failed cash backs - petition

xCx wrote:
> Paul Harris wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't jump to conclusions and assume everyone has a vested interest.
>>
>> I never thought it would work, the business model was obviously
>> flawed and the Networks and OFCOM all knew that however some of us
>> did get cheap deals as a result for a while. I don't currently have
>> a cash back contract mine ran its course and ended recently so
>> although I never did get all the pay out I did get some which is
>> better than many who are now being caught out.
>>
>> The fact is I believe this is sharp practice by the Networks, they
>> are taking the money and pleading no liability when they clearly knew
>> exactly what was happening and OFCOM are letting them get away with
>> it. I think that they both have some responsibility and the Networks
>> should at least allow customers to reduce the tariff even if only as
>> a good will gesture pretending it is all a surprise to them doesn't
>> wash.
>
> All this will do will bring an end to cashback contracts, which IMO is
> fine, they've always been risky business, but the networks aren't
> getting away with ANYTHING, you obviously don't understand how these
> work, are you're not willing to see how these work.
>
> Customer takes out contract for £40 a month, 18 month line rental
> contract, retailer offers this for 99p a month or something like they
> have been doing.
>
> The retailer wouldn't be able to offer this kind of deal if the
> network weren't offering at least 18 * £40 to cover this line rental,
> so the network pays out £720 to the retailer.
>
> The customer then has to make cashback claims, obviously, if they
> don't stick to the strict terms then the claim will fail, however, if
> the retailer goes bust, they take the £720 with them, the customer
> gets nothing, but the network DOESN'T GET THAT £720 BACK.
>
> So why should the network be liable? Not only have they paid out the
> commission to the retailer, their only way of clawing that money back
> is by having that customer on that contract for 18 months, until it
> gets to month 19 or the customer makes calls outside their allowance
> the network makes nothing.
>
> It's very easy to say "oh well the networks aren't poor, they have
> millions" but at the end of the day that's what they're there to do,
> profit isn't a dirty word, their purpose is to make money for the
> shareholders, many of the networks have helped customers out by
> reducing line rental to £5 a month for the rest of their contracts,
> losing out yet again, the network will never get that subsidy back and
> has taken a loss to the business, which they're not obliged to do.
>
> So, just because you believe this is a sharp practice, you couldn't be
> more wrong, all this will do is bring an end to the independent
> retailers and the networks own stores and direct sales channels will
> win, reducing competition.
>
> --
> xCx
An excellent summary that is absolutely correct in most respects apart
from the amount the retailer and service provider contribute to these -
and that is not relevant anyway.