We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Rainwater Tank 1100 Litre £1498.00now£50.00@B&Q smaller one also avail for same price
Comments
-
TBeckett100 wrote: »See my site for a new email u can send to trading standards
Great addition. Well worth everyone involved contacting TS. This mess needs looking into/sorting. It will not only help us as customers, but also help B&Q run a "tighter ship" and prevent future problems.
Please support this idea - well done again Tom. :T
Lynsey**** Sealed Pot Challenge - Member #96 ****
No. 9 target £600 - :staradmin (x21)No. 6 Total £740.00 - No. 7 £1000.00 - No. 8 £875.00 - No. 9 £700.00 (target met)0 -
It is telling customers they had no contract that bothers me when a court ruled otherwise. I am asking trading standards to decide if this is misleading and whether b&q should write to all affected and admit that a contract was formed if trading standards agree. Instead b&q are spending more time looking at my site then their own0
-
Hants as it is where hq is located0
-
Maybe what B&Q T&C's should include:After you have completed your order you will automatically be sent a conformation email, this indicates the order has been received by our company and does not mean that a contract exists between us, this will only occur once you have received a VAT invoice which is sent by post. (We have included this term to cover us should a problem arise with pricing, underpaid goods or if we no longer supply a particular product meaning the item could have been discontinued or is out of stock.)
Lynsey**** Sealed Pot Challenge - Member #96 ****
No. 9 target £600 - :staradmin (x21)No. 6 Total £740.00 - No. 7 £1000.00 - No. 8 £875.00 - No. 9 £700.00 (target met)0 -
There's certainly enough evidence here for Trading Standards to prosecute Blunder&Quibble under the new and rather fantastic Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Those unlawful T&Cs are a serious enough breach of the Regulations in their own right, but for B&Q to be proactively misinforming and misleading individual customers about their statutory rights under the contract - well that's just the icing on the cake.
B&Q should be aware that conviction under these regulations carries a statutory prison sentence of up to 2 years for any "officer of a body corporate" if the offence is attributable to any consent, connivance or neglect on his part. "Officer of a body corporate" includes director, manager, secretary or other similar officer.
In other words, this is a really serious matter, not just for B&Q as a company but for any individuals in the organisation who've had a hand in this (certain names spring to mind). Those individuals may wish to start doing some serious thinking, unless they have a desire to taste prison food.
And it seems to me to be beyond the realms of fantasy that B&Q could rely on the due diligence defence contained in the Regulations, given the sheer length of time they've been peddling their unlawful T&Cs, and the fact that a court has already ruled against them in a private civil case.0 -
Great stuff taxiphil. :T
It really would put the "icing on the cake" if T/S prosecuted and got a ruling against them.
Well done,
Lynsey**** Sealed Pot Challenge - Member #96 ****
No. 9 target £600 - :staradmin (x21)No. 6 Total £740.00 - No. 7 £1000.00 - No. 8 £875.00 - No. 9 £700.00 (target met)0 -
Just had my local T/S on the phone and B&Q no longer have the old T&C's on their site.
Good news.
Update: Original T&C's still available here:
http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templates/content_lookup.jsp?content=/wcn/static_content/help/terms.jsp
Also in the link given with original confirmation.
Lynsey**** Sealed Pot Challenge - Member #96 ****
No. 9 target £600 - :staradmin (x21)No. 6 Total £740.00 - No. 7 £1000.00 - No. 8 £875.00 - No. 9 £700.00 (target met)0 -
Everyone must ask them in court why the change. This is a green light0
-
TBeckett100 wrote: »Everyone must ask them in court why the change.
Do you think it will get there??
I really have my doubts now, so much against them. They should be now "bending over backwards" to resolve this now that T/S is on their case.
Lynsey**** Sealed Pot Challenge - Member #96 ****
No. 9 target £600 - :staradmin (x21)No. 6 Total £740.00 - No. 7 £1000.00 - No. 8 £875.00 - No. 9 £700.00 (target met)0 -
Just checked on the 'alternative source' site - delivery for a tank is a minimum of £45 and could be a lot more depending on where you live, so more 'loss.'
I am very surprised B&Q don't just back down and quit whilst the damage is relatively limited, as a good reputation is very hard to build and extremely quickly lost! The goodwill they would gain (would have gained if they had acted earlier) would have been worth a fortune. Look how M&S made a mistake with costs of bigger bras and turned their U-turn into positive advertising copy.....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards