Avoid Ziinga!

Jamie_Carter

danjourno wrote: »

If you read through this post properly, you will see that they were not operating within the law.
I was never asked if I wanted a monthly membership and even if i was asked, i was never asked what level of membership i wanted.
I had printouts of the website at the time which clearly showed that users were never given the chance to join the membership. Although the terms stated levels of membership, it also mentioned free membership, and users were never given a chance to upgrade to gold. You were asked if you agree to the T&Cs but they mention 3 levels and no mention of being automatically enrolled in the gold level.
I submitted printouts of the website demonstrating the above and card company used them to generate a chargeback and refund me.

However, now I see that they've changed things slightly and now there is a checkbox that says

[checkbox] Included with this payment is a 7-day free Platinum membership. Once the free days expire, normal monthly fee of £ 59.99 applies. The membership is only binding for 3 months.


However, I'd love to know if they ignore the checkbox and then claim that you checked it when you didnt.

I never checked a box that said that.

Crowqueen

Too many people are too quick to shout "illegal!" without knowing the law behind it. I may have just got mostly firsts on a law course, but it was in international rather than consumer law. Nevertheless, I suggest you go out and get evidence that this is actually illegal. The bank contacted doesn't seem to think it is illegal, and they are handling the money. It seems to boil down to what the person signs up to when they form the contract with Zinga, and what Zinga do to make people adequately aware of the terms of that contract.

If they had a checkbox, and it was pre-ticked, then that is going to be against the law at some point but I don't think it currently is. The EU has ruled against it, but I'm really, really not sure what the current status of it is. Taking a campaign to Trading Standards needs not just the weight of anonymous people on a message board, but actual proof of the legality of it all - which may require taking it to a solicitor.

Someone has already said that Zinga are operating legally. They would have worded their terms and conditions such that by signing up you would agree to pay £60 pm in fees. If people read the terms and conditions closer before committing to this sort of thing, they would see what they were getting into - because Zinga could not otherwise do this.

Penny auction sites are a waste of money - how do you think they can afford to send out £100 worth of camera for £6 plus postage? where do you think the money to buy these items comes from? - so while I'm sympathetic about this sort of campaign against sharp practices, realistically, most people trading in this manner are probably trading within the letter of the law and it would be up to a judge or to Trading Standards etc. to decide whether their terms and conditions - the contract to which you are signing up - was unfair and therefore void.

It would be too risky for this sort of outfit to do something that was blatantly illegal. I know some reputable online outlets have dubious terms (such as the big shops that have returns policies that conflict with the DSRs and were rapped over the knuckles by Trading Standards a while ago), but if it were illegal to take £60 in this manner, then they would not be doing it, or they would be registered in a jurisdiction where British/EU law could not touch them (which they may be, which will complicate any legal action you want to take against them).

I fully agree with some sort of TS campaign, but the point of the matter is, they just couldn't do this sort of thing without the buyer paying some sort of hidden costs. The way these sites operate is bad, and too many people are pulled in by the promise of a £6 camera.

Unless you can prove the terms of the contract are, legally speaking, unfair, then you won't get far with legal means of shutting them down. That doesn't mean 'what do I think is unfair?', it means 'what does the law believe to be unfair', which are often two different things.

Jamie_Carter

Crowqueen wrote: »

Whilst I agree fully these penny auction sites are completely unethical in how they operate, if they are operating legally, and people are still using them and paying the £60 without quibble, it will take more than 20 people to shut them down. All Consumer Direct/Trading Standards/Watchdog etc will do is get them to change their policies.

Not condoning what they are doing, but if they are within the law, then it's not really up to you who trades. I think a lot of eBay sellers operate unethically and have bad terms; I couldn't ask Trading Standards to close them down, however, unless they were doing something blatantly illegal, or eBay and/or their buyers shut them down through the feedback system or by simply voting with their wallet and not buying from them.

What people need to realise is that terms and conditions do not override the law. Many companies think they do.

