Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #186076

Complaint Review: Inphonic - Phoenix Arizona

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Chalfont Pennsylvania
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Inphonic Department-63244, Rebate Processing Center, PO Box 52900 Phoenix, Arizona U.S.A.

Inphonic - Wirefly SCAM. Rebate claim denied for late submission. Rude CSR. ripoff Phoenix Arizona

*UPDATE Employee: Customer was proved mistaken

*Author of original report: Filed Complaint with BBB

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

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.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/11/2006 12:35 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/inphonic/phoenix-arizona-85072/inphonic-wirefly-scam-rebate-claim-denied-for-late-submission-rude-csr-ripoff-phoenix-186076. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
2Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#2 UPDATE Employee

Customer was proved mistaken

AUTHOR: Doreen - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, 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

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Author of original report

Filed Complaint with BBB

AUTHOR: Swapnil - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, 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.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now