Search found 175 matches


Claims performance as at 4 Jan 2012

In recent years, the reliability of cashback sites and their offers has emerged as the biggest issue for sites like ours. imutual does not spend its members money on advertising, preferring to rely on recommendations by its customers /shareholders in order to attract new members, so it's especially important that you feel confident in recommending imutual to your friends, family and colleagues. The last thing you want is for a friend to come back complaining to you that the site you recommended has let them down! :shock:

Although we do everything we can to ensure that merchants pay the promised cashback, there will always be a small percentage of transactions that either fail to track or get wrongly rejected, due to technical reasons or procedural errors by third parties. However, in such circumstances we have the safety of our claims process, we you give us some details of you transaction and we chase the merchant on your behalf.

We're determined to be considered the most reliable 100% cashback site around. To reinforce that, we give members a monthly update on how well we're dealing with your claims for missing/incorrect transactions. See the chart below....

As you can see, In October there were only 9 claims (out of nearly 1300 "claimable" transactions). Of those, all but one have been verified. The outstanding one is a bit frustrating, having chased it up several times and still have not got a resolution - but we'll keep trying

I hope this gives you all continued comfort of imutual's reliability :thumbup:
by richard@imutual
Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:09 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Clean jokes - post 'em here

So I says to Mel 'Your awfully pedantic :!: '
He says 'The awfully part isn't neccessary.'
by kevinchess1
Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:12 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Claim appeal #68484: please vote
by accesspwd1 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:31 pm

"I think we need a simple base system to determine if people should get the claim or not

- If i-Mutual DONT get their own kick back then the user shouldn't get a kick back either
- If i-Mutual DO get their commision then it should be shared"

It is not clear whether or not you are aware that I-Mutual is a 100% Cashback Site, if you are aware of this apparent fact whether or not you are conversant with how a 100% Cashback site works i.e that it passes all the commission received to its members or whether you are suggesting that I-Mutual becomes a 50% Cashback Site. :?

by One Eyed Snake » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:48 am
"Because the first price comparison site you used will have got it"

If O.E.S is able to specifically state who received the commission then surely I-Mutual would have been able to do so if it was known as a matter of fact. :|

by accesspwd1 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:33 am
"Someone else has been paid for the referral, EDF confirmed it was not i-Mutual. Customer shouldn't receive the reward"

Lets suppose accesspwd1 is correct can someone from the "no" camp please explain why they believe the outcome of this appeal case should be any different from :

Bearing in mind the only info that is required to be provided to a energy comparison site is postcode aka location and Richards clear voting guidance to members
by richard@imutual » Thu May 03, 2012 10:50 am

"I think this is likely to filter out most dishonest claims, and therefore members can take an approach of "Award an appeal, unless there is evidence to the contrary".

Apparent ticked box response of "sale being attributed to another website or marketing channel" without it being specifically stated which channel does not in-itself evidence against members claim as UK residents are considered innocent until "proven" guilty

by renaissance » Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:50 pm

"My understanding is that the appeal is a relatively recent thing and I lodged it because "Richard" kindly sent me an e-mail suggesting that I did"

If apparent ticked box response of "sale being attributed to another website or marketing channel" without the name/nature of the other channel being specifically stated is considered in itself to be "evidence to the contrary" then if the No camp are a majority at 9am on Wednesday was a waste of time having the vote and discussion as that statement from the merchant was known at the outset and nothing that has been said/can be said could have changed that in ( if it transpires to be) in a majority of members eyes it is considered to be "evidence to the contrary".
by cccashbacklover
Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:44 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: blythburgh

Forgot to say how I got here: I was an RPoints member and so added it to my "portfolio" when I heard about it starting.

More interesting is how I came to be an RPoints member. I was a member of a now defunct forum called PointsVine which had the aims of helping people find earning ops and helping members support charities by daily clicks on their sites.

One day Richard joined an told us about RPoints so I joined. Another lady was, Gloria, a Brit who had emigrated to Australia but was now living in Bali where she was trying to help the poor. She joined PV so she could chat to fellow Brits. I am still in touch with Gloria and her charity has gone on to far bigger and better things. for an overview or for more details about what is going on there is the forum:

Although Pointsvine died on the vine for various reasons the people behind it started their own PTR site, the mighty Adpaid. I joined that within 24 hours of its launch. And am still a happy member there.

So Pointsvine has lead me down various paths, many of which I am still on.
by blythburgh
Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:28 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic