imutual.co.uk

HeadHunter wrote:

zulu17 wrote:I took up this offer last year successfully.

I'm aware that specific advise on how to ensure that such offers should be taken up is given by Imutual. It is linked from the offer page,

Namely

http://www.imutual.co.uk/help/4/1481/

Did the claimant follow that advice ?

I did what I have always done for many years.

Sorry you not addressed the question - there is specific advice as to how to try and ensure that insurance company regards you as a new lead and hence pay imutual who in turn would pay you.

It's a fair point, zulu and I have no wish to dissemble, but the honest answer is I don't remember. Common sense tells me I didn't just pluck the AXA brand out of thin air and I must have checked them out somewhere, and I have certainly used the searches advertised here in the past, but certainly not on this occasion.

But no, more specifically, I didn't "clear cookies" whatever that may entail.

Other cashback sites have specific advice regarding problems over getting the commission from insurance purchases.

The need to ensure your eventual purchase is considered a brand new transaction is stressed, and claiming ignorance of what clearing cookies means doesn't look a good enough reason to get paid out when the transaction gets tracked to another site.

Glad you have the opportunity to cross examine me, oes.

I'm not au fait with the cashback business. It's not really why I'm here. (Though I do understand that I possibly could do better elsewhere if such was the case! )

I'm not claiming I should be paid. I'm saying that if anonymous member X was paid, so should I be.

One Eyed Snake wrote:
The need to ensure your eventual purchase is considered a brand new transaction is stressed, and claiming ignorance of what clearing cookies means doesn't look a good enough reason to get paid out when the transaction gets tracked to another site.

I have to say I agree with this. I would always ensure with this type of transaction cookies were cleared and even possibly use a different browser. The need to do this is well publicised and I would consider it my own fault if the subsequent purchase did not track.

HeadHunter wrote: I'm not claiming I should be paid. I'm saying that ifC, so should I be.

But of the 2 previous claims one wasn't paid

' anonymous member X was paid'
But their transaction was the purchase of a computor
which is quite abit different from byin insurance

Drahcir wrote:

One Eyed Snake wrote:
The need to ensure your eventual purchase is considered a brand new transaction is stressed, and claiming ignorance of what clearing cookies means doesn't look a good enough reason to get paid out when the transaction gets tracked to another site.

I have to say I agree with this. I would always ensure with this type of transaction cookies were cleared and even possibly use a different browser. The need to do this is well publicised and I would consider it my own fault if the subsequent purchase did not track.

I totally agree having been in this situation.I have since learnt from my mistake and now ensure that comparison sites are not used and always clear cookies.If I need to find out prices I do this anonymously when I can.

Firstly i would like to sympathise with the claimant having been in this situation myself on other sites.
The thing that annoys me the most is that merchants can simply say what they like to not pay cashback and that is that,their word is that of God and can't be argued against.When they say,the cashback was attributed elsewhere,why not make them prove this ? It is far,far to easy for them to renege on paying out rightful cashback.
Perhaps a solution to this,is something that happened to me recently on another site.I had cashback declined by AA insurance,after over 1 year of the transaction tracking,declining,claiming successfully and then declining again for exactly the same reason as the claimant here.The cashback site that i used,generously offered me half the cashback out of their own pockets,which i accepted as there was no chance of the AA changing their stance.So i was at least half happy and the benefit for the cashback site is that i have every confidence in using that site again.HTH.

many years ago, I had problems with the AA - they promised me a refund when I cancelled because they failed to come out to me on a breakdown - however they just wouldn't pay the promised refund - so I ordered some books from the AA, didn't pay for them - when they chased me, I wrote a letter explaining that they were welcome to take me to court but that they owed me money anyway and as far as I was concerned I was calling it quits - never heard another thing from them. Mind you I don't recommend this course of action.

bazwaldo wrote:after over 1 year of the transaction tracking,declining,claiming successfully and then declining again for exactly the same reason as the claimant here.The cashback site that i used,generously offered me half the cashback out of their own pockets,which i accepted as there was no chance of the AA changing their stance.

That was reasonable of you. But I don't think everyone would be so satisfied with that outcome (especially after you'd spent so long chasing). Another person in that situation could, theoretically, have threatened to take the site through the small claims court - as your contract was with them, not the AA. Or just bad-mouthed them on other websites (even more damaging). Not something I would want imutual to suffer

The trouble with a "50%" compensation is that it's neither one thing nor the other. Either you're entitled to the cashback or you're not. Unless the site in question is so cash-strapped that 50% is literally all it can afford

With this additional "appeal to members" option, I'm anticipating that members will generally vote in favour of a claim if they are persuaded that the member has done everything that could reasonably be expected to qualify for the cashback. I guess the issue in this case concerns the stated caveats about insurance sites, and whether the advice has been followed