Even ebay don't always operate within the law, and thing they are above it.

gokane

I'd like to say to Crowqueen that in my view they are not operating within the law. They are also exploiting the fact thant many of the British banks' staff still believe that they cannot cancel a 'recurring transaction' without the agreement of the organisation receiving the money. This is incorrect.
Ziinga are also in breach of Uk consumer law allowing a cooling off period.
I urge everyone to complain to the the British Fraud Office:
In google look for actionfraud organisation to complain online

regards

danjourno

When I emailed Ziinga, they told me that when I bought a pack of 20 bids for £1, I selected to join the gold membership of £59.99 per month. So I quickly went through the signup process again and made printouts of the signup and checkout pages which clear so that at no point did I agree to Gold Membership.

Crowqueen wrote: »

They would have worded their terms and conditions such that by signing up you would agree to pay £60 pm in fees.

At the time of starting this thread, their terms did NOT say that I was agreeing to a VIP members and pay £60 per month.
That is what was illegal and that is what allowed my card company to process the chargeback.

Reviewing their terms and conditions now, it looks like they havent changed them. It still says 'Ziinga offers different types of memberships, each with a corresponding monthly fee.'
I started this thread to warn people that at no point during purchase was I offered different packages or told about the £59.99 monthly fee. It also didnt say £59.99 anywhere else on the website or in the T&Cs. You can't sign up someone to something if they havent agreed and dont know what the cost is.

However I have just checked and they have since added a checkbox (prechecked) "offering" their Platinum Membership for £59.99 per month, so as long as you uncheck it, they shouldnt take any additional money.

As I said, I'd love to know if anyone has Unchecked it and still had £59.99 per month taken from their card.

Crowqueen wrote: »

Penny auction sites are a waste of money - how do you think they can afford to send out £100 worth of camera for £6 plus postage?

If they "sell" an ipad for £28.49, that means they've received 2,849 bids which means they received a income of at least £1339.03 according to their FAQ showing that they charge a minimum of 49p per bid.
The latest iPad retails at around £699 so they've basically doubled their money, excluding bank fees and server costs.
Also, the camera that they offer is available online at around £40 to £50. They must have purchased a bulk amount so you may find that they receive a job lot for much lower than £100 per camera. That is how they can afford to do it.

Its cheaper than paying for Google Adwords advertising!

gokane

I'd like to ask everyone, has any of you found that in the 'special offer' time or first visit, that you won a bid in one of your first five attempts. It only took one for me! I have a suspicion the automated bidding process has a progamming 'slant', but no eveidence, of course. Pure speculation.

danjourno

You are correct. When I registered, I won within a few minutes and then never won again, even with the "free" bids that they gave me as a Gold member (even though i didnt know or agree to being a gold member).

Looking back, I assume they have special auctions for newbies to try out. Not sure if thats fair or not since it causes you to think that its easier to win than you originally thought and therefore you buy more credit.

gokane

Well in essence, should the number of people who have had a similar experience be sizeable, it means the auction system does not operate with true random algorithmic generator. It can identify individual bidders and slant the 'game'. Apart from acting as a lure to newbies, it also means the company itself could be bidding on high priced items under another identity and win their own goods, thereby cutting costs even further.

But that is pure fiction, no company would stoop so low.

danjourno

gokane wrote: »

....it also means the company itself could be bidding on high priced items under another identity and win their own goods, thereby cutting costs even further.

I'm not accusing them of that, but there is no way to stop them from doing it. The market really needs to be regulated to protect consumers from this type of problem.

Jamie_Carter

gokane wrote: »

Well in essence, should the number of people who have had a similar experience be sizeable, it means the auction system does not operate with true random algorithmic generator. It can identify individual bidders and slant the 'game'. Apart from acting as a lure to newbies, it also means the company itself could be bidding on high priced items under another identity and win their own goods, thereby cutting costs even further.

But that is pure fiction, no company would stoop so low.

Have you noticed that the timer on the free auctions keeps resetting to 2 minutes. This means that it is not a genuine auction, and doesn't carry the exemption from distance selling regulations. So you can cancel the transaction, which also means that you are cancelling any subscription as the contract is then void.