Inphonic - Wirefly SCAM. Rebate claim denied for late submission. Rude CSR. ripoff Phoenix Arizona
Purchased 2 new phones through Wirefly.com/InPhonic on 9/1/2005 with rebate amount = $400.
As per the CSR I had called prior to placing the order, I had to wait 120 days before I could ship out the rebate claim along with the required supporting documents/copies of wireless bill.
I set a reminder for myself to send the rebate on 1/14/2006 (124 days after activation). I sent in the rebate forms with all documentation on 1/22/2006. I kept checking the rebate status and finally on 4/4/2006 (10 weeks) stating "Your submission was postmarked after the valid time frame".
Wirefly.com lists on it's website that Customer Loyalty rebates ( another form of Customer Appreciation rebate? ) should not be sent in before 180 days. Since there is no mention of the Customer Appreciation rebate I assume that (following the same timeframe) sending the rebates 120 days after activation, should be correct.
I spoke with CSR today, who BTW was extremely rude, and was told that I should've sent the rebate within 120 days. First of all she was responding very curtly. But, when asked to be transferred to her Supervisor she just hung up the phone. I called back and spoke with a Supervisor (Oper. ID 9425) who basically just repeated everything with a "tough luck" attitude.
I have a feeling that the CSR I spoke to back in Sept. '05, knowingly provided misleading information to make sure that consumers like myself default on the rebate, which can then be easily denied.
I used to be an unofficial spokesman for the great deals offered by InPhonic and even got a few friends to avail of the same offers.
InPhonic is not only losing me as a valuable return customer but also hundreds others who are reading these complaints.
I am going to write a letter to Cingular as well. I don't think they should be associated with partners who default on their claims.
Thanks
Swapnil
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
U.S.A.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Doreen
Washington,District of Columbia,
U.S.A.
Customer was proved mistaken
#3UPDATE Employee
Mon, April 24, 2006
Dear RipOffReport readers,
as is almost always the case when a customer actually follows up with us, upon further examination Swapnil M. concedes that he did actually fail to meet the deadline.
Here is the email I sent this customer on April 20th, in response to his argument that he believed the activation date to be different than what was listed on the invoice he received from us:
Swapnil,
my records indicate that the lines were activated 9/12, which makes the deadline for submittsion [sic] no later than January 10. That's why our recrods indicate your submission of January 27 is 17 days late.
According to your most recent email, you're telling me [that you were working under the assumption that] your Cingular statement shows an "activation date" of 9/2, which means you believed it to be 10 days earlier than what I show. If this is the case, then the postmark would have been late by 27 days even further past the deadline. Is this what you are saying?
He did not dispute our rebuttal to his argument, and I am therefore closing this case and reporting it as resolved.
Doreen
InPhonic
Swapnil
Chalfont,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
Filed Complaint with BBB
#3Author of original report
Thu, April 13, 2006
Hopefully something will come out the complaint filed with BBB.
I agree with one of the threads on RipOffReports... this problem is so widespread that it validates a class-action suit.