Notice letter which will go out Recorded Delivery
tomorrow...)

In message <[email protected]>, Lobster
<[email protected]> writes
>
>Yes I ballsed up the first tranche of my cashback on this contract
>which is my own fault (and is probably why BMP are now trying it on
>with the second tranche) but until now neither SWMBO nor me have barely
>spent a penny on mobile phones or mobile calls for years, where others
>seem quite happy with a monthly spend of 20-30 quid for an equivalent
>service.
>
>I do agree that it's not sensible to 'overstretch' - ie for somebody
>who only makes 20 minutes of calls a month to take out an unlimited
>calls package costing 100's of GBP per year just to get the cashback;
>but with that proviso, IMHO going for cashback deals is a no-brainer.

<aol alert>
Not that it makes any difference, but I agree strongly with your
sentiments (and actions re. chasing claims) rather than Unimobiles.com.
</aol>

I would add that ideally one should only take out contracts that one can
afford to pay in full, even if there is 100% cashback. This means one
can afford to pay their way if the cashback goes wrong for any reason
(including, but not limited to: purchaser error, royal mail error,
cashback provider going tits up).

Lobster wrote:
>
> Have to say I don't go along with that advice, notwithstanding my
> current issue. I've been doing cashback deals for years now, and this
> is the first time I've ever really had a problem. It's simply a case of
> studying the T&Cs *very* carefully at the outset to work out what's
> needed, then put the cashback dates for the year in your diary (or Yahoo
> Calendar, which then emails me 9 months later or whatever to tell me to
> send in statement X).
>
> Yes I ballsed up the first tranche of my cashback on this contract which
> is my own fault (and is probably why BMP are now trying it on with the
> second tranche) but until now neither SWMBO nor me have barely spent a
> penny on mobile phones or mobile calls for years, where others seem
> quite happy with a monthly spend of 20-30 quid for an equivalent service.
>
> I do agree that it's not sensible to 'overstretch' - ie for somebody who
> only makes 20 minutes of calls a month to take out an unlimited calls
> package costing 100's of GBP per year just to get the cashback; but with
> that proviso, IMHO going for cashback deals is a no-brainer.
>
> David
>

I can see both points of view although I do lean more towards the
cashback route.

Some of the young girls I work with look at me as though I'm the
world's biggest liar when I tell them that the flashy phone I've just
sold on eBay for the best part of £100 was originally free, came with
x free minutes, x free texts and over the 12 months actually made me
money (more so given the redundancy of the costs of a landline).

As you say, they seem quite happy paying £20-30 a month for the same
thing that I get for free........maybe that's why they're always
moaning about being broke :-)