Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Should we award this claim?

Poll ended at Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:18 pm

Total votes: 40

Posts: 22427
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:02 pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 11370 times
Been thanked: 15599 times

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Post by kevinchess1 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:43 am

dorisisfurtheraway wrote: 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?
yes I wonder this
If this is true then Rpoints/Imutual must get payments that aren't payable to anyone
Can Richards tell us if this happens
Last edited by kevinchess1 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Politically incorrect since 69

Posts: 4488
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:19 am
Sharing: 2stars.png
Has thanked: 1784 times
Been thanked: 3603 times

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Post by richard@imutual » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:38 am

We do get the occasional transaction that doesn't have the correct reference (which enables us to automatically assign it to the right person). But this is usually just a technical error by the merchant relating to a transaction that is rightfully ours - and most of the time we can use other information to deduce which of our members it should be assigned to. I can't ever remember having a transaction that I had reason to believe should have been assigned to another site :?

The usual explanation is that, before using imutual's link, the member has used other websites to research their purchase and inadvertently triggered the other site's tracking cookie. Note that this doesn't necessarily involve clicking on that site's link; it could be requesting a quote through a comparison service or just having the merchant's banner displayed on the page they are viewing

Even though their subsequent click on imutual's link ought to override and previous cookies (known as the "last click wins" policy), this doesn't always happen; either due to a technical error or a deliberate decision by the merchant to give preference to the other website.

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 9:24 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Post by lobianco » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:13 am

Thank you for all your comments, negative and positive. I did not get any cashback from the merchant through any other site or deal. I was not a former customer. I did exactly what I was supposed to do, in good faith, hoping to receive the promised cashback. I appreciate that this is not guaranteed in practice, but it should be morally. If that is what they promise, it is wrong of them to deny it afterwards. I don't expect IMutual to be out of pocket for paying me. I just wanted people to know that they cannot trust this merchant.

Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:58 am
Sharing: 1star.png
Location: Rural Warwickshire
Has thanked: 1648 times
Been thanked: 818 times

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Post by RonFlorabud » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:50 am

Seems as if there is something wrong with your (lobianco) settings. As two transactions failed to track (or were initially declined) something must be wrong. Could it be anything to do with 3rd party 'protection' software, ad blockers, firewalls, etc.
I have used many of the carphone warehouse group companies and never had any problem with their tracking and payments.

As Richard mentioned, there have been 6 previous transactions this year that have processed successfully, so I am not sure you can claim the merchant can't be trusted. It would be nice to know the stats for each merchant though.

As a new member to iMutual, I hope your claim gets awarded and that you continue to shop through our links.

It seems all to easy for merchants to fob-off payments by claiming to have paid another network.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest