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

TBeckett100

i think B&Q maybe ok to let a contract form when they say so as per the terms but critically TS must decide if customers have to accept them and see them first. as the article i found suggests (written by a law firm) tucking them away at the bottom isnt really right,

veruccasalt

Lynsey wrote: »

I don't suggest B&Q are thieves either and no doubt £55k is not a lot to them..........................but when the contract is formed is is crucial in my opinion.
If it's not formed at the point of taking payment then the above quote by "an old cynical accountant" gives all firms the opportunity for abuse.
So a legal point of veiw is needed to state when a contract is formed.

Lynsey

Why do you assume that? £55k is a lot of money to any company these days. And it might lead to a few unfortunate souls losing their jobs and livelihood. The 'icing on your cake', I suppose.

Lynsey

veruccasalt wrote: »

Why do you assume that? £55k is a lot of money to any company these days. And it might lead to a few unfortunate souls losing their jobs and livelihood. The 'icing on your cake', I suppose.

A few souls deserve to lose their jobs, at management level - but do you think it will happen??

The "icing on my cake" will really be when I receive settlement - either water tanks (as in plural), or compensated for "loss of bargain".

There is of course a chance that there will be no "icing on my cake" and no cake at all, just "humble pie" - now that would please a few.

You've got me biting now. :rotfl:

Lynsey

TBeckett100

I think management and customer service attitude has led to a lot of this and I am talking at the HQ not in the shop. Quite frankly B&Q should clear out their HQ and go an employ the more helpful, happy, wise, experienced older people from their stores.

If TS come back and say B&Q have misled customers by saying they could not accept an order when a contract was in fact formed (proved already in court), it will be yet another PR disaster.

Whatever anyone thinks of this whole situation, nobody can condone a company to mislead customers surely?

TBeckett100

taxiphil, you have a PM.

N20Y1D

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Quite frankly B&Q should clear out their HQ and go an employ the more helpful, happy, wise, experienced older people from their stores.

You have obviously never been to my local store.... :rotfl:

TBeckett100

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/10/b-and-q-customer-complaint
whoops. I am gonna give the Guardian a call.

Lynsey

B&Q's press office is fulsome in its contrition. It confirms the obvious: Duncan's contract was with B&Q and B&Q should have nursed him through any hiccups. The company blames a "catalogue of errors" including the fact that Duncan was told he could only request a refund in writing. It promises it will learn from its mistakes and has sent Duncan a refund of his call charges plus a gift voucher, perhaps so he can repeat the experience.

Lol. :rotfl:

Lynsey

TBeckett100

it never rains. Looks like "back to Old Kent Road, do not pass go and do not collect £200. Suddenly our hotels on Park Lane and Mayfair look attractive

frugalfran

Found this written by the lady who wrote about B&Q in the Guardian - (Ana Timms)
it sounds like she's on our wavelength!

"There's a common misconception that customer service staff are inflexible automata, impervious to the subtleties of individual cases. In fact, when the occasion allows - and these alarming economic times are such an occasion - they are capable of impressive creativity aimed at sheltering the profits of the firms they represent."

Could she have been predicting the content of our B&Q letters and emails! Let us know, Tom, please, what she says.