Deleted Thread?

neilmcl

halibut2209 wrote: »

Of course, this is all taking the company's word for it, and given the posts from the two people involved, I wouldn't hold too much stock in that

That equally applies to the OP. I don't think we've got the real story from either party, which is probably why the thread was deleted.

lynseypvic

The trader is stating we said we have used the bedding on 4 hutches. We only have the one cage, its not a breeding farm! We did say we cut 4 pieces when she phoned back because we thought we may as well cut spares. I already had one piece from pets at home so only needed the piece I ordered (one to use, one in the washing machine). We just thought it would make sense to cut the rest to size and make some use out of the material later on and we did this after she said to keep it. Of course, now we have used it/cut it she is saying we have to pay for it.

Although we said we cut 4 pieces when she phoned us back (trying to be helpful regarding helping her to work out what had been sent to us!) she is now stating that we actually said we did this when we originally phoned her. How could one 1m piece plus 6 extra inches of material fit 4 hutches? Surely she would have questioned this when we called if we said this?

I really wish she had just contacted the manufacturer when we phoned. We didn't even realise she had got the manufacturer to supply it to us. I assumed the trader was a company who stocked the supplies. Either way she had no interest in investigating the wrong product being sent and we just wanted to get on with the day.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

I thought the owner was quite believable. Obviously there are issues with her attitude and how she runs her business but the actual facts she said sounded true.

The bit about the OP's husband not specifying the actual discrepancy doesn't sound like an unbelievable claim and I don't think the OP ever denied that.

Well each to their own. Personally I find the whole fact the owner is claiming the OP called to make them aware there was a mistake made and then tried to be dishonest is unbelievable. If OP was being dishonest about it, they just wouldnt have contacted the company.

Tbh it sounds more like the owner has no clue on how to run a business and is more interested in making a profit than running a reputable company. The owner mentioned contacting a solicitor with regards to defamation, yet they clearly didnt bother contacting a solicitor to get them to draft/check their T&C's - several of which are illegal.

The OP's post alone wouldnt have stopped me ordering, but theirs will. Perhaps they should sue themselves for defamation.

pmduk

If a company considers itself above the rules that MSE sets for posting on here, I feel it gives a good clue about their entire trading ethics (or lack of them).

System

pmduk wrote: »

If a company considers itself above the rules that MSE sets for posting on here, I feel it gives a good clue about their entire trading ethics (or lack of them).

The rules of MSE are not the 10 commandments. Although they may be sacrosanct to the die hard forum members I don't think they are as highly regarded by the the casual person!

I would be surprised if 90% of people read them before they posted on this forum!

I think its unfair to judge a companies trading ethics because they have not obeyed the forum rules to the letter!

agrinnall

I'm not sure why the OP didn't simply report the trader for breaching the forum "company representative" rule, which would have got the post deleted. MSE might then have chickened out and deleted the whole thread anyway, but not going through the proper procedure makes that more likely to happen.

lynseypvic

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm not sure why the OP didn't simply report the trader for breaching the forum "company representative" rule, which would have got the post deleted. MSE might then have chickened out and deleted the whole thread anyway, but not going through the proper procedure makes that more likely to happen.

I only just saw the post from the trader and the other members posts before the thread was deleted, although I only skimmed through them. I then inquired about what had happened on the new thread ie had the thread been deleted and is it usual for traders to come on the forum and how did she know the thread existed etc. My concern was not about the the thread being deleted but about whether or not she could demand money from me after changing her mind about us keeping the excess as well as worries that she was starting to harass us and whether or not it was mistake on her part or an actual scam.
I was interested to hear she has changed her terms and conditions after telling me to keep the material though which I hadn't had a chance to read about properly before the thread was deleted.

Valli

I wondered what had happened to that thread as I too posted on it.

Anyway she has shown her true colours. I advised you not to discuss on the phone.

Stay strong and ignore her.

But yes, searches on google do often throw MSE forum posts up. Maybe she searched because she knows this is one she won't win!

unholyangel

lynseypvic wrote: »

I was interested to hear she has changed her terms and conditions after telling me to keep the material though which I hadn't had a chance to read about properly before the thread was deleted.

Google has a cached version. Just go to google, type in the address for the terms and conditions and instead of clicking on the link, click the arrow type thing to the right of the link, then hit cached version and it will take you to the T&C's on that date. If you havent already, screenshot them and save it.

goater78 wrote: »

I think its unfair to judge a companies trading ethics because they have not obeyed the forum rules to the letter!

How about judging their trading ethics on their failure to obey trading/consumer legislation? This is a consumer rights board after all.........and the owner of this company has severely breached this consumers rights.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

How about judging their trading ethics on their failure to obey trading/consumer legislation? This is a consumer rights board after all.........and the owner of this company has severely breached this consumers rights.

Yes that's fair enough but as I'm sure you noticed that wasn't the point I was responding to....