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

fantafan

I ordered mine within the hour of it being posted - with the intention of digging a large hole to save water to re-use in my garden thus saving water and the planet. No ulterrior motives, manipulation etc etc. I have the quotes in my legal pack suggesting that people purchased in a bid to get the money back that it is worth.

I too, never bought a dishwasher.

Why is that so hard for them to understand? I just want what I ordered. Nothing more, nothing less. I had a contract and just want them to order it. Surely it would have been easier for them just to honor the orders. I am sure the people who were in it to make a quick buck (eg the person selling them on eBay) but I'm sure when all these people took delivery they'd be wanting to return them.

TBeckett100

couldnt B&Q counteract the people who bought to claim by ummmm supplying it? surely no one in their right mind thought B&Q would go back on the deal less than 3 weeks after the dishwasher saga. Anyway, they should be careful on the issue of defamation. I doubt the judge will consider heresay.

I mean, i know i will get 14 years for murder but because i have mentioned it on a forum and know about it, the law according to BP should not apply then.

Once bitten, twice umm bitten

Lynsey

They guy on ebay must have ordered at least ten, but why shouldn't he??
Legally he is in the same position, a contract was formed and he would be entitled to his 10 (or more). A contractor could have done the same, at the offered price it would make sense.
This episode is ALL down to B&Q, they never had a system in place to allow for only the amount of stock they had, or probably they did have a system in place but it wasn't utilised. It is ENTIRELY down to B&Q and they need to sort it. If they believe it was for an ulterior motive, then the answer is simple - ONLY supply the goods, not to pay "loss of bargain" when they lose.

Lynsey

Pocoyo

Anna Sims from The Guardian newspaper has expressed an interest in running a story about our cases. If anyone else would like to give their story in brief please e-mail [EMAIL="consumer@guardian.co.uk"]consumer@guardian.co.uk[/EMAIL].

She previously wrote this story.

frugalfran

Any article (water tank or house) is only worth what someone is prepared to buy it for. It would seem that at the upper price - and even the lower one - B&Q just could not shift this product. Hence the massive reduction to £50. At that level they got buyers. To lower the price so much (knowingly, not mis-pricing) shows how desperate they were to get rid of them - as said, probably because of the vast storage problems. Often shops reduce things slowly until they find the price people are prepared to pay.

I do wonder how many of them sold previous to the offer. They are (were) obviously good for the companies 'green' credentials, but not, perhaps, their bottom line.

I agree that they should now call it a day, negotiate a good price with their supplier and deliver to everyone who has followed up. It would seem the obvious solution to avoid cost and - above all - a load of bad publicity.

To revise my ditty:
'I love your shop, yor staff, your stuff: so please - just send my butt.
I'll send my cheque, you send my tank: the case can then be shut'

Lynsey

The problem is B&Q no longer deal with the initial supplier - hence the problem. They could obviously source similar water tanks at cost price to end this saga.
B&Q would I assume have had a contract with the original supplier to buy a certain amount of tanks at a favourable price and appears they have dumped what was remaining to clear way for possibly a different model or because they were not a good seller and to drop this particular product. All lines carry a risk, some make a profit and some don't - that's just business, but that was B&Q's risk.
A system should have been in place to only limit the number of available stock to be sold - some other sites do indeed do this, more expereinced online retailers. This example from ebuyer shows how many are in stock for delivery - it's not rocket science and having previous known issues the question has to be asked, "Why was a similar system not in place when these type of issues were already known?).

Example: http://www.ebuyer.com/product/154996

Lynsey

frugalfran

I would have thought that any supplier of a similar product - and there are not so many manufacturers it seems in the UK - would be very happy to get an order for - what was it - 400 (?) tanks, to prove that they could deliver on time - these are straightened times, so perhaps the reluctance is on the part of the buyer ......

Alias_Omega

Moneyclaim..

Claim was acknowledged, waiting on the defence.

Is it 28 working days, or just 28 days for a reply.

Unsure when the time is up, thats all..

Pocoyo

28 calendar days.

Alias_Omega

What happens when the 28 days are up..

Does it have to be day 29 before you can move on?

If it was to get to that step, at what time can you start to move on.?

How long does the next step take.?