MBNA won't help with unscrupulous online merchant

Jemma-T

I was talking about the Consumer Credit Act but more interested in the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000.

dash_rendar

Sorry for resurrecting this thread. I've just recently also been caught out by these dodgy dealers, and opened up a new thread about it. I can't post the link as this forum won't allow me, 'as a new user [to stop spammers...]'. In my case, I got stung for import duty I wasn't expecting.

I too found that the domain name is registered to a private individual, whose details have been 'opted-out'. Sounds very dodgy to me. I'll certainly report them to Nominet.

Maelstrom_2

Where's the apology to MBNA for wasting their time and publicly blaming them for your folly?

dappyd

Maelstrom wrote: »

Where's the apology to MBNA for wasting their time and publicly blaming them for your folly?

That is more than a tad harsh.

It has been clearly established by several on this thread that although somehow legal (I'm still somewhat doubtful), this retailer intentionally misleads consumers in the UK into thinking they are UK based, which ultimately costs the consumer more money, or in some cases (mine) the entire transaction: the item I purchased from them in April, I have never received and have now written it off to experience.

Both the retailer and MBNA made money on the transaction - I lost 100%.

MBNA could do their bit to help shut down this sort of practice but they choose not to. No-one is blaming MBNA for their personal folly (I won't make my mistake again), but we are definitely publicly exposing how MBNA responds because we believe their actions favour misleading retailers rather than mislead consumers.

There will be no apology to me to MBNA.

ILW

I can only assume that the OP bought from this site as it was a couple of quid cheaper than others. Does nobody ever ask themselves why?

dash_rendar

So we should now always avoid the cheapest websites? Could a site not, perhaps, sell products cheaper simply because they have the lowest margin, or because they have stronger buying power, or because they want a competitive edge?

Most online traders I've dealt with run an honest business. Every now and again, we stumble across an unscrupulous site like this, where the site is deliberately misleading. Yet here we are, suggesting the OP had it coming, because they didn't research the site for an hour first? I suspect most people will only spend two or three minutes looking at a site, before judging whether it seems safe or not. But in this case, a few minutes isn't enough. So, that makes it the fault of the buyer, does it? Maybe we should also congratulate the vendor while we're at it, and give them a medal for sucking in unsuspecting naive shoppers?

dappyd

ILW wrote: »

I can only assume that the OP bought from this site as it was a couple of quid cheaper than others. Does nobody ever ask themselves why?

ILW, have you ever been mislead by anyone in your life, under any circumstances?

Irrespective of the answer, I'd like to share my view that the beauty of fora such as this is that they allow people who have had their fingers burnt (for whatever reason) to share their experiences with others, so that we can all learn from the experience. Pointing cynical, self-righteous fingers at other members for your own amusement helps nobody.

I hope the weather is good up there on your moral high ground. Have a good weekend.

ILW

dappyd wrote: »

ILW, have you ever been mislead by anyone in your life, under any circumstances?

Irrespective of the answer, I'd like to share my view that the beauty of fora such as this is that they allow people who have had their fingers burnt (for whatever reason) to share their experiences with others, so that we can all learn from the experience. Pointing cynical, self-righteous fingers at other members for your own amusement helps nobody.

I hope the weather is good up there on your moral high ground. Have a good weekend.

Blimey, have I touched a nerve?
In general if someone is selling something cheaper than anyone else, something has to give.
Agreed it is possible to cut costs by cutting down on such items as customer service, stock levels, back up etc. which can result in a lower advertised price for an item. Very often this means that the cheapest is not the best. If you accept that then fine, but don't moan when things do not go perfectly.

ILW

dash_rendar wrote: »

So we should now always avoid the cheapest websites? Could a site not, perhaps, sell products cheaper simply because they have the lowest margin, or because they have stronger buying power, or because they want a competitive edge?

Or possibly because they are cutting corners.
Any
body is welcome to take the risk. Just accept it may not be all it appears to be.

dash_rendar

If you see a car advertised at a garage for 14995, and then see the same model down the road for 14795, you don't automatically assume that the second garage is running a fraudulant business and is going to scam you. Granted, if the second garage were selling the same car for half the price, then you should certainly think twice. Same thing here... if one website sells the product at a price 1-2% lower than another website, that shouldn't be setting alarm bells ringing.

Unless you live in paranoia-ville.

Doesn't make it the fault of the bank though does it? There is such a thing as personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility, in this case, would seem to be putting a reasonable amount of effort into determining if the site is credible. How much is reasonable?

And is it the fault of the bank? Well, if a site is trading in an unscrupulous manner, then should they still have a merchant account? How did they manage to get accreditation in the first place? Perhaps they're using a third party EFT vendor, who would then liable for any fraudant claims against the merchant. Whichever way, if Joe public puts through a credit card payment to a site operating in such a way, then the credit card issuers, or acquiring banks, or third party EFT vendors should also take the responsiblity. Whichever of these has allowed the site to take credit card payments should not be allowed to turn a blind eye.