Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
|
|
Buy at B&Q? |
|
|
Guest_Bill1_*
|
Jul 3 2009, 08:41 PM
|
Guests
|
QUOTE (Hugh Saskin @ Jul 3 2009, 06:38 PM) Anyone else spot the story in the current NWN re the bloke who bought at dishwasher at a very reduced price - 87 sovs - from B&Q online and was dismayed when he contacted them to arrange delivery only to find they couldn't do it until 2050? He wasn't best pleased and the judge agreed with him when he took them to court. Yes I did and I expect others did too, why?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 4 2009, 05:07 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37
|
QUOTE (Bill1 @ Jul 3 2009, 09:41 PM) Yes I did and I expect others did too, why? It's just that I can't believe a seemingly serious retail outfit would quote a delivery date 41 years into the future. Some kind of record, surely, even allowing for things like Morgan cars?
|
|
|
|
Guest_Bill1_*
|
Jul 4 2009, 08:04 PM
|
Guests
|
QUOTE (Darren @ Jul 4 2009, 07:31 PM) Hoover Free Flights offer anyone?
It does sent an interesting precedence. The judge has basically ruled that where a on-line offer is made, the store must have stock to cover the orders placed.
They cannot accept orders, take payments (bank and earn interest) then say it's over-sold and refund (minus interest). Of course, as this was in the Small Claims Court, it's subject to review by a higher court, but expect more compensation being paid out. And quite right too!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 4 2009, 10:33 PM
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-July 09
Member No.: 177
|
just to add, the story did not specify why the judge granted compensation.
I took B&Q to court over the legal term 'loss of bargain'. When a retailer and buyer form a legal contract and the retailer cancels the contract the buyer should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The situation was B&Q formed a contract then broke it. The same dishwasher was £250 dearer (because B&Q had sold them as bargain end of line) and therefore to put me in the same position, B&Q had to pay up.
However, it was the sheer arrogance of B&Q throughout the process that led to the claim. It was never about the money, that is why i declined the £100 offer, I wanted a court hearing to prove I was right and B&Q was wrong, albeit a risk for both sides. If I lost, I would have taken it on the chin.
Several people filed claims against B&Q and all claims were settled before the hearing except my claim which gave me the chance to see whether I was right, and I was.
Now, I am faced with a similar situation over another cancelled order with B&Q and it looks like I have to go back to court. I have set up a website www.lossofbargain.co.uk which highlights the issues I have with this retailer. Again, it is not about the money, but the principle that despite losing a claim on the same basis, the retailer is not being open with customers when they complain.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 4 2009, 10:52 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (TBeckett100 @ Jul 4 2009, 11:33 PM) just to add, the story did not specify why the judge granted compensation.
I took B&Q to court over the legal term 'loss of bargain'. When a retailer and buyer form a legal contract and the retailer cancels the contract the buyer should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The situation was B&Q formed a contract then broke it. The same dishwasher was £250 dearer (because B&Q had sold them as bargain end of line) and therefore to put me in the same position, B&Q had to pay up.
However, it was the sheer arrogance of B&Q throughout the process that led to the claim. It was never about the money, that is why i declined the £100 offer, I wanted a court hearing to prove I was right and B&Q was wrong, albeit a risk for both sides. If I lost, I would have taken it on the chin.
Several people filed claims against B&Q and all claims were settled before the hearing except my claim which gave me the chance to see whether I was right, and I was.
Now, I am faced with a similar situation over another cancelled order with B&Q and it looks like I have to go back to court. I have set up a website www.lossofbargain.co.uk which highlights the issues I have with this retailer. Again, it is not about the money, but the principle that despite losing a claim on the same basis, the retailer is not being open with customers when they complain. Glad to hear you are standing up to them. It a pity that more people don't do what you do. I always make a complaint if the people I am dealing with are in the wrong. At the moment I am in dispute with my Housing agency; the complaint I've got with them I wish to take further but they keep side stepping me.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 4 2009, 11:03 PM
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-July 09
Member No.: 177
|
QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 4 2009, 11:52 PM) Glad to hear you are standing up to them. It a pity that more people don't do what you do. I always make a complaint if the people I am dealing with are in the wrong. At the moment I am in dispute with my Housing agency; the complaint I've got with them I wish to take further but they keep side stepping me. An unshaken tree rattles no one. Make noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2009, 09:38 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37
|
QUOTE (TBeckett100 @ Jul 4 2009, 11:33 PM) just to add, the story did not specify why the judge granted compensation.
