Flowers not as advertised

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Lip_Stick wrote: »

Exactly what difference would reading the T&Cs have made in this case? None whatsoever. In fact, if the OP had read the T&Cs she may have just rolled over with a 'you win' attitude, and not have come here for advice that tells her, in the T&Cs or not, substitution on that scale is not on.

OP may have decided to shop elsewhere of she had disagrees with the terms and this might not have happened (i think that's johnnys point?)

Lip_Stick

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel wrote: »

OP may have decided to shop elsewhere of she had disagrees with the terms and this might not have happened (i think that's johnnys point?)

My point is that you won't find a florist that does not have a substitution policy. So going else where would have made no difference to terms and conditions accepted.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Lip_Stick wrote: »

My point is that you won't find a florist that does not have a substitution policy. So going else where would have made no difference to terms and conditions accepted.

Which is what I stated earlier and someone disputed it lol

pulliptears

You see to me the word substitute means to replace something like for like. If I order a bouquet of vibrant flowers I'd expect to receive a substitute flower that was vibrant and I wouldn't consider what OP received to be vibrant flowers.

A substitute really ought to be something that is incredibly similar, and those flowers certainly are not.

aliasojo

pulliptears wrote: »

You see to me the word substitute means to replace something like for like. If I order a bouquet of vibrant flowers I'd expect to receive a substitute flower that was vibrant and I wouldn't consider what OP received to be vibrant flowers.

A substitute really ought to be something that is incredibly similar, and those flowers certainly are not.

Exactly. :T

It's all down to what could be classed as a 'reasonable' substitution. That bouquet looked entirely different and was no longer 'vibrant'......therefore not what the OP purchased. I honestly don't understand why people are arguing over this.

RadoJo

OP - I hope you didn't use all the advice from White Label as it involved lying about being in touch with Trading Standards (no need to do so and dishonest) and at best a misunderstanding or possibly deliberately misinterpreting the DSRs (which do not apply to consumables and therefore are irrelevant when it comes to flowers). I'm still not really sure about the collection of flowers from the Chessington store - have you actually asked them to deliver the flowers to you, or make them up at a closer store instead?

piglet25

Thank you for your mis-spelling of my my name Mimi, I'm almost sure it was unintentional. Just to throw another spanner in, flowers are graded according to quality and florists tend to cost more because we buy top quality, whereas a supermarket or market trader may buy a lower quality. The flowers supplied were of a low grade, hence my previous suggestion that they may be from a supermarket.
Johnny - send me £45 and I will send you a replica of that heap of rubbish so you can talk drivel to it instead of insulting my professional opinions.

All that is needed is a replacement delivered, or a refund. Simple. The substitution isn't even an issue to me, its the fact that the flowers sent are a crock of !!!!!!.

gordikin

The first picture is a poorly taken one. The second picture has been very badly 'photoshopped' by someone with a problem with their eyesight. You cant fairly compare the flowers from the pics. supplied.

piglet25

I spend all day looking at flowers so am able to see the differences and believe me, if you paid £45 for those you wouldn't be too chuffed.

gordikin

piglet25 wrote: »

I spend all day looking at flowers so am able to see the differences and believe me, if you paid £45 for those you wouldn't be too chuffed.

I agree...and going by the second pic. I wouldn't be happy paying £45 for that either. But that's not the issue here.