imutual.co.uk

Above all else I believe it will give us integrity which as newbies we lack. Worse case scenario:

16 X £20 = £320

TCB guarantee to match any sites cashback. That's what helped them to match Qs dominance. Eg recently Q was offering £125 cashback. TCB offered £126 just to beat them from the normal £85 (which it's gone back to now). That's a straight £41 loss.

In business you must sometimes make a loss to get ahead. This is what supermarkets do very well. They sell goods at a loss just to kill the competition and then charge as they please. Just look what Tesco has done to Joe Blog trader trying to support his family. I'm not saying we kill the competition but yes we must take a small hit for the long run. We are in this for the long run after all.

I doubt that the 16 clams will amount to £320
One of them mine and it's less than £10 and I'm not sure I'll appeal it
maybe
But if they are all claimed/appealed/ paid i still think it's worth it
Hopfully I'll judge everyone one on it's merits
OR
Just horse trade for them

kevinchess1 wrote: Hopfully I'll judge everyone one on it's merits
OR
Just horse trade for them

Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?

Mel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?

Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims

kevinchess1 wrote:

Mel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?

Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims

Why would it - I-Mutual/Richard Yendall would be aware of both the identity of the Ids and transaction/claim history of the Ids

cashbacklover wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:
Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims

Why would it - I-Mutual/Richard Yendall would be aware of both the identity of the Ids and transaction/claim history of the Ids

My thoughts entirely, how could it encourage multiple/fraudulent claims. However the member concerned is supposed to be able to put the case for the claim being paid. Therefore it cannot be anonymous unless they make the case and Richard posts on their behalf.

[quote="Drahcir. Therefore it cannot be anonymous unless they make the case and Richard posts on their behalf.[/quote]

For the purposes of the case and vote they could be called as an example IM1. IM2. IM3 etc

cashbacklover wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:

Mel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?

Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims

Why would it - I-Mutual/Richard Yendall would be aware of both the identity of the Ids and transaction/claim history of the Ids

Yes of course he does
But for it too be completly above board he would hav to let every claim go to appeal, even ones he is convinced are fraudulent.
Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim, as they do in elections all the time.
I'm against annomous appeals being presented

kevinchess1 wrote:[Yes of course he does
But for it too be completly above board he would hav to let every claim go to appeal, even ones he is convinced are fraudulent.
Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim, as they do in elections all the time.
I'm against annomous appeals being presented

Surely those who make claims that R.Y is convinced are fraudulent should have there accounts suspended

"Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim"

We are just names on a screen, bar odd instances where we form in person offline friendships nobody knows anything about us or what we are really like as people. Surely each claim should be judged in its merits and the evidence put forward by both the member and where applicable the merchant, what name member ID the claim relates to is irrelevant, what about the member claims where the member(s) never posts on the forum should they receive different treatment just cos they get on with cashback business without forum involvement.

cashbacklover wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:[Yes of course he does
But for it too be completly above board he would hav to let every claim go to appeal, even ones he is convinced are fraudulent.
Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim, as they do in elections all the time.
I'm against annomous appeals being presented

Surely those who make claims that R.Y is convinced are fraudulent should have there accounts suspended

"Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim"

We are just names on a screen, bar odd instances where we form in person offline friendships nobody knows anything about us or what we are really like as people. Surely each claim should be judged in its merits and the evidence put forward by both the member and where applicable the merchant, what name member ID the claim relates to is irrelevant, what about the member claims where the member(s) never posts on the forum should they receive different treatment just cos they get on with cashback business without forum involvement.

It's human nature to form opinions about people. There will be goodies and baddies even on Internet forums where all have never met. There needs to an element of anonymity IMO.