imutual.co.uk

One of our members has had a claim rejected and has opted to appeal against our decision, as they are entitled to under our Appeals process. You are invited to read the details of the claim, the merchant's reasons for rejection and any subsequent responses to this topic and then, within 14 days, vote as to whether you think we should award the claim. Summary details of the claim history are as follows:

The member visited Mobiles.co.uk on 14 Sep 2012 using the correct imutual link and the details of the transaction were:

Type: Contract phone
Cashback: £26.50
Shares: 265
Reference: Contract phone

The transaction was untracked and a claim was submitted on 8 Oct 2012
The merchant rejected the transaction on 16 Oct 2012, meaning that imutual will not receive any commission for this transaction. Based on information provided by the merchant, we responded to the member as follows:

** 16 Oct **
The merchant has rejected your enquiry, due to the sale being attributed to another website or marketing channel. For further explanation, please see http://www.imutual.co.uk/help/14/1086/

Track record

There have been 6 other Mobiles.co.uk transactions for other imutual members so far this year. None have required claims

The member also submitted a claim for an AffordableMobiles transaction for the same day, which has since been approved by the merchant. They assure us that this was for a separate transaction. The member had no other transactions prior to this

The member concerned may choose to respond to this thread to provide information in support of their claim. Equally, we respect their right to anonymity and they may choose either not to respond or they can ask a staff member to post their response anonymously on their behalf.

Please discuss the merits of this claim and then cast your vote using the poll options provided

Just to clarify the point that the merchant has rejected my claim, attributing it to another website or marketing channel, but without giving any other detail. In fact, I have not benefited from any other website or marketing channel as I used Imutual correctly as specified above. The merchant is either mistaken or not willing to honour the agreement with Imutual. This is a shame.

This seems very similar to the other recent appeal - difficult to say imutual should pay if imutual haven't received any money. Any ideas where the cashback has gone? topcashback? Does the member use any other cashback sites to see if the cashback is there instead? Were cookies cleared etc before carrying out the transaction?

Thanks

A few obvious questions did the claimant visit mobiles.co.uk either directly or via any other link prior to the order.
Is he/she a previous customer of mobiles.co.uk ?
mobiles.co.uk have a refer a friend offer - did you receive any such offers /links from friends in the past ?

RogerLloyd wrote:difficult to say imutual should pay if imutual haven't received any money

This comment is often made in such appeals, so I've created a separate topic here with some general thoughts on the matter

If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.

Or are all merchants that useless that they pay the wrong person so often?

As part of the Terms it is stated that cashback is not guaranteed (on most sites like this one) so if members are going to use a cashback site, they MUST accept that there is some element of gamble involved as to whether or not they will get all of the cashback all of the time.

When I do Populus surveys I sometimes spend 20 minutes, get to the end, it says it finishes OK and that I received payment, but it does not appear in my account.

I accept that as part of the hazards of trying to use Populus as one of the survey offers. If I can raise a ticket to claim missing cashback (from the merchant by forcing them to get their finger out and track a transaction properly) then I will.

But if it is one of the "we cannot raise missing cashback with this scammy merchant" types then I just write it off there and then.

Harsh as us Aspergers may appear to others, that is the rules I apply to myself and I expect others to accept that I judge most of these missing cashback claims by the same ciriteria.

Although Richard does make a good case for not automatically rejecting claims like this, where the member appears to have done nothing wrong, and it seems to be the Merchant's fault,

I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.

Possibly making a note in the forum that another missing cashback had to be paid for merchant "Scammy", so we can all see how the claims are trending and if we can spot any herberts taking advantage.

As such I think this is the last time I am going to vote for or against, we need a less man-hour (man-week?) intensive way to deal with the odd £26 ,here or there, decision.

The other thing I suggest is if a merchant is "bad" then remove them from the offers available, now that I would vote on if that was an option.

Just suggestions for the esteemed membership to cogitate on.

An observation

from a different thread

michelle@imutual wrote:

kevinchess1 wrote:Carphone warehouse
Seems to be on alot of other sights
(Not that I visit them

I will add this merchant as a non-reward merchant and If we get any commission through we will pass that on to you- historically we stopped promoting them due to unreliable tracking.

from:
http://www.mobiles.co.uk/about.html

Mobiles.co.uk was the UK’s first retail mobile phone website (launched in 1995) and is now the largest web-only mobile phone store in the UK, processing thousands of orders every month. Mobiles.co.uk is a trading division of the Carphone Warehouse Group.

RogerLloyd wrote: Any ideas where the cashback has gone? topcashback?

Squire wrote:If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.

There is no suggestion in the opening post that TCB was involved and it would be wrong to infer they might have been without evidence.

Squire wrote:I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.

Surely the whole point of the exercise is for the shareholders to decide and to give imutual something no other site provides. ie: a clear open fair and honest decision making process. I would have thought that this was something to be welcomed and be positive about. I welcome it, would like it to continue.

I am sorry that you have decided to give up your vote and would hope that you would reconsider.

I agree with Drahcir
I don't think it's a waste of time atall
If you don't want to vote then don't
but I always vote an am glad of the opptunity todo so

richard@imutual wrote:

** 16 Oct **
The merchant has rejected your enquiry, due to the sale being attributed to another website or marketing channel. For further explanation, please see http://www.imutual.co.uk/help/14/1086/

This seems to be a common explanation given by the affiliates. Out of curiousity has Imutual ever received payments which don't tie in to any member and/or clickthru? Would the site be able to pick up on it if this did happen?