I have posted 3 times now I am now begging

MrsTinks

katsu is right I'm afraid - Section 75 only kicks in on purchases where EACH SINGLE ITEM is between £100 and £30,000. As each set of boots were less than £100 then it doesn't matter that the combined price was over this... Unfortunately Tesco are not under any obligation to refund you in this case
If it's a UK company then try to track them down - if it was from abroad... sadly I think putting it down to experience and realising that if it looks too good to be true... it probably is... $70 uggs?

playa1406

katsu wrote: »

If each pair was less than £100 then I don't think Tesco need to refund you - try the main site pages under credit cards for Martin's articles on section 75 to confirm.

I thought it was per transaction which means the total,
am i wrong in that?

playa1406

MrsTine wrote: »

katsu is right I'm afraid - Section 75 only kicks in on purchases where EACH SINGLE ITEM is between £100 and £30,000. As each set of boots were less than £100 then it doesn't matter that the combined price was over this... Unfortunately Tesco are not under any obligation to refund you in this case
If it's a UK company then try to track them down - if it was from abroad... sadly I think putting it down to experience and realising that if it looks too good to be true... it probably is... $70 uggs?

#

it stated special offer so it sounded genuine i understand and have been bought up on that phrase so i totally agree i was just trying to get a bargain online and ended up getting stiched up meanwhile my partner still hasnt got her birthday present

and it was a foreign website sent from china which the website did not say about.

AnxiousMum

'Uggs' is a brand name....not a generic term at all. I remember as a kid in Australia they used to be $15 AUD.....so about £7.00 So if they referred to them as 'Uggs', and not 'Uggs style'.....you were missold.

playa1406

playa1406 wrote: »

They sent me one pair in the wrong colour and they dont fit my partner.

I have emailed the company to say I want a refund and he wants me to forward them on to someone else, I have refused to do this.

It now looks as if the website has closed down as when I used my saved link it is blank and I cannot get access to my Emails as they were through something called billing support

any help on this part no one has answered anything on this

MrsTinks

playa1406 wrote: »

I thought it was per transaction which means the total,
am i wrong in that?

Yes you're wrong I'm afraid - it's PER ITEM - not total of the transaction. P&P also would not count towards the £100 protection limit.

Never heard of the "company" or whatever it is you asked in your last mail have you googled it?

peterbaker

Also tesco claims that as the website didn't state that they were genuine uggs that they weren't mis sold

any views on this?

I used the 1974 Act effectively many years ago on a £600 Barclaycard transaction, but I am by no means an expert in Consumer Credit matters, and I am not a lawyer.

However, if what playa1406 tells us above about Tesco's ropey response about genuine uggs is true, then I reckon Tesco's are already on the back foot.

What seems clear, is that there is no way the supplier can be relied upon in any sense to put this right. They've had their chance, so it's now chargeback territory and Tesco Finance should be chased down hard over it.

I note what others say about the so-called "per item" limit in the Act's protection but I strongly disagree with the interpretation given a number of times on this website about what the "single item" proviso means in practice. Can anyone show me examples of how this has actually been applied in a court?

The law actually says:

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a claim:
(a) under a non-commercial agreement, or
(b) so far as the claim relates to a single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100

playa1406's single claim DOES NOT relate to a single item under £100 - it is one claim relating to two items because both pairs are fakes. Therefore I say Tesco Finance are legally obliged to deal with it.

If these were not fakes and one pair was simply the wrong spec then I might agree that the single item rule might mean something in this case. But they are fakes and Tesco should be very circumspect about allowing unscrupulous credit card merchants to get away with trading in counterfeit goods, and misleading customers by misrepresentation made easy by using VISA account remote payment facilities provided by Tesco in this case. The merchant has committed fraud by passing fakes as genuine, and this is an internet transaction I believe? C'mon people, this site doesn't exist as a place for apologists for credit card companies to come here and tell ordinary people "tough - stuff happens - learn from it".

I think the clue is in Tesco's feeble attempt at deflecting the claim so far - stick it back to them I say.

NickX

peterbaker wrote: »

C'mon people, this site doesn't exist as a place for apologists for credit card companies to come here and tell ordinary people "tough - stuff happens - learn from it".

I agree. Although the £100 limit does legally apply to Section 75 claims, Card Providers can and do issue a "Chargeback" for lesser amounts. Indeed I have been successfully refunded by a Provider for less than £20.

Push Tesco and express your unhappiness, I am sure they will agree to chargeback the amount even if they are not legally obliged to do so.

INT1

You may have to get an independant that the UGGS are fake, this is what my Credit card company wanted to do with my query when I ordered on line some DVD's which turned out to be pirated copies.
I wrote the £20 off as more hassle than it's worth

playa1406

yes i got told to get an idepentent report but my local store that sells Uggs refused to do this so again back to square one