An increasing number of consumers who have been cheated out their contractual cashback with mobile phone contracts are now considering class actions against the network providers. The network providers have of course successfully so far distanced themselves from what they claim are totally separate contracts with their agents/distributors. Although most consumers who have been ripped off so far seem to have accepted the networks declarations of non-liability, there is now an increasing realisation that since it was the networks who appointed their agents/distributors, and that the only contract entered into on behalf of the network was via their own agent, the neworks do have a vicarious responsiblity and liability for the contracts entered into via their agents in all their respects, including contractually agreed cashback; additionally it seems that in most cases it was the networks themselves who pushed the high-risk supposedly low probable cashback claim business model to their agents/distributors, so as to gain many additional connections to their networks, but it was these new relatively high-risk business models which have led directly to the collapse of an ever increasing number of their agents/distributors, and consumers thus being denied the cashback due under the contract.

To attempt action against the networks on an individual basis would be high-risk and costly. However a number of cheated consumers have begun to get together to pursue class actions directly against the networks. Clearly, in the event of litigation success only those consumers directly participating in the class actions would retrieve their cashback entitlements and costs. Anyone not participating in any action would not recover any of their cashback as a result of this.

Any consumer interested in participating should in the first instance contact Lola Borró on a special e-mail address set-up for contact: phonestoudirect.classaction@yahoo.co.uk. Although this is stated as relative to one agent only it is intended to cover all the affected networks regardless of whatever agent a consumer actually obtained their contract from for the particular network. More information is given on her website:  http://phones2udirect.tripod.com.

I find it extremely difficult to understand the motivation of your post Andy.

If you had thought about it properly before making your post you would have seen that there is no difference in the subject matter of my post and the general orientation of this forum. It is all about scams perpetrated on consumers, where they lose their money as a result. NGN abuse rips off the consumer. The great mobile cashback scam has ripped off many consumers.

I have no commercial interest in any class action which may or may not eventually be taken. There is and cannot be any commercial interest on the part of anyone who may participate in any such class action. The only entity who would gain in any way whatsoever commercially would be lawyers, who would not be selected by me but by the group of consumers. There is thus no pecuniary advantage to me nor to any other ripped-off consumer who may participate.

The only purpose of such a class action being proposed is to attempt to get back the cashback money which has been lost by some consumers. The issue of lost cashback in mobile phone contracts has been discussed previously on this forum. If you look back you can find these posts. My original post on this topic is thus no different from previous discussions about mobile cashback, except that in this case there may be a route for some cheated consumers to get the money they have lost. I repeat, there is no commercial advantage of any nature which would be gained by me nor by any other consumer participant in any action. (By the way, Lola Borró is one of the consumers who has lost cashback and is coordinating the group on a purely voluntary and non-commercial basis.)

Andy, I can't understand where you get this stuff from, and I really do not understand the point you are attempting to make? I am always very careful about the things I say and also what I post as it happens.

Quote:
Where I have I suggested that any business was run intentionally from the start so as to fail? I most certainly have not suggested any such thing. Where I have suggested that any other parties' influence was malign? I have not stated nor inferred any such thing. These issues seem to be entirely inventions of yours.

What seems even more significant is that the tone of your posting seems to suggest that you perhaps are against anyone who has been cheated out of their contractually agreed cashback standing any chance of getting it back? One might suspect that you have some sort of vested interest in them not having any possibility of getting their cashback. I wonder what industry you work in?

Good grief.

dorf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:


I did so, and you did indeed use the words ripped off, scams, cheated, cheat, and so on. You then follow on with remarks asserting vicarious liability of the networks for their agents' behaviour, and hence reasons to take class action against them, the networks.

Legal cases don't turn on feelings, but on questions of fact. Phrases like "are reputed" and "increasing realisation" are secondhand hearsay and innuendo at the moment, and you would be obliged to produce proof if that is the case you are tring to make.

You need to look up the words vicarious liability. This means exerting a control or influence over the actions of another party that is deemed liable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

Reading this, in close association with the words mentioned, your opponents' lawyers may take it as intended to be defamatory, despite your denials, and suggest that a reasonable person would see it as so. They might also be minded to act against the publisher.

That is why some perhaps careless discussion of these matters on other forums has been curtailed or even provisionally removed, and why I suggested that the forum owner here might need to pay some attention.

As I already suggested, you should be able to attract interest from other consumers without setting out too much of a case here before taking legal advice.

I am perfectly calm, Sherbert, despite what is I would suggest a series of somewhat irrational, destructive and aggressive responses essentially to my original post.

Andy, I note that twice I have asked you which particular industry you work in, which evidently results in you having such a desire for consumers to be unable to obtain their contractually agreed mobile cashback, under all circumstances?

Twice you have deliberately avoided that question and continued your unwarranted attack on every point which I have attempted to respond to and justify further. One last time I ask you, what particular industry area do you work in or have business interests in? If you fail yet again to fully respond then I would suggest that will be a situation of Quod est demonstrandum!

On any other forum your general, well-established and unwarranted attacks on other posters without evident purpose, other than irrational aggression, would be called, and seen as "flaming"!

dorf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2008 at 11:39pm:



I realise that it is fashionable to make false personal accusations against other forum members, but it is not an absolute requirement.

Firstly, remember that in posting the thread you are discussing a potential legal case. You don't have to observe my advice that it might be better not to give your opponents too much information in advance, but at least it would be worth taking on board some remarks about what is and is not evidence.

However, here is another example of a specious line of argument. My profession is firstly none of your business whatsoever, and anyway totally irrelevant  to this discussion.

The fact that I ignored the remark twice does not make your supposition true. If you view that as the type of rigorous proof you expect to get away with elsewhere, you may well find it difficult to obtain legal advice that will satisfy you.

More of NGM's crass comments removed.

Additional rubbish posts will be dealt with exactly the same !!