Overdales Solicitors Claim - Mobile contract cancelled

[echat11]

A settlement offer from OD - Lump sum of £500 or 2 x monthly of £300 offer valid until 23/05/2026

It's clearly up to you. You should still get the opportunity of Mediation at some point in the process.

[arrob]

Hi, MyN180 questionnaire seems to have been lost in the post but I've got another copy today from CNBC and still within the time limit to return.

Just to confirm, should I go for small claims track and determination without hearing?

[echat11]

Hi, MyN180 questionnaire seems to have been lost in the post but I've got another copy today from CNBC and still within the time limit to return.

Just to confirm, should I go for small claims track and determination without hearing?

You want Small Courts Track with Hearing.

You can email it to the Court, but make you've got the correct email address.

Subject line Claim Number - Defendants Directions Questionnaire - XXXXXXXXX v XXXXXXXX

[arrob]

A letter from Overdales over the weekend.
"Three Mobile confirmed that: 1. You contacted Three Mobile on x/x/21 to return the device and cancel the contract within the cooling off period 2. You were informed that a return bag will be provided to return the device and once the device was returned the agreemennt would be cancelled 3. You however failed to return the device therefore the agreement remained active and you were liable for the early termination fee."
I did receive a 'return bag' and I still have the letter that came with it asking"The Very important bit - Make sure it's returned as new and unused" etc Unfortunately, what it did not state clearly is which of the two identical devices they expected back! The routers were only distinguishable by imei address and there's nothing in the letter to say it's important that I send a specific one.
What I think happened (but as three did not contact me to say they had received the wrong imei device at any point, so it's a bit of guesswork on my part) I sent one of the E5783 routers back as they requested, but when they scanned it, it didn't match the imei/serial number they were expecting.and didn't contact me to let me know.
Do I discuss this with overdales at this point?

[echat11]

A letter from Overdales over the weekend.
"Three Mobile confirmed that: 1. You contacted Three Mobile on x/x/21 to return the device and cancel the contract within the cooling off period 2. You were informed that a return bag will be provided to return the device and once the device was returned the agreemennt would be cancelled 3. You however failed to return the device therefore the agreement remained active and you were liable for the early termination fee."
I did receive a 'return bag' and I still have the letter that came with it asking"The Very important bit - Make sure it's returned as new and unused" etc Unfortunately, what it did not state clearly is which of the two identical devices they expected back! The routers were only distinguishable by imei address and there's nothing in the letter to say it's important that I send a specific one.
What I think happened (but as three did not contact me to say they had received the wrong imei device at any point, so it's a bit of guesswork on my part) I sent one of the E5783 routers back as they requested, but when they scanned it, it didn't match the imei/serial number they were expecting.and didn't contact me to let me know.
Do I discuss this with overdales at this point?

Have you received information from your SAR request to Three?

[arrob]

Have you received information from your SAR request to Three?

Yes, mostly bills spanning 5 years, transcript of webchats and 'interaction notes' summary.

[echat11]

Yes, mostly bills spanning 5 years, transcript of webchats and 'interaction notes' summary.

What information have you got relating to the two devices i.e. can you show they were ordered (even though accidently)? one was returned, correspondence with Three regarding the return etc.

What can you show, even if there isn't concrete evidence of return?

Once you get the evidence / facts together, you could consider writing a Without Prejudice letter with the facts,
they can't use this against you in Court if you write Without Prejudice on the letter.

[arrob]

I have both emails confirming the two orders (I cancelled one before ordering the other but have no proof of this)

From the SAR there's evidence that I contacted them to return the unwanted one "29/03/2021 I/B Phone # Return Or Exchange My Device # Not Being Used Anymore
DPA done - Cust wanted to return, raised jiffy bag [], suspended acc, cancelled DDI, suspended collections, raised cases for Handset"

Then I've the original letter from Three asking for the router back, but there's no mention that it has to be a specific serial or IMEI number returned. I assumed, as they were both identical from my point of view, that either would be acceptable for the return.

