QuidCo Mistake cost me £170

StoreyFamily

I recently purchased some boots via Quidco. At the time the website sported the UGG® Australia logo. I followed a link through to the retailer who I believed at the time were the makers and sellers of genuine UGG Boots - the retailer is based in Australia and is called Australian UGG Boots, so I felt it was a fair assumption! I am very much aware that there are hundreds of 'dodgy' UGG sellers out there and have already been stung once before via eBay. I honestly thought that going via a reputable website such as QuidCo.com I was 'safe' with my purchase.

Following several issues with the purchase and £170 later I finally received the boots on 24th September 2010 only to discover that they are not the official UGG boots that I was expecting. Having looked back on the 'small print' of the website that I purchased them from they do state that they are not UGG® Australia boots.

My biggest complaint is with Quidco.com because I truly believed I was purchasing UGG® Australia boots as that is what the large logo on their website displayed. I contacted them several times regarding this but Quidco seemed reluctant to realise that the logo advertised is the branding for UGG® Australia and not the affiliated Australian UGG company. Quidco's website was actually updated with the correct logo on Monday but I have copies of the web pages prior to alteration.

I think Quidco needs to take some responsibility but they will not agree. Like I pointed out to them if I bought a bottle of Ketchup form a site displaying the Heinz logo but received Tesco Value that would NOT be OK!

Any suggestions?!?!

dmg24

Quidco do not recommend products sold by their affiliates, it is up to you to do your own checks. As you have been stung before, you were very silly not to check before buying.

pulliptears

do you have a link/screencaps of quidco displaying this?

pulliptears

just had a look:

http://www.quidco.com/australian-ugg-boots/

unless its changed Quidco actually state:

Please note that Australianuggboots, are an alternative brand to Uggaustralia.

cyberbob

How is it Quidco's fault that you didn't check what you were buying? Uggs are a style of boot with Decker UGGs being the ones people normally associate with the name.

pulliptears

cyberbob wrote: »

How is it Quidco's fault that you didn't check what you were buying? Uggs are a style of boot with Decker UGGs being the ones people normally associate with the name.

Sticky area though Bob with Deckers owning the word "Ugg". Its a minefield.
Have to say in defence of the OP if Quidco were showing a pair of Decker Ugg Australia Boots it was misleading.

stevenhp1987

I was under the assumption that Austrilian UGG boots were the "real" ones and Decker ones were "fake" (Fake in that they effectively stole the trademark for something that was always called UGG boots, and made them poorer quality).

pulliptears

stevenhp1987 wrote: »

I was under the assumption that Austrilian UGG boots were the "real" ones and Decker ones were "fake" (Fake in that they effectively stole the trademark for something that was always called UGG boots, and made them poorer quality).

Australian Uggs are the original ones (and much much better quality having been made there since the 70's), the Deckers are made in China, but as they now own the term Ugg its all confusing to the poor consumer.

Some advice, always wherever possible buy the Australian Sheepskin boots over Ugg Australia. I have 2 pairs of Ugg Australia and a pair of Warmbat boots. Ugg Australia cost me £190 and whilst were great boots are not a patch on my £80 warmbats. Sheepskin is thicker, warmer and the soles have lasted a lot longer/

gordikin

stevenhp1987 wrote: »

I was under the assumption that Austrilian UGG boots were the "real" ones and Decker ones were "fake" (Fake in that they effectively stole the trademark for something that was always called UGG boots, and made them poorer quality).

As pulliptears says the whole UGG thing is a minefield...that aside I don't see how quidco could be held liable in this case.

esuhl

StoreyFamily wrote: »

I think Quidco needs to take some responsibility but they will not agree.

Quidco neither sell goods nor vouch for their authenticity or quality. Not only that, but the retailer even advised you in the small print that the boots are not UGG Australia ones!

Apparently the term "ugg" was removed from the trademark registry in Australia, so as far as the seller is concerned, there is no such thing as "official" ugg boots; it's a generic term that refers to a particular style.

It seems that the only "issue" here is that Quidco inadvertently (one assumes) displayed the incorrect logo. I don't think you could have a claim under any consumer legislation because Quidco aren't a retailer. Perhaps the logo owner could make a civil case against Quidco for its unauthorised use, but since Quidco corrected this promptly, the logo owner probably wouldn't have a lot to gain by taking legal action.

Remember that the contract of sale is between you and the retailer, and that the retailer isn't responsible for the content of third-party websites (such as cashback sites, review sites, forums, etc.)

I suspect that the only thing you can do is ask the seller if you could return the boots for a refund (and hope they agree - does Australia have anything similar to the UK's DSR legislation?)...

pulliptears

OP, whilst the boots you have in your possession are not Ugg Australia I am willing to bet they are of an infinitely better quality being genuine Australian made ones rather than Chinese brand led ones. I'm also willing to bet they will last twice as long.

You have inadvertently bought the better quality product.