I took B&Q to court over the legal term 'loss of bargain'. When a retailer and buyer form a legal contract and the retailer cancels the contract the buyer should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The situation was B&Q formed a contract then broke it. The same dishwasher was £250 dearer (because B&Q had sold them as bargain end of line) and therefore to put me in the same position, B&Q had to pay up.
However, it was the sheer arrogance of B&Q throughout the process that led to the claim. It was never about the money, that is why i declined the £100 offer, I wanted a court hearing to prove I was right and B&Q was wrong, albeit a risk for both sides. If I lost, I would have taken it on the chin.
Several people filed claims against B&Q and all claims were settled before the hearing except my claim which gave me the chance to see whether I was right, and I was.
Now, I am faced with a similar situation over another cancelled order with B&Q and it looks like I have to go back to court. I have set up a website www.lossofbargain.co.uk which highlights the issues I have with this retailer. Again, it is not about the money, but the principle that despite losing a claim on the same basis, the retailer is not being open with customers when they complain. Good for you and good luck in your battle - the Brits often seem to accept being ripped off as inevitable and, even worse, unremarkable.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2009, 10:06 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (TBeckett100 @ Jul 4 2009, 11:33 PM) just to add, the story did not specify why the judge granted compensation.
I took B&Q to court over the legal term 'loss of bargain'. When a retailer and buyer form a legal contract and the retailer cancels the contract the buyer should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The situation was B&Q formed a contract then broke it. The same dishwasher was £250 dearer (because B&Q had sold them as bargain end of line) and therefore to put me in the same position, B&Q had to pay up.
However, it was the sheer arrogance of B&Q throughout the process that led to the claim. It was never about the money, that is why i declined the £100 offer, I wanted a court hearing to prove I was right and B&Q was wrong, albeit a risk for both sides. If I lost, I would have taken it on the chin.
Several people filed claims against B&Q and all claims were settled before the hearing except my claim which gave me the chance to see whether I was right, and I was.
Now, I am faced with a similar situation over another cancelled order with B&Q and it looks like I have to go back to court. I have set up a website www.lossofbargain.co.uk which highlights the issues I have with this retailer. Again, it is not about the money, but the principle that despite losing a claim on the same basis, the retailer is not being open with customers when they complain. Interesting. Tesco will issue you with a voucher if, when in their store, a product on offer has sold out. At least they did a few years back when I complained that all the BOGOF offers were sold out. Customer service wrote out a slip which entitled me to the same offer when stock was back in the storte, even if the promotion had officially eneded.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2009, 10:18 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jul 5 2009, 11:06 AM) Interesting. Tesco will issue you with a voucher if, when in their store, a product on offer has sold out. At least they did a few years back when I complained that all the BOGOF offers were sold out. Customer service wrote out a slip which entitled me to the same offer when stock was back in the storte, even if the promotion had officially eneded. Not normally a great fan of Tesco but they do seem to raise things to a higher plain than a lot of retailers, no doubt that is one of the reasons for their success. Also very pleased to hear one of their senior men recently saying that they have no intention of scrapping the final pension scheme for their staff as they are making more than enough money to cover the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2009, 09:02 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 235
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Oldbury
Member No.: 22
|
QUOTE Anyone else spot the story in the current NWN re the bloke who bought at dishwasher at a very reduced price - 87 sovs - from B&Q online and was dismayed when he contacted them to arrange delivery only to find they couldn't do it until 2050? He wasn't best pleased and the judge agreed with him when he took them to court. Yeah i read this one, i thought it was a NWN spelling error... instead of it being the year of 2050 i thought it was the time of 20:50... thought he got a bit annoyed it was going to come later in the day.
--------------------
"Quick, Hide something that looks like fun!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|