Mystique cream rip off

welshgranny

I have had this problem with Mystique Cream that I saw as an advertisment on Facebook. Ordered the sample to try it but so wish I hadn't. I noticed that £79.95 had been taken out of my bank account along with the trial price and pp. I telephoned this afternoon on 08445811011and spoke to Ian Harris. He told me he could not refund as it was over the 14 day trial period and I should of read terms and conditions. What I had not realised also was that the sample they send is for a months supply and as you only have 14 days to cancel, if you do not cancel within this time you are charged £79.95 on top of the trial price for that first sample. Further orders have now been canceled and hopefully I will not here from them again but very annoyed at the way this was presented as it is very misleading.

oiroiroir

Hi

I too came across this scam and was debited two payments of £130. I have cancelled my card now so there is no way they can just take any more funds and also explained to the bank it was a scam and the bank have refunded all the £130. I suggest you try the same.

Hope this helps !

raven83

I would never trust anything that is advertised on facebook or the like, especially ones that require your bank details. I think it is awful that such daylight robbery is taking place on something like facebook.

christineminchella

welshgranny wrote: »

I have had this problem with Mystique Cream that I saw as an advertisment on Facebook. Ordered the sample to try it but so wish I hadn't. I noticed that £79.95 had been taken out of my bank account along with the trial price and pp. I telephoned this afternoon on 08445811011and spoke to Ian Harris. He told me he could not refund as it was over the 14 day trial period and I should of read terms and conditions. What I had not realised also was that the sample they send is for a months supply and as you only have 14 days to cancel, if you do not cancel within this time you are charged £79.95 on top of the trial price for that first sample. Further orders have now been canceled and hopefully I will not here from them again but very annoyed at the way this was presented as it is very misleading.

I too was scammed by the same company - very annoying and now out of pocket by £79.95 and £59.95! Not happy

pulliptears

Its not really a ripoff or a scam though, more a lesson in reading Terms and Conditions I imagine.

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

Its not really a ripoff or a scam though, more a lesson in reading Terms and Conditions I imagine.

I was reading through this thread just waiting for someone to take that sanctimonious stance!

There is always an onus on the consumer to properly read the T&C, but lets face it, how many typically do go through them with a fine-tooth comb.

If a company is relying largely on making it's money from people who don't properly read the T&C; if it relying on catching the unwary; if it realises that people who are fully aware of the T&C would either stay clear or quickly cancel so hides them away in the smallprint in the hope they won't notice ... then this is unethical practice and constitutes a ripoff and a scam in my book.

So yes, one can point a finger of partial blame at the consumer and I'm sure there are lessons to be learnt. But that doesn't alter the fact that this is could legitimately be classed as a scam, even if it is just about on the right side of the law.

wary

I'd recommend that you all file a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority, saying that the advert was misleading and key details were buried away in the smallprint. I'm not sure what their stance would be but it is certainly worth a try. Similarly, report the advert to Facebook, highlighting that you've launched a formal complaint with the ASA.

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

I was reading through this thread just waiting for someone to take that sanctimonious stance!

Lol. It's not sanctimony, its stating the obvious.

There is always an onus on the consumer to properly read the T&C, but lets face it, how many typically do go through them with a fine-tooth comb.

I do. I'm entering into a contract that could cost me pennies, or, as you have found hundreds of pounds. Well worth five minutes of your time to read the small print dont you think? I've always read T&C's thoroughly. I've never found myself in your situation.

If a company is relying largely on making it's money from people who don't properly read the T&C; if it relying on catching the unwary; if it realises that people who are fully aware of the T&C would either stay clear or quickly cancel so hides them away in the smallprint in the hope they won't notice ... then this is unethical practice and constitutes a ripoff and a scam in my book.

Unethical maybe but it works doesn't it. Ultimately though you cant blame a company because you didn't read what you are signing up for. Their T&C's are there for those who choose to read them. Rarely do you get something for nothing so when signing up for 'free' stuff I suspect most people would be extra cautious.

So yes, one can point a finger of partial blame at the consumer and I'm sure there are lessons to be learnt. But that doesn't alter the fact that this is could legitimately be classed as a scam, even if it is just about on the right side of the law.

It's not partial blame, its 100% blame. YOU didn't read the T&C's provided by the company. You checked a little box to say you had read the T&C's, but you hadn't.

As I said, its an unethical business model at best as it's relying on you not reading things, but when you don't read things thoroughly you get caught out and that is whats happened to you.

You've not been scammed, or ripped off, you've been 'caught out' because you didn't read what you were signing up to properly.

wary

Well at least we're agreed that it's at very least "an unethical business model". In my book, that makes it at very least indefensible and all I can say that if you disagree, then you have strange morals. Whether this constitutes a scam or a rip-off, we'll agree to differ.

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

Well at least we're agreed that it's at very least "an unethical business model". In my book, that makes it at very least indefensible and all I can say that if you disagree, then you have strange morals. Whether this constitutes a scam or a rip-off, we'll agree to differ.

How on earth does that make me have strange morals? Did I say anywhere that I ran a company with similar ethics? Did I say I agreed with it?
Nope.
Or is it just because I dare to point out the obvious fact that all the information was there before you clicked the "I agree" button?
They are exploiting the fact that people like you see the word 'free' and don't actually bother to read anything further.

It still leaves the onus on you to read everything before you sign, which I should imagine from now on you will, extra carefully.

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

How on earth does that make me have strange morals? Did I say anywhere that I ran a company with similar ethics? Did I say I agreed with it?
Nope.
Or is it just because I dare to point out the obvious fact that all the information was there before you clicked the "I agree" button?
They are exploiting the fact that people like you see the word 'free' and don't actually bother to read anything further.

It still leaves the onus on you to read everything before you sign, which I should imagine from now on you will, extra carefully.

Did I say that you had strange morals? No! What I said was that if you disagree that being "an unethical business model" makes it indefensible then you have strange morals ... you really should practice what you preach and read things properly!!!

I was giving you the opportunity to categorically & clearly confirm or deny whether you believe the described business model to be defensible, something that you didn’t actually do.

Incidentally, why do your last two posts assume that I personally have been had by this “scam”? Have I at any stage said anything to indicate this? No I haven’t ... and once again, you really should learn to read things properly!!! Or maybe you’re assuming that because I’m not laying 100% of the blame on the victims in the same way that you are, then I must be one myself?