imutual.co.uk

+1

I guess if RY suspect a claim is fraudy then he simply dosen't payit
I hav no idea if anyone had their account suspended because of fraud
he would know
Vis anomituy if a regular poster posts then most of the other regular poster willhav a good idea who it is/nt.
You could get RY to post on their behalf in his own words but that just creates more work for him especially if people pose Q's and then he has to get their replys
As I posted I'm against anominty

kevinchess1 wrote:[.
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.

Elections - People vote for persons/parties policies or in some cases vote against another person/parties policies


Ultimately if two members, one a regular forum poster, the other never posts on the forum have both evidenced that they have carried out a valid transaction in respect of the same offer via the same merchant unless one of the members has abused the offer then the decision/outcome has to be the same for both members so member ids are irrelevant to the vote

Whatever happens I'd like to say well done to everyone. Richard has started the ball rolling and stepped.back. Us the members have debated in a civilised manner where we should go from here. A true mutual company.

cashbacklover wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:[.
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.

Elections - People vote for persons/parties policies or in some cases vote against another person/parties policies


Ultimately if two members, one a regular forum poster, the other never posts on the forum have both evidenced that they have carried out a valid transaction in respect of the same offer via the same merchant unless one of the members has abused the offer then the decision/outcome has to be the same for both members so member ids are irrelevant to the vote

I'd agree with that
providin both actually made appeals

cashbacklover wrote: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.

Probably not
But then again should a person get paid when the merchant hasn't paid

kevinchess1 wrote:[But then again should a person get paid when the merchant hasn't paid

I expect to be paid if I carry out a once only valid spend/commitment/financial transaction and have fully complied with a cashback sites ( which ever one it is) "advertised" cashback offer irrespective of whether the merchant has paid the cashback site and I have never failed to be be paid - which ever cashback site I have used

Many including myself believe the "cashback is not guaranteed" clause is a cop out and would never stand the test of english law - funny thing is no cashback site has wanted it to be tested - all have paid out when individuals from other sites have indicated that they would put the "cashback is not guaranteed" clause to the test of english law

I-Mutual like other sites have already paid people for valid transactions when it hasnt been paid by the merchant in respect of cashback offers that it has advertised -

cashbacklover wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:[But then again should a person get paid when the merchant hasn't paid

I expect to be paid if I carry out a once only valid spend/commitment/financial transaction and have fully complied with a cashback sites ( which ever one it is) "advertised" cashback offer irrespective of whether the merchant has paid the cashback site and I have never failed to be be paid - which ever cashback site I have used

Many including myself believe the "cashback is not guaranteed" clause is a cop out and would never stand the test of english law - funny thing is no cashback site has wanted it to be tested - all have paid out when individuals from other sites have indicated that they would put the "cashback is not guaranteed" clause to the test of english law

I-Mutual like other sites have already paid people for valid transactions when it hasnt been paid by the merchant in respect of cashback offers that it has advertised -

Or simply- put your money where your mouth is

I understand the point about anonymity, but I do feel that claimants should post their case themselves for the following reasons (and some of these points have already been made by others):
- They are already anonymous! You don't know their real names (unless they've chosen to divulge them), just their username
- Practicality. We'd have to create a system that allowed people to appeal anonymously (and/or staff would have to spend time administering this)
- I think it's consistent with the site's ethos that members have a direct conversation with each other on such matters
- I also think that the onus on someone to have to make their case publicly is a good test of the merit of their claim. It will help to deter those who might want to "try it on". Yes, we have measures to tackle fraud but these can only go so far (otherwise you risk "false positives" - unfairly accusing someone). If someone has the confidence to have their claim judged by their peers on the forum, I think we can adopt a "approve unless given good reason not to" mentality.
- On the point that a regular poster may get more favourable treatment than someone who never posts - well, I actually think that's fair. In the same way that you are more likely to trust someone you've met than a complete stranger, someone's forum posts give you the opportunity (albeit a limited one) to judge their character. And unless their posts have been unwelcome, you are likely to have a higher regard for them than a non-poster. The fact that you've been an active forum member demonstrates support for the company, so I have no problem if that gives you an advantage in appeals. I think that's how it works in real life! That said, I'm confident that members would also treat a non-poster with fairness and evaluate their claim on its merits.

I think it's a case of "see how it goes". If we find that appeals are getting turned down unreasonably, and generating bad PR for imutual as a result, we might have to tweak the process. We'll no doubt learn a lot from the first few appeals....

I have to say I find this idea a bit worrying. As Richard said in his original post, the only reason for not paying every claim is because some claims might be bogus. In other words, the appeal process is effectively a kangaroo court to decide if a member is trying to defraud the company. Personally, I'd rather lose cashback than take part in such a process, and since this is a public forum there's a risk of defamation claims from people who lose their appeal.

I think this takes the Mutual idea perhaps a little too far. The company needs a procedure to deal with claims rejected by the merchant, but this should be based entirely on the evidence presented by the claimant and the merchant. For example, if the Ts&Cs required the member to open an account and deposit funds (like the Santander offer, for example), then the member should be able to prove that they've done that by a documented method. If they can, pay up. If they can't, don't. No appeals process needed.

Of course, my posting this probably reduces my chances of having any appeal I make found in my favour - which I think exactly proves my point.