case (6 bottles) Tattinger £65 + p+p

toxophilite

Having contacted Barclaycard on 26th March, they sent me a 'non-delivery of goods' form which I received on 2nd April. I sent it back immediately with all details, including a link to this forum. My card was re-credited the £130 on 7th April as ' Disputed transaction'. Apparently, if by any chance Mardenis does re-credit ( unlikely as it is now in administration ) then I have to notify Barclacard who will take back their re-credit. Looks like Barclaycard at least will cover its customers.

Slint

skansa wrote: »

how did you pay for the wine, surely you must be covered by credit card. i paid by egg visa and am thankfully covered. given the questionable pricing you must have surely paid by cc?:eek:

Am I the only person who finds it morally questionable that people have seen an offer that seems too good to be true and rather than risking their own money have decided to risk £100s of the credit card companies money on a gamble - happy to profit if it pays off, but not willing to take the consequences if it doesn't. The same people probably sit there complaining about greedy bankers when, in fact, they're part of the same problem.

gazwood

Slint wrote: »

I am the only person who finds it morally questionable that people have seen an offer that seems too good to be true and rather than risking their own money have decided to risk £100s of the credit card companies money on a gamble - happy to profit if it pays off, but not willing to take the consequences if it doesn't. The same people probably sit there complaining about greedy bankers when, in fact, they're part of the same problem.

Am I the only person who finds it morally questionable that you create an alias to post such a petty, childish and pointlessly derogatory post such as this runninng down those that had the savvy and foresight to avail themselves of the protection offered precisely to cover these unfortunate circumstances, seller ?, jealous ?, didn't have a credit card so lost your money ?

Whatever minger ..........:rotfl:

Grow up

Slint

gazwood wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it morally questionable that you create an alias to post such a petty, childish and pointlessly derogatory post such as this runninng down those that had the savvy and foresight to avail themselves of the protection offered precisely to cover these unfortunate circumstances, seller ?, jealous ?, didn't have a credit card so lost your money ?

Whatever minger ..........:rotfl:

Grow up

Not an alias - I've browsed the forum for a while and this just happens to be my first post and no, I didn't try to buy any of this wine.

My comment was not about those people unwittingly caught out but was about those who thought the offer was too good to be true, but went ahead with the purchase on a cc anyway - effectively making a decision to gamble with other people's money.

I think you'll find that your post was "petty, childish and pointlessly derogatory" in making personal jibes about me, rather than merely discussing the issues that I raised.

gazwood

Slint wrote: »

Not an alias - I've browsed the forum for a while and this just happens to be my first post and no, I didn't try to buy any of this wine.

My comment was not about those people unwittingly caught out but was about those who thought the offer was too good to be true, but went ahead with the purchase on a cc anyway - effectively making a decision to gamble with other people's money.

I think you'll find that your post was "petty, childish and pointlessly derogatory" in making personal jibes about me, rather than merely discussing the issues that I raised.

Great first post, welcome to the forum, re-read my post, I think you'll find the issue you '''raised''' WAS discussed in my reply, however in the spirit of all things trollified I won't feed you, my last response to your undoubted attempted provocation, ta-ta cocker, troll on.;)

jeff_tower

I must be the only mug in the country who paid by Natwest switch/maestro, my each way bet Hello Bud came 5th in the National. Never mind I have just had a £5 lucky dip on the lottery, this time tomorrow Rodney, I will be a millionaire.

sinw

Good Luck Jeff............

Slint

gazwood wrote: »

Great first post, welcome to the forum, re-read my post, I think you'll find the issue you '''raised''' WAS discussed in my reply, however in the spirit of all things trollified I won't feed you, my last response to your undoubted attempted provocation, ta-ta cocker, troll on.;)

Your point was about protection for buyers (which I am all for) - my point was about buyers spotting that a deal looks dodgy and consciously deciding to take a gamble anyway (but on their cc), which they probably wouldn't do with their own money.

Anyway, as you've decided to no longer contribute to this debate I'll just wish you all the best in your continued crusade against trolls.

MEMBER02

jeff_tower wrote: »

I must be the only mug in the country who paid by Natwest switch/maestro, my each way bet Hello Bud came 5th in the National. Never mind I have just had a £5 lucky dip on the lottery, this time tomorrow Rodney, I will be a millionaire.

most bookies were paying 5th place on national,you should have shopped around.;)

martinV

I too have been duped by Surplus Wine/Mardenis, just like the rest of the subscribers to this forum. I have also contacted WY police, who have taken my details and will contact me again. I have contacted my credit card company who are in the processs of trying to retrieve my £425. One word of warning for all those that think their money may be covered if they used a credit card. You are only covered by Section 75 if you are the principal card holder. If you are an additional cardholder, you are not covered. Also ther is the single item issue ie single items costing more than £100 are covered, but items <£100 are not. So if more than one case of wine ordered then the only ones that may be covered are those over £100. The fact that none of us have received the goods for which we have paid is a good enough reason to pursue this company/individual via the police, even more so if we aren't going to covered under Section 75. So please can I ask all members to contact WY police , if they have not already done so.