HELP!!! Sent a bill for using discount codes.....

mug51

carlahostie wrote:

oh to you lot now S***w you!

sorry but its starting to bug me, whats that naughty word? cant think of any word that starts with s and ends with w apart from swallow.

jinkssick

what in the world happened in this thread???

50 times, you should be ashamed of yourself!

sarahlouise210

mug51 wrote:

sorry but its starting to bug me, whats that naughty word? cant think of any word that starts with s and ends with w apart from swallow.

me too ... !!! What can it be ..must be a typo surely........

jumpingjackd

sarahlouise210 wrote:

me too ... !!! What can it be ..must be a typo surely........

Me too..........but put "cre" in the middle and hey presto, lol

Glad I managed to get it before going to bed.

sarahlouise210

jumpingjackd wrote:

Me too..........but put "cre" in the middle and hey presto, lol

Glad I managed to get it before going to bed.

Thank you ...thank you!!..... thank you !!! ahhhhh,,to bed!:kisses:

BargainMad_3

From what I can see the company offers discount codes for SPECIFIC items. So it might offer a flower selection for £45 and offer a 50% discount (£22.50) via a code that knocks £22.50 off the price.


The website payment process has been designed to knock £22.50 off the total price once the code has been entered. There was an avenue for misuse however - where somebody ordered a £22 selection, put in the code and - viola - got the item for FREE.

Now of course the terms and conditions allow for this code to be used more than once - AGAINST THE CORRECT ITEM ! - they were not designed for them to be used against an incorrect item i.e. an order that would be reduced to zero cost. So that part of the defence is just a non starter.

Now it is fair to say that no company that has been trading for less than three years will have wanted this loophole to operate - and that is exactly what it is - a loophole. But it has allowed this to happen by not having a safeguard in place.

The person in question has made use of this loophole many times and cost the company a lot of money. The company probably does not have the profit margins to accommodate this loss in the same way that Tesco or Boots accommodate losses generated from their own loopholes.

Of course the company could argue that the code was valid only against that specific item - and they would be correct. They could argue that the person misusing the code to wipe out the cost of another item has acted in an underhand manner. However they have, at the end of the day, honoured those orders and sent them out - all 50 of them.

It is likely that there is more than one person who has ordered a lot using this loophole - very likely in fact - so with several thousand pounds (or tens of thousands of pounds) of lost revenue it is not unreasonable for the company to try to get some revenue back.

Of course you could ignore it and hope that it goes away, but you should be aware that debt collectors often work on a commission basis and may be willing to take this case on, particularly if the company supplies them with a list of the worst offenders. Say 1000 "free" lots were sent out thats £££s losses to a small company - it's not going to just sweep it under the carpet because it probably cannot afford to.

This is not a pleasant situation for either side; the person ordering should not have "gone to the well" that many times but equally the company should not have processed the orders so many times either. It has honoured the orders at zero cost to the customer and is retrospectively trying to claim payment because the customer misused the discount. You will not be alone on the list I am sure - people were still trying to use this loophole after you mentioned it on the forum and it looks like it has only just been closed by the company. The company may let the matter "drop" but equally it may continue to look for some form of settlement depending on how much this loophole has cost them.

At the end of the day the "actual" cost to the company - the real price of the flowers, chocs and delivery - will be far lower than the £1300 they are requesting from this person and that person would NOT have ordered 50 at that price. The actual cost is probably nearer £500 and it may be possible to negotiate a full and final settlement of less than this - IF indeed it comes to that.

Broken_hearted

I think this is a sad case for all code users. I use a code once max. This anoys me and as for the screw you attitude well that says it all.

greyster

heh its probably the one I use. I never managed to get it for free but I found a "better" code that got me another fiver off the code they print on the site. Eventually the code stopped and now it has returned BUT only works on certain flowers.

I never heard anything like this!!! I really don't think you should get nailed, its their problem.

BargainMad_3

At the end of the day you are right - it is their problem for having a system that firstly allows these loopholes to operate and secondly does not realise what is happening until the horse has bolted.

Legally I don't think they will be able to claim this money and it will be a case of them merely trying it on to get something back. At the end of the day it is easy for the company to have a glitch in the website which allows codes to be misused but then someone should have spotted this before it got out of hand. I think it will be a painful and expensive lesson for the company involved but at the end of the day it will have to absorb this or else spend (waste) more money on legal fees to solicitors who will charge them whether the case can be won or not.

BritishBeef

BargainMad wrote:

At the end of the day you are right - it is their problem for having a system that firstly allows these loopholes to operate and secondly does not realise what is happening until the horse has bolted.

Legally I don't think they will be able to claim this money and it will be a case of them merely trying it on to get something back. At the end of the day it is easy for the company to have a glitch in the website which allows codes to be misused but then someone should have spotted this before it got out of hand. I think it will be a painful and expensive lesson for the company involved but at the end of the day it will have to absorb this or else spend (waste) more money on legal fees to solicitors who will charge them whether the case can be won or not.

At the end of the day, that phrase is over used.

Sorry, couldn't resist. No offence meant!