Then my follow-up chat a few weeks later where I ask "Initial Question: I've returned the modem and sim unopened but I have received a bill for unreturned equipment. All I have is a photo of the equipment condition minutes before sealing the prepaid envelope."
Three: "You can contact our dedicated returns team on or 0333 338 1039"
Three " Hey - are you still there?"
Me: "Yes"
Three: " I hope everything has been taken care of?"
Me: "Not really"

I contacted Three again in 2025 as it had only dawned on me then that the reason for all of this might be that they received a router with a different numbered imei to the one they expected.
Me "Is there a record of the imei of the original Huawei E5783b router that came with my sim? "
Three confirmed the imei for the router i had kept using did not match the one on their records.

Had they specified in their return letter that the router had to be of a specific imei, I would have ensured I sent the right one back.

Sorry, all of this is so long-winded

[arrob]

I've put a few of the facts down as concisely as possible in reply to Overdales..

"Thank you for your letter dated 2026 referring to "the side matter" I still dispute this claim in its entirety.
1. Cancellation Within the Cooling-Off Period
The original order with Three Mobile was cancelled within approximately 30 minutes of being placed. I contacted Three sales support immediately and was expressly assured that the order had not yet been processed and would not be dispatched.
This cancellation was made well within the statutory 14-day cooling-off period provided by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
2. Duplicate Order Caused by Three
Relying on Three's confirmation that the first order had been cancelled, I placed a second order for the tariff I actually intended to purchase.
Despite confirming that the first order had been cancelled, Three dispatched both orders. Any resulting confusion arose from Three's failure to process the original cancellation correctly and not from any action on my part.
3. Three's Own Records Confirm the Cancellation
When both orders arrived, I contacted Three again to cancel the unwanted contract.
The Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) records supplied by Three contain numerous entries confirming that the cancellation was accepted and processed internally. These records include the following:

• Customer wanted to return
• Jiffy bag raised
• Account suspended
• Direct Debit Instruction (DDI) cancelled
• Collections suspended
• Cases raised for handset return

These notes demonstrate that Three accepted the cancellation request and took steps consistent with the account being terminated rather than continuing as an active contract.
4. No Service Was Ever Used and Equipment Was Returned
The SIM card and router associated with the cancelled contract were never used.
I possess photographic evidence showing that the SIM remained unopened and that the router packaging remained sealed prior to return. Furthermore, Three's own billing records show no actual usage of the service.
The recorded charges relate solely to the standard monthly tariff rather than any usage-generated charges.
I also have strong evidence that the subsequent dispute may have arisen because Three failed to identify that they expected a particular router, identified by serial number or IMEI, to be returned. The return documentation merely stated that the equipment should be returned unused and unopened.
Both routers supplied were identical in appearance and packaging. At no stage did Three provide clear instructions identifying which specific device was required. In those circumstances, I had no reasonable means of distinguishing between them, nor could any reasonable consumer have been expected to do so.
5. Billing After Cancellation Was Improper
Despite confirming the cancellation, suspending the account, cancelling the Direct Debit and suspending collections activity, Three subsequently sought to charge me for the entire minimum term of the contract.
This is inconsistent with the rights provided under the Consumer Contracts Regulations, which permit cancellation within the cooling-off period. Where a consumer validly exercises their cancellation rights and does not use the service, the provider cannot simply impose liability for the remaining term of the agreement.
6. The Intended Contract Remains Active
The second contract—the contract I intended to retain—remains active and has been paid in full.
This clearly demonstrates that I was not attempting to avoid payment for services that I wished to receive. Rather, I took prompt steps to cancel the duplicate contract that I neither wanted nor used.
7. Summary

• I cancelled the original order within approximately 30 minutes of placing it.
• I relied on Three's assurance that the order had been cancelled.
• I cancelled again when Three dispatched both orders.
• Three's own DSAR records confirm cancellation activity, account suspension and Direct Debit cancellation.
• No service was ever used.
• Equipment was returned unused as requested.
• Any confusion regarding returned equipment arose from Three's failure to clearly identify which of the identical devices they expected to be returned.
• The contract that I intended to keep remains active and has been paid in full.
• Three therefore has no lawful basis to charge me for the full minimum term of a contract that was cancelled within the cooling-off period.

Accordingly, I will request that this claim be dismissed in full and that any adverse records or collection activity relating to this account be removed.

Without prejudice"

[echat11]

I've put a few of the facts down as concisely as possible in reply to Overdales..

