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

Lynsey

Although not impossible, I can't believe a judge would favour B&Q as per the T&C's at the time of purchase, it wouldn't make sense.
I wonder how many times B&Q would actually challenge each claim and risk another CCJ to be placed against them.
I can understand B&Q not settling one way or other unless court action is taken out against them, hence the need to sue.

Good luck to all involved - small risk for high gain.

Lynsey

TBeckett100

All,

it would be useful for you all to email Hampshire TS. OK the replies will be the same but you can print it off and use it in your legal pack (details to follow shortly) If you can show your judge what the trading law position is, it may help remove any doubt against your claim.

please email the following to [EMAIL="rsadvice@hants.gov.uk"]rsadvice@hants.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Dear Trading Standards,
As a customer of B&Q, I would be grateful if you could investigate and provide an opinion on the following:
1) During the browsing and ordering process, including the payment page, it would appear that B&Q do not provide any highlighted link to the T&C's (they are stuck at the bottom of the page), do not ask the customer to look at the T&C's or make the customer tick to say they accept the T&C's before placing the order. When a confirmation email arrives confirming the order, a link is placed in the email which takes you to the website T&Cs. My question is, can B&Q rely on their Terms and Conditions when the sales process does not have any safeguard in place for the customer to have confirmed he/she has read and agreed to them?
3) B&Q recently accepted a number of orders for an Argonaut Rain Saver by taking payment and issuing confirmation emails. B&Q sold more Argonaut Rain Saver devices than available in stock and by way of cancellation, sent a letter to customers confirming that B&Q "COULD NOT ACCEPT YOUR ORDER". According to the website Terms and Conditions at the time of the order, a legally binding contract is formed when payment is taken and confirmation is issued. A similar situation occurred in January when B&Q cancelled a number of orders for a Zanussi dishwasher and one customer took B&Q to court and won 'loss of bargain' as the judge ruled a contract had been formed. The terms in force at the time can be viewed via this link http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templates/content_lookup.jsp?content=/wcn/static_content/help/terms.jsp
Bearing in mind the fact that B&Q took payment and confirmed the order (which forms a contract as per the T&C's in force at the time) and bearing in mind B&Q recently lost a case based on the same issue, 'loss of bargain', I feel that B&Q may have misled customers into believing that a contract was not formed in the first place by stating the order could not be accepted, when by their own admission (previous T&C's) a contract is formed when payment is taken and confirmation issued. A customer that has been told an order could not be accepted when in fact a contract had been formed and cancelled by an 'Anticipatory Breach' may not believe they have any rights, such as loss of bargain. If you agree this is misleading, should B&Q have an obligation to write to all affected customers again to set the record straight?
4) In the previous B&Q Terms and Conditions, B&Q stated "we reserve the right not to supply you at our discretion". Would Trading Standards consider this term 'unfair' under the Unfair Terms in Contracts Act?
I look forward to receiving your reply shortly
Yours faithfully

TBeckett100

Lynsey wrote: »

Although not impossible, I can't believe a judge would favour B&Q as per the T&C's at the time of purchase, it wouldn't make sense.
I wonder how many times B&Q would actually challenge each claim and risk another CCJ to be placed against them.
I can understand B&Q not settling one way or other unless court action is taken out against them, hence the need to sue.

Good luck to all involved - small risk for high gain.

Lynsey

B&Qs defence in the dishwasher saga was
a) there was no contract - TS says yes there was and so does their T&Cs (which they have changed - ask why in court!)
b) if there was a contract they reserve the right to use discretion.(TS says they cannot rely on it and we all know, no stock = no choice)

Game, set and match

Lynsey

TBeckett100 wrote: »

B&Qs defence in the dishwasher saga was
a) there was no contract - TS says yes there was and so does their T&Cs (which they have changed - ask why in court!)
b) if there was a contract they reserve the right to use discretion.(TS says they cannot rely on it and we all know, no stock = no choice)

Game, set and match

You would certainly think it was "Game, set and match", as based on the T&C's alone it's one-sided, thankfully.
Unless they can come up with a valid legal reason it looks a lost cause for them. If that is the case then they have handled this very, very badly - very poor customer relations.
Maybe, just maybe there is a "sting in the tail" - if anyone can see it I would be grateful for it to be pointed out.
I can envisage a few things they might come up with if it comes to court, but they can only ever be assumptions and the only outcome should be based on the facts, and the facts are a contract was formed and subsequently breached.

Lynsey

TBeckett100

I had a solicitor check this and there is no way out. He said if my case reached court again it would be pr wrecklessness as their were 400 of there ordered and you can bet people would def come out woodwork to claim.

TBeckett100

He also said to keep all the ignored emails I have sent to b and q officials to demonstrate the frustration they caused me. It is true to say b and q were given ample opp to deal with the matter before the website went up

Alias_Omega

Ive still not sent the form off to B&Q for the dishwasher, its sitting in the car awaiting my next trip to the post office for recorded delivery post.

TBeckett100

Oh alias. Get it in soon and file claim when they say no.

Alias_Omega

Im off work on monday, shall have to drag myself down there again.

I have a few bits to mail away. The postoffice isnt exactly just round the corner.

Lynsey

Tom, have B&Q responded yet to your claim??
Your 14 days should be up/coming up??

Lynsey