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

henpecked1

The original price should be £50 otherwise it isnt a worthwhile deal. However, if B&Q have stated it is a price error in your defense, I would politely decline and if they bring it up in court that you declined bat it back that they cancelled on the basis of a price issue so why suddenly have stock at that price.

if they want to claim costs but have stock at £50, it could be viewed that B&Q have caused the court action and therefore would not be awarded costs. The judge could rule B&Q should have supplied at outset and not force the customer to take legal action.

Pocoyo

Silk wrote: »

Didn't emails go out when they were cancelled to offer them at the more expensive price ? or was that for something else ?

I don't remember that.

Pocoyo

frugalfran wrote: »

I only hope that B&Q are not going to offer the product to only those who took the legal route. I'm sure there are many who waited to see, and hope that the company has some residual decency to look at correspondence and send offers of the product ordered out to the many who waited in the belief that the company would ultimately come good.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

Alias_Omega

I think the 28 days maybe up either yesterday, or as of end of today.

Suspect a last minute defense might be coming my way, though ill give them a ring later

Lynsey

Pocoyo wrote: »

Technically B&Q are not offering to fulfil the original contract, they are offering to supply the goods under a new one. I guess it depends how worked up you are about B&Q saying there was no stock, when evidently there is and accusing customers of knowingly ordering a misprice. Some people may want to have those issues addressed by a judge and they have every right to press for that.

I fully agree with what you have said and each individual has to decide if they are placed in this position, if it actually happens to all.
I've always believed the law would prove in our case simply based on the Terms and Conditions at the time of sale - a contract was indeed formed.
But I can also see the judge declining if refusing an offer to supply the original order. They would have to ask why?? It certainly would look like someone was only out for financial gain and virtually bordering on intent. To be honest and if I was the judge and even if I did award the case to the customer I would also make it a condition to show the items were indeed purchased. Remember we were also in a situation where we could send back the items if the order was fullfilled as per the DSR, so we were in a no lose situation. Technically we can decline an offer, but would it weaken our case?? If you do get offered a tank delivered for £55 it may well be better to accept than to chance it and lose everything including legal costs - so from having something for only £55 you could end up with nothing and end up over £200 down. This has been down to B&Q and the way they have handled things - it's been a shambles and probably could have been sorted a lot earlier with a decent offer of compensation.
Good luck if you follow it through to the conclusion, but please don't get upset if you fail after being offered the original items as per our original order.
Perhaps an offer of admitting they were wrong would be enough for some, but they won't admit this while all this is going on.

Bye, bye.

Lynsey

Pocoyo

Lynsey wrote: »

I fully agree with what you have said and each individual has to decide if they are placed in this position, if it actually happens to all.
I've always believed the law would prove in our case simply based on the Terms and Conditions at the time of sale - a contract was indeed formed.
But I can also see the judge declining if refusing an offer to supply the original order. They would have to ask why?? It certainly would look like someone was only out for financial gain and virtually bordering on intent. To be honest and if I was the judge and even if I did award the case to the customer I would also make it a condition to show the items were indeed purchased. Remember we were also in a situation where we could send back the items if the order was fullfilled as per the DSR, so we were in a no lose situation. Technically we can decline an offer, but would it weaken our case?? If you do get offered a tank delivered for £55 it may well be better to accept than to chance it and lose everything including legal costs - so from having something for only £55 you could end up with nothing and end up over £200 down. This has been down to B&Q and the way they have handled things - it's been a shambles and probably could have been sorted a lot earlier with a decent offer of compensation.
Good luck if you follow it through to the conclusion, but please don't get upset if you fail after being offered the original items as per our original order.
Perhaps an offer of admitting they were wrong would be enough for some, but they won't admit this while all this is going on.

Bye, bye.

Lynsey

I agree Lynsey. I do think it's important to remember that B&Q will only be making this offer to those who initiated court proceedings and evidently they had the stock all along. It goes to show that the small claims procedure works and that some retailers will sadly not fulfil their contractual obligations unless there is a risk of a judge becoming involved.

Well done to everyone who has followed this through; there is plenty of guidance for others to follow should they wish to make a claim now. Thanks also to TBeckett and Taxiphil for blazing the trail with the dishwasher case.

henpecked1

I am glad it has worked out. It seems everyone suing for dishwashers and tanks are getting their items finally at the price they paid. Providing B&Q do repay costs then nobody will be out of pocket. Having said that, I would still want to clear my name in court that i ordered this to con B&Q. I think B&Q would have to explain where these water tanks, butts, harvesters etc have come from all of a sudden.

Defence_Received

Good Morning Everybody,

I have also received a letter from Bond Pearce offering me the tanks at the original advertised price.

I have exchanged emails with the solicitor at Bond Pearce who is acting on my claim and he has confirmed that the original advertised price is £50.

Princess_Coupon

Surely to be back in the postion you were at the time of sale you need a butt for £50, a refund of all costs you have incurred, and some compensation for all the time and inconvenience they have caused you. I'd make a counter offer requesting the above if they decline you then have a good reason in court for declining their offer.

TBeckett100

Princess_Coupon wrote: »

Surely to be back in the postion you were at the time of sale you need a butt for £50, a refund of all costs you have incurred, and some compensation for all the time and inconvenience they have caused you. I'd make a counter offer requesting the above if they decline you then have a good reason in court for declining their offer.

I stress this is a point never raised before by me or discussed. But. I agree with a couple of other posters. If someone questioned my motive in a defence, I would trundle down to the court house armed with the media to highlight what a certian retailer thinks online shoppers are all about.

You system must be bad when you suspect your shoppers of trying to sue you, not shop through you.

Well done all and put it to bed.