Naked wines - watch your bank account

marlot

benhall.1 wrote: »

NW have resolved it. Three was no explanation for the continuing emails at any time, but I have now received an apology and a resolution with which I am satisfied. I found it amusing that their Marketing Director checked out my LinkedIn profile before offering his resolution of the problem; on the other hand, I suppose that was just a practical thing to do and I might have been inclined to do the same.

He could have logged out if he'd wanted to be anonymous. I quite like the fact that LinkedIn tells me who has looked at my profile.

Kaye1

You have taken the time to point out the problems but you haven't given a full explanation of how they dealt with it. Surely it would be fair to explain how they have left you satisfied?

Paul_Walker_2

Having read thrugh a lot of the posts on this thread, I thought I would put my tuppencewwortyh in. I am one ogf those who thinks that the £25 a month taken from your card is wrong, although not illegal. Several reasons for this.

Firstly, it is not at all clear that this is what you are signing up for unless you read the terms and conditions. Many do not do that - companies including this one are fully aware of that.

Secondly I can come up with no reason for a company preferring to have you sign over card details to them rather than using a direct debit. There might be 2 possible reasons for this - using a credit card can be done more surreptitiously, and it is not possible to stop the payments without going through the retailer.

Thirdly many people tend not to be so careful about sctrutinising their card accounts as they are about their bank acccounts, many would see that as foolish but it is the case. Again companies are fully aware of that.

Fourthly I would have thought that a genuinely transparent company getting the amount of negative feedback about their payment methods that even a cusrory trawl through the web shows is the case here, would have done somthing about making very, very sure customers know what they are signing up for.

Fifth it is simply morally wrong that a company thinks it ok to be able to take money from cards when the customer has no direct means of stopping payments. It is true that companies can take what nthey want via direct debits but in that case the customer can stop payment without recourse to the retailer. That matters.

Myn last word is to those who have been complaining about those who are unhappy about naked wines methods. Yes, you could argue that the unhappy ones should be more careful, but you could equally argue that it is wrong for companies to encourage or even make it easy for people to make mistakes. That is what con men do.

wealdroam

Paul_Walker wrote: »

Fifth it is simply morally wrong that a company thinks it ok to be able to take money from cards when the customer has no direct means of stopping payments. It is true that companies can take what nthey want via direct debits but in that case the customer can stop payment without recourse to the retailer.

I guess you don't understand that the customer can simply ask their card provider to terminate the Continuous Payment Authority.

This facility has been in place for a number of years now.

Here is FCA's statement from June 2013:
FCA reminds banks of their obligations when cancelling Continuous Payment Authorities

marliepanda

Paul_Walker wrote: »

Firstly, it is not at all clear that this is what you are signing up for unless you read the terms and conditions. Many do not do that - companies including this one are fully aware of that.

And that is where the argument ends. 'Unless you read the terms and conditions' you sign to say you agree, if you choose to agree to things with a company you have not researched and don't read the t&cs then you really have nothing else to fall back on.

gettingtheresometime

Paul_Walker wrote: »

Having read thrugh a lot of the posts on this thread, I thought I would put my tuppencewwortyh in. I am one ogf those who thinks that the £25 a month taken from your card is wrong, although not illegal. Several reasons for this.

Firstly, it is not at all clear that this is what you are signing up for unless you read the terms and conditions. Many do not do that - companies including this one are fully aware of that.

Secondly I can come up with no reason for a company preferring to have you sign over card details to them rather than using a direct debit. There might be 2 possible reasons for this - using a credit card can be done more surreptitiously, and it is not possible to stop the payments without going through the retailer.

Thirdly many people tend not to be so careful about sctrutinising their card accounts as they are about their bank acccounts, many would see that as foolish but it is the case. Again companies are fully aware of that.

Fourthly I would have thought that a genuinely transparent company getting the amount of negative feedback about their payment methods that even a cusrory trawl through the web shows is the case here, would have done somthing about making very, very sure customers know what they are signing up for.

Fifth it is simply morally wrong that a company thinks it ok to be able to take money from cards when the customer has no direct means of stopping payments. It is true that companies can take what nthey want via direct debits but in that case the customer can stop payment without recourse to the retailer. That matters.

Myn last word is to those who have been complaining about those who are unhappy about naked wines methods. Yes, you could argue that the unhappy ones should be more careful, but you could equally argue that it is wrong for companies to encourage or even make it easy for people to make mistakes. That is what con men do.

If the company clearly states what they will do in their t&cs and a person is too lazy to read them then that person can hardly cry foul when the company does what it says it will do and the person has agreed to it!

Also if people can't be asked to check their bank statements regularly well whose fault is that?

As I said on the previous thread I was fully aware of what I was signing up to and had no difficulty in getting my money back when I decided that I no longer wished to be an angel.

Chrishazle

I've been an Angel for quite a while now, buy a case of wine every 3 months or so and have tried and enjoyed a number of wines I would not otherwise have tried.

Last week we tried a bottle of South African red from a vinyard who's whites we had tried and enjoyed. It was so awful I put a really bad review of it on Naked's website. A couple of days later I get emails from the vintner saying they had had problems with that shipment, and from Naked saying they had credited the cost of that bottle back to my account. I had not asked for recompense or anything, so well done Naked!

I have always had excellent customer service from Naked, and am more than happy to continue as an Angel!

stephenliverpool1

Hi all,

We got our 2nd offer from Naked Wines this week via the MSE weekly letter. Very surprised that let me get another offer when our last one was only a few weeks ago.

Oh well c'est la vie as they say.

One moment I have just seen my sexy neighbour turn up. Best not to say anything to she who must be obeyed lol !

stephenliverpool1

Hi all,

Got 3 bottles totally free as they c**ked up delivery but we did pretend that we were working working at the time. Oh well never mind as all contributions are well received lol !

[Deleted User]

Paul_Walker wrote: »

My last word is to those who have been complaining about those who are unhappy about naked wines methods. Yes, you could argue that the unhappy ones should be more careful, but you could equally argue that it is wrong for companies to encourage or even make it easy for people to make mistakes. That is what con men do.

Well, this is my take on the money off voucher terms and conditions. The key question is are Naked Wines being deliberately deceptive? The answer for me is an emphatic 'Yes'. I can accept that they might be a decent company at heart, I can accept that they obviously want to grow their business and I can accept that they might really think new customers will be very happy after they have signed up. However, they must have had several complaints from people who didn't think the terms of using the money off voucher were crystal clear. I didn't think so either.

So, if you really were whiter than white wouldn't you just change the layout of the promotional email you send out? I know I would if I was in their position. Yes, you now get a warning email telling you that you are due to have your account debited and can cancel, but this involves you having to do something and they clearly suggest that you really need to phone them up. The old and hackneyed 'have to opt out', rather than 'have to opt in', trick. Ultimately, you can email them, but why would they suggest having to phone them up in the first place? It obviously is to do with sales pressure, even if well intentioned and good natured. I have also received one unsolicited phone call from them in the past.

I can only speak for myself, but being sneakily signed up to something (my opinion) and receiving an unsolicited phone call doesn't float my boat. I don't care if they are the loveliest people in the world, as it's just not the way I like to do things. A tad beyond the pale is the way I would best describe it and it's a very slippery slope when you get on it. They may well have lost a customer, but I am still undecided for now. I hope that they change their policies for the future.

P.S. Paul Walker is 100% correct in what he says...