"Thank you for your letter dated 2026 referring to "the side matter" I still dispute this claim in its entirety.
1. Cancellation Within the Cooling-Off Period
The original order with Three Mobile was cancelled within approximately 30 minutes of being placed. I contacted Three sales support immediately and was expressly assured that the order had not yet been processed and would not be dispatched.
This cancellation was made well within the statutory 14-day cooling-off period provided by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
2. Duplicate Order Caused by Three
Relying on Three's confirmation that the first order had been cancelled, I placed a second order for the tariff I actually intended to purchase.
Despite confirming that the first order had been cancelled, Three dispatched both orders. Any resulting confusion arose from Three's failure to process the original cancellation correctly and not from any action on my part.
3. Three's Own Records Confirm the Cancellation
When both orders arrived, I contacted Three again to cancel the unwanted contract.
The Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) records supplied by Three contain numerous entries confirming that the cancellation was accepted and processed internally. These records include the following:

• Customer wanted to return
• Jiffy bag raised
• Account suspended
• Direct Debit Instruction (DDI) cancelled
• Collections suspended
• Cases raised for handset return

These notes demonstrate that Three accepted the cancellation request and took steps consistent with the account being terminated rather than continuing as an active contract.
4. No Service Was Ever Used and Equipment Was Returned
The SIM card and router associated with the cancelled contract were never used.
I possess photographic evidence showing that the SIM remained unopened and that the router packaging remained sealed prior to return. Furthermore, Three's own billing records show no actual usage of the service.
The recorded charges relate solely to the standard monthly tariff rather than any usage-generated charges.
I also have strong evidence that the subsequent dispute may have arisen because Three failed to identify that they expected a particular router, identified by serial number or IMEI, to be returned. The return documentation merely stated that the equipment should be returned unused and unopened.
Both routers supplied were identical in appearance and packaging. At no stage did Three provide clear instructions identifying which specific device was required. In those circumstances, I had no reasonable means of distinguishing between them, nor could any reasonable consumer have been expected to do so.
5. Billing After Cancellation Was Improper
Despite confirming the cancellation, suspending the account, cancelling the Direct Debit and suspending collections activity, Three subsequently sought to charge me for the entire minimum term of the contract.
This is inconsistent with the rights provided under the Consumer Contracts Regulations, which permit cancellation within the cooling-off period. Where a consumer validly exercises their cancellation rights and does not use the service, the provider cannot simply impose liability for the remaining term of the agreement.
6. The Intended Contract Remains Active
The second contract—the contract I intended to retain—remains active and has been paid in full.
This clearly demonstrates that I was not attempting to avoid payment for services that I wished to receive. Rather, I took prompt steps to cancel the duplicate contract that I neither wanted nor used.
7. Summary

• I cancelled the original order within approximately 30 minutes of placing it.
• I relied on Three's assurance that the order had been cancelled.
• I cancelled again when Three dispatched both orders.
• Three's own DSAR records confirm cancellation activity, account suspension and Direct Debit cancellation.
• No service was ever used.
• Equipment was returned unused as requested.
• Any confusion regarding returned equipment arose from Three's failure to clearly identify which of the identical devices they expected to be returned.
• The contract that I intended to keep remains active and has been paid in full.
• Three therefore has no lawful basis to charge me for the full minimum term of a contract that was cancelled within the cooling-off period.

Accordingly, I will request that this claim be dismissed in full and that any adverse records or collection activity relating to this account be removed.

Without prejudice"

Without Predudice goes at the top.

That sets out you position 'succinctly'.

They weren't clear in their instructions to you.

You followed the instruction that you had been given.

[atticus]

Why are you suggesting marking this "without prejudice"? Surely this should be an 'open' letter.

[echat11]

Why are you suggesting marking this "without prejudice"? Surely this should be an 'open' letter.

Maybe. Ongoing case, don't want Lowell / Overdales coming back with 'this or that'.

[atticus]

"Without prejudice" protects genuine attempts to settle. It is not some wording to be thrown in because you have seen lawyers use it.

And it is certainly not magical protection against the party to whom the letter is sent replying.

[echat11]

"Without prejudice" protects genuine attempts to settle. It is not some wording to be thrown in because you have seen lawyers use it.

And it is certainly not magical protection against the party to whom the letter is sent replying.

Hopefully the Claimant / Overdales read the 'factual' information contained in the letter and see sense and withdraw the claim and
any markers on the OP's credit file, so the matter will be settled.

[atticus]

Hope is not certainty.