Bait and switch?

glitch_101

I bought a magazine which came with a voucher for a freebie which could be redeemed at a certain "reputable" store. I emailed the company asking if either of my local branches stocked it, but they ignored my email. I waited a few days for a response eventually giving up and going to the store. They told me it was out of stock and sent me home empty handed. I emailed them complaining about their poor customer service and asked whether they could supply my freebie. They, like in store, said they can't and tried to redirect me to a "wide range of similar products".

Is this a 'bait and switch' type of thing?

I'm a bit annoyed by this because I wouldn't have bought the magazine if it wasn't for the advertised freebie

What are my rights here?

Thanks.

somethingcorporate

Almost certainly none.

Most offers such as this have T&C clauses along the lines of limited availability (i.e. when it's gone it's gone) - if this is the case, which it probably is, then you are simply out of luck.

Sorry!

Zandoni

Probably had nowhere near enough for the demand.

KeithP

While stocks last.

is the phrase often used.

Freddie_Snowbits

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Almost certainly none.

Not a response is it, the OP has every right to this product. I suggest they ring trading standards. Hopefully they will go round their pad, with the Police and kick in the doors/

Darksun

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Almost certainly none.

Most offers such as this have T&C clauses along the lines of limited availability (i.e. when it's gone it's gone) - if this is the case, which it probably is, then you are simply out of luck.

Sorry!

Such clauses don't necessarily absolve the retailer though, if for example they advertised to a million people but only had two items in stock, it wouldn't be hard to argue that was unfair and illegal.

Such practices are unlawful under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_1), and may also breach the Advertising Standards Agency's guidelines.

However, if they had a reasonable amount of stock and there was higher demand than expected, then they've not done anything wrong, and there is no recourse against them.

glitch_101

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Not a response is it, the OP has every right to this product. I suggest they ring trading standards. Hopefully they will go round their pad, with the Police and kick in the doors/

I like the sound of that! hehe

glitch_101

Darksun wrote: »

Such clauses don't necessarily absolve the retailer though, if for example they advertised to a million people but only had two items in stock, it wouldn't be hard to argue that was unfair and illegal.

Such practices are unlawful under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_1), and may also breach the Advertising Standards Agency's guidelines.

However, if they had a reasonable amount of stock and there was higher demand than expected, then they've not done anything wrong, and there is no recourse against them.

How could one dispute that, without too much drama?

Who should I be complain about? The magazine for advertising a free product they couldn't sufficiently supply, the retailer for being uncooperative/trying to push a sale or both?

glitch_101

nobody?

System

why didnt you just ring your local branches in the first place ?

somethingcorporate

glitch_101 wrote: »

How could one dispute that, without too much drama?

Who should I be complain about? The magazine for advertising a free product they couldn't sufficiently supply, the retailer for being uncooperative/trying to push a sale or both?

The issue is you are trying to prove false advertising for a free gift against a large company that probably has very deep pockets and according to the post you responded to you would need to prove that they had insufficient stock(!) that would amount to false advertising. Any legal suggestion as to what that would be constitued as Darksun? I wonder how much a precedent setting case would cost in the High Court!?

They are not exactly going to tell you confidential stock levels and you have no rights to know! My guess is their response is they'd point you straight to the clause that says 'limited offer' and tell you to take a hike.

Edit: Pointing back to Darksun's post, they use lovely lawyer-type words such as "reasonable" which lawyers just love to argue about on your behalf for £200 pounds an hour! For the sake of a free gift I would just move on.