Claw back is not something that dealers like, especially when they have no control on what the customer does. Both Orange and 3 will ask for proofs but will not claw back if they are provided, BUT Vodafone, O2 and T-Mobile will.
If the customer does not have proofs on them at the time, they have to obtain them and come back to present them, but it does make you think why dealers go to the trouble for these networks. So we have to ask WHY? Those networks need to give the dealers an answer on this, why claw back dealers, when YOU have credit checked customers, and what is the point of asking for proofs if the liability is going to fall on the dealer, surly you have to take some of the risk, especially if YOU have passed them in the first place.
It seems in the case of those networks that there is no point whatsoever in asking for proofs, as it’s not going to protect dealers, there seems no reason for keeping these proofs, so we ask those three networks to explain to us why we are asking for and keeping proofs.
There has recently been an interesting subject proposed in regard to dealers being licensed to sell mobiles phone by Jez Harris of Futurenet communications from a question that was raised in one of the forums. The impda would certainly back any such move if as Jez says it can be enforced. All companies holding information on customers no matter how small have to be DPA (Data Protection Registered) and we agree that an approved dealer would bring credibility back into the marketplace, but the question is who is going to police it.
The current system the distributors and network have don’t work as we have seen, but an approval process where any director listed as previously gone out of business or indeed have any court judgements against them in relation to the mobile industry, as well as asking for written references from at least 4 companies and to which they have been dealing with for a min of 3 years, should go someway to an approval certificate.
It seems in the case of those networks that there is no point whatsoever in asking for proofs, as it’s not going to protect dealers, there seems no reason for keeping these proofs, so we ask those three networks to explain to us why we are asking for and keeping proofs.
There has recently been an interesting subject proposed in regard to dealers being licensed to sell mobiles phone by Jez Harris of Futurenet communications from a question that was raised in one of the forums. The impda would certainly back any such move if as Jez says it can be enforced. All companies holding information on customers no matter how small have to be DPA (Data Protection Registered) and we agree that an approved dealer would bring credibility back into the marketplace, but the question is who is going to police it.
The current system the distributors and network have don’t work as we have seen, but an approval process where any director listed as previously gone out of business or indeed have any court judgements against them in relation to the mobile industry, as well as asking for written references from at least 4 companies and to which they have been dealing with for a min of 3 years, should go someway to an approval certificate.
iProperty or MyProperty
A very interesting comment we received on a phone enquiry from a potential customer recently was “who the hell do they think they are” it was aimed at Apple over their iPhone. The customer loved the phone, but said that the O2 plan who have exclusive rights for contract phones is way too high, and she wanted to have it unlocked. When told that Apple on their updates will mean the phone will be locked, gave me an ear blast and a very good question which we would put to Apple, the customer said:
When I pay for a phone it belongs to me, NOT Apple NOT O2 it’s mine and as its my property if I want to get it unlocked that’s up to me, it’s not up to Apple to dictate what I can do with my property. So what gives you the right to interfere with my property?
We have to therefore ask, come on Apple where is your legal right to commit what is in effect criminal damage by locking the phone on an update. The phone does not legally belong to you, and to say to a customer that they MUST use the update to keep their phone up to date, but knowing it will lock the phone or else you get NO updates is almost blackmail. Has anyone challenged this in the courts yet, we don’t know, but I think Apple should reply if only to answer the customers valid question.
When I pay for a phone it belongs to me, NOT Apple NOT O2 it’s mine and as its my property if I want to get it unlocked that’s up to me, it’s not up to Apple to dictate what I can do with my property. So what gives you the right to interfere with my property?
We have to therefore ask, come on Apple where is your legal right to commit what is in effect criminal damage by locking the phone on an update. The phone does not legally belong to you, and to say to a customer that they MUST use the update to keep their phone up to date, but knowing it will lock the phone or else you get NO updates is almost blackmail. Has anyone challenged this in the courts yet, we don’t know, but I think Apple should reply if only to answer the customers valid question.