Rainwater Tank 1100 Litre £1498.00now£50.00@B&Q smaller one also avail for same price

Alias_Omega

Im still a little unsure if to print off a letter and put it in the post.

I ordered the dishwasher, and payment was made, but the cash was not taken out of the account. Mainly my fault as i rang them up the day after i had ordered it to see what was going on, to be told that it was a mistake and no cash would be taken.

I cant see how i can claim on this.? Surely if no cash was taken, i did not pay for something, and if i dont pay for something there is no done deal.?

Alias

TBeckett100

Alias, they reversed the payment before it was debited. when i did screenshots for the lack of T&CS i put in some phony card details to see whether the B&Q system would accept them and send an email or whether they charge the card. It rejected them.
Therefore, B&Q had to charge your card, because they reversed the tx before it came out, should not make the case different. you will have en amil from them confirming payment has been reversed so in a court of law it shows they took it in the first place.

squack

yes if the payment wasn't taken then i guess there wasn't really a contract ... oooops i stand corrected

Lynsey

From here (thanks to Toms work again):
http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1rkcan1vcb56rtndd54pkcf267&topic=7857.120

So, when B&Q, in full knowledge of that ruling, wrote to people who'd ordered the water butts that they couldn't accept the order, were they deliberately trying to mislead their customers?

It seems to me, that B&Q knew they had a contract (it's in their Ts&Cs and the court case showed it was) and they knew they had no discretion because they had no stock, so, have they been less than honest by claiming that, in a later letter, they can't accept an order?

Some of the things I will be asking if it gets to court.

Lynsey

TBeckett100

it is certainly a question we should put to Trading Standards. I will lodge those questions tomorrow as a separate issue and copy in Watchdog. Maybe there is a further story about possible view that B&Q have deceived customers.

Just drove home on the M4 and what joined the motorway, a sodd ing B&Q lorry, switched on the TV to watch a prog on C4 which was sponsored by B&Q. I am just waiting for a job offer now.

I see that Kingfisher and Bond Pearce have been back on lossofbargain. no doubt swatting up on the law.

Anyway, I will email TS tomorrow and write to the OFT about the honesty issue and will keep you posted.

justpoppingin

Lynsey wrote: »

From here (thanks to Toms work again):
(Apparently as a new user I'm not allowed to have links in my contributions.)

Some of the things I will be asking if it gets to court.

Lynsey

Well if we're looking at disingenuity, what should we think about an email from B&Q customer services that states "We will be relying on the entirety of our terms and conditions. We have the right to supply or not at our discretion?"

It seems to me the argument is the same as the one posted on the Navitron forum;

Since B&Q know from the previous ruling that they have a contract and no discretion, are they attempting to mislead their customers by claiming to rely on a clause in the terms and conditions they know is unenforceable?

TBeckett100

See my site for a new email u can send to trading standards

veruccasalt

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Loss of Bargain is the only real way to go. From what I understand, you are legally entitled to claim and you can use the money to purchase the same or similar items with another retailer and form a proper contract offeirng you the protection you would have been afforded had the original contract taken place. Loss of Bargain is not about making money, but it really does try and help put you in the same position as you should have been originally.

Bearing this in mind, I am surprised there has not been more conversation/swapping of ideas to see where instead you intend to source your 1100 litre water butts from.

If I were B&Q I would be looking to obtain these from somewhere else (with a trade discount of course) and get them delivered to you pdq.

Because you obviously all really want one, don't you.

And PS Beckett, please don't start your bullying tactics with me again (like trawling through my old posts etc) cos this is an open forum and I, as well as whoever from B&Q, am perfectly entitled to read and express opinions here just the same as you.

TBeckett100

VS Read the forum and you will know where we will get a replacement and why the law allows us the right to reclaim in court. Many cannot afford nearly a grand but bought it cos they wanted it and could afford it at fifty quid? Come back when you have read up.

Lynsey

veruccasalt wrote: »

If I were B&Q I would be looking to obtain these from somewhere else (with a trade discount of course) and get them delivered to you pdq.

Because you obviously all really want one, don't you.

No, not me, I want two.

Fully agree about B&Q supplying them from somewhere else though, obtain them at wholesale prices to minimise loss - which incidentally is what I have been asking B&Q to do all along.
What I get though is standard "cut and paste" replies relying on their "discretion" clause, which they know doesn't stand-up. So, are they mis-leading customers by informing customers of this knowing of the recent ruling??

Lynsey