Plaintshirts.co.uk - Refusing refund!?!?

Am1

Bris - in the companies section in checkout I put a dash (-).

Lots of websites have a section with 'company' at checkout. This doesnt mean anything to me. I always just put a dash.

vuvuzela

Am1 wrote: »

When 'trade price' is listed, I assume it is coming directly from the manufacturer. I also assume that anybody can purchase. Members of the public / companies / - anybody. To me, that is a very reasonable assumption.

Being a .co.uk website too also makes me instantly assume that the Consumer Law will apply (in regards to returns).

They could easily highlight 'Trade only' and 'No retruns' - next to their highlighted '£3.50 delivery', and 'posted within 24 hours'. This is a key elemenet of their website. When that is SO important - it should be given the same importance clearly on their front page.

First assumption is incorrect. I would assume the exact opposite, in that they only sell to the trade.
Second assumption is incorrect. What would you want their website to be called - they are a company and based in the UK so they have a full right to use.co.uk
They expect people to read their website before ordering - that is why they have T&C sections and About Us sections. You failed to do this and your arguing the point won't make it correct.

Am1

For the first one, that would be your assumption. Not mine. Being a 'glass half full' person, I had assumed my positive version.

Of course they can use .co.uk, Im not saying that is wrong, it just made me feel more secure and allowed me to make the assumption that the returns policy will have to abide by UK Consumer law. If it was a .com, it could be based in America or somewhere, I would always check there t&c in regards to returns, as I know it will be different.

Not allowing reurns is substancially different to 99% of websites. Not stating this clearly on the front page is unethical and unacceptable in my opinion.

vuvuzela

Am1 wrote: »

For the first one, that would be your assumption. Not mine. Being a 'glass half full' person, I had assumed my positive version.

Of course they can use .co.uk, Im not saying that is wrong, it just made me feel more secure and allowed me to make the assumption that the returns policy will have to abide by UK Consumer law. If it was a .com, it could be based in America or somewhere, I would always check there t&c in regards to returns, as I know it will be different.

Not allowing reurns is substancially different to 99% of websites. Not stating this clearly on the front page is unethical and unacceptable in my opinion.

There's a lot of assumptions there that could have been fixed by the simple task of reading the T&Cs or the About Us page...
As for 99% of websites, I would say they are no different to 99% of business-to-business websites.
However the last statement is potentially libellous. They are neither unethical or being unacceptable in expecting you to do the simple task of reading their website instead of seeing the cheap prices and rushing in to buy, in the process ignoring the clear evidence that they are not retailing to customers

Am1

Yes, business to business websites. But as a member of the public, the sight looked modern, clean, easy for the public to use, with good prices. I order, if I don't like, I can return. At least that is what I assumed. Especially as I am purchasing clothing, and not some complicated financial product or something!

If I owned that wesbite - I would clearly state No returns and Trade only on the front page. Other members of the public will accidentally buy from them in the furute. No doubt. If the company cared (ethics), they would put this on the front page. But Im sure they like the extra dollar rolling in!

wealdroam

Am1, it is clear to me that you misrepresented yourself when making your purchase.

Despite all the writing on their website that they only deal with trade customers, despite ticking the box agreeing to their T&Cs which also state they are 'trade only', you continued with the transaction.

Would you not think it reasonable for the company to assume that they were dealing with a trade customer?

However, that doesn't matter because, as Arcon5 said, if you are a consumer then that is a fact.

The company appears to have 'assumed' that you are a trade customer... reasonably so in my opinion... since you have effectively told them so.

You option now is to enforce your rights.
The company are denying you a refund so you need to take the next step... courts.

I'll leave you to work out how to do that, or whether it is worth it.

By the way... have a look back at how many times you have used the word 'assumed'.

Am1

I didnt miss represnt myself. Its not clearly stated on the front page.

As I said earlier, I do not read the T&C's of most websites. All websites I have pruchase from previouly allow the 7 day return rule (as by law).

Do you read the T&C's of every website you purchase from? I would be suprised. If it is the case, I suspect most people don't. You start assuming based on previous purchases / experiences.

I havent told them I am a company. I put a dash in the checkout stage (originally thinking nothing of it).

Using the word assumed - just trying to get my point across / relaying my though process in my purchase.

Its £50 I need to get refunded. I'll keep pestering them for the time being and see what happens.

wealdroam

Am1 wrote: »

I didnt miss represnt myself.

Am1 wrote: »

I havent told them I am a company.

Excuse me... you did.

You agreed to their T&Cs confirming that you were a business customer.

This assumption lark works both ways.
They are entitled to assume you have read the T&Cs... after all, you have ticked a box saying "I have read the T&Cs".

Am1

Fair enough.

At the end of the day, other members of the public will have the same problem I have currently got in the future.

If such an important and differenciating aspect of there T&C's - compared to most other websites is not clearly stated on their front page - people will get caught out. That is not right.

arcon5

Am1 wrote: »

Yes, business to business websites. But as a member of the public, the sight looked modern, clean, easy for the public to use, with good prices. I order, if I don't like, I can return. At least that is what I assumed. Especially as I am purchasing clothing, and not some complicated financial product or something!

If I owned that wesbite - I would clearly state No returns and Trade only on the front page. Other members of the public will accidentally buy from them in the furute. No doubt. If the company cared (ethics), they would put this on the front page. But Im sure they like the extra dollar rolling in!

Aren't these also characteristics a business buyer would also want? Not sure how these aspects of the website differentiate it between consumer and business customers.

I've just browsed the website as I would any other, looked through their collection, clicked and scanned over 'about us' and clicked 'contact us'. And I have to agree with you here, the fact they are B2B/Trade only really could be much clearer.

As I asked before, what was the purpose of your purchase? As if you did buy as a consumer, you do have the right to return, irrespective of who their target market is and what their terms say.