Will I Get A Full Refund?

arcon5

keyaziz wrote: »

My bank disagrees (who have an equal legal obligation as the company becauses its a credit card) and so do Citizen's Advice. They stated that the law isn't black and white in these matters and that it would be different if I had cancelled a few days later as opposed to before they had been made.

This is why the bank have sent me the paperwork. I spoke to them directly on the phone about the issue.

Do remember though, when your bank contact their merchant bank to request the money back, the retailer can defend it.

artbaron

unholyangel wrote: »

Sorry, I must be on the wrong thread. I couldve sworn the OP was about cancelling an order and not about being scammed.

If you think it's reasonable to ignore a customer's request in order to extract money from them for a product they don't want then you're not on the wrong thread, you're on the wrong site.

Hintza wrote: »

So you don't believe in personal responsibility.

Grow up.

unholyangel

artbaron wrote: »

If you think it's reasonable to ignore a customer's request in order to extract money from them for a product they don't want then you're not on the wrong thread, you're on the wrong site.



Grow up.

I dont throw around accusations of a company being scammers just because there has been a dispute over contractual obligations/a mistake made.

Scamming, is fraudulent in nature. Going on whats being said, this was a genuine business transaction where (as above) a mistake has been made or they dispute the consumers right to cancel.

zenmaster

artbaron wrote: »

If you think it's reasonable to ignore a customer's request in order to extract money from them for a product they don't want then you're not on the wrong thread, you're on the wrong site.



Grow up.

And if you think it's reasonable for people to order things they don't want then you are on the wrong planet.

Grow up.

artbaron

unholyangel wrote: »

I dont throw around accusations of a company being scammers just because there has been a dispute over contractual obligations/a mistake made.

Scamming, is fraudulent in nature. Going on whats being said, this was a genuine business transaction where (as above) a mistake has been made or they dispute the consumers right to cancel.

There's no mistake. They deliberately ignored the email and other contact methods in order to extract money from the customer. Or maybe you could detail what kind of 'mistake' would cause this to happen? I'd be interested to hear what excuses you can make for the company.

zenmaster wrote: »

And if you think it's reasonable for people to order things they don't want then you are on the wrong planet.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure you're absolutely perfect and have never done anything that isn't perfectly reasonable. The rest of us sometimes order things in error or get the specifications wrong and when we do, and we notify the seller immediately, we expect the seller to help out especially when it's at no loss to them. Yesterday I ordered an item from Amazon, then saw another another similar item on the site that would be delivered much quicker. I purchased the second and cancelled the first, by clicking a button marked 'cancel'. Simple, efficient, and everyone's happy. I guess you wouldn't know about this, though, as you're perfect.

Hintza

artbaron wrote: »

Yesterday I ordered an item from Amazon, then saw another another similar item on the site that would be delivered much quicker. I purchased the second and cancelled the first, by clicking a button marked 'cancel'. Simple, efficient, and everyone's happy. I guess you wouldn't know about this, though, as you're perfect.

That is totally different.

unholyangel

artbaron wrote: »

There's no mistake. They deliberately ignored the email and other contact methods in order to extract money from the customer. Or maybe you could detail what kind of 'mistake' would cause this to happen? I'd be interested to hear what excuses you can make for the company.

I'm not making excuses for the company. I'm looking at the issue objectively. You should try it sometime.

OP said the cancellation wasnt guaranteed. OP still hasnt linked T&C's. They have no statutory right to cancel and receive a full refund from what they have said, they may have a contractual one but we can't advise on that without seeing the T&C's.

Its also possible that in order to cancel, OP had to fill in a web form or do it via the order reference page etc and they simply missed the information. Hence the order wasnt cancelled.

Dont be so quick to judge when you dont have all the details.

artbaron

Hintza wrote: »

That is totally different.

The outcome was different and the customer service was different but the situation was the same. You're asking me to believe that a company can't manage to read an email within two days but can manage to immediately begin a process for which even the best online retailers have a lead time between 3 days and two weeks, and complete that process within 2 days! It's inconceivable. Match that with the apparent lack of phone number or other contact options and I can't imagine why you're defending the company.

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm not making excuses for the company. I'm looking at the issue objectively. You should try it sometime.

OP said the cancellation wasnt guaranteed.

Such a statement would be meaningless in law. There are no conditions, no specifics, it has no purpose.

unholyangel wrote: »

OP still hasnt linked T&C's. They have no statutory right to cancel and receive a full refund from what they have said

Their rights aren't incumbent on the Ts & Cs. I've read countless Ts & Cs that maintain all sorts of nonsense but if they conflict with the SOGA they can be ignored. If this went to court, and assuming the OP has told us the right story, I can't imagine that they would not win the case.

unholyangel wrote: »

Its also possible that in order to cancel, OP had to fill in a web form or do it via the order reference page etc and they simply missed the information. Hence the order wasnt cancelled.

Of course, the OP could be lying about everything but we can only go on what we've been told.

unholyangel wrote: »

Dont be so quick to judge when you dont have all the details.

I'm judging based on the details given. If you waited for hard evidence before posting an opinion then you would never post anything on a forum, ever.

Hintza

artbaron wrote: »

but the situation was the same.

No; in all likelihood your item was covered by DSR whereas the OP's is not. I'm not condoning the seller's actions but at the end of the day until the OP shows any T&Cs the retailer is within their rights to hold the OP to the contract and no amount of bank, TS or CAB will change that.

Many folk on here seem to buy first and then do their research instead if vica versa and when it doesn't go their way they spit the dummy. Nobody ever says "mea culpa" and takes it on the chin and learns from it.

The OP's new glasses might not be to their liking now but I am sure they will do the job adequately enough.

tomwakefield

artbaron wrote: »

The outcome was different and the customer service was different but the situation was the same. You're asking me to believe that a company can't manage to read an email within two days but can manage to immediately begin a process for which even the best online retailers have a lead time between 3 days and two weeks, and complete that process within 2 days! It's inconceivable. Match that with the apparent lack of phone number or other contact options and I can't imagine why you're defending the company.

Firstly, (as I think has been suggested before) it may be that the order gets sent directly to the manufacturer, while the email gets sent to customer services, who then have to manually cancel it with the manufacturer. By this time the manufacturer may have started.

Secondly, there is no time limit before which custom goods may still be cancelled, regardless of whether manufacturing has started or not. If companies should refuse to cancel before manufacturing is a moral issue, rather than a legal one.

artbaron wrote: »

Such a statement would be meaningless in law. There are no conditions, no specifics, it has no purpose.

It removed ambiguity. Without that, it may imply that cancellation was a contractual right, rather than simply a possibility.

artbaron wrote: »

Their rights aren't incumbent on the Ts & Cs. I've read countless Ts & Cs that maintain all sorts of nonsense but if they conflict with the SOGA they can be ignored.

I agree. However, in this case I don't see any conflict, so the T&Cs would stand as is.

artbaron wrote: »

If this went to court, and assuming the OP has told us the right story, I can't imagine that they would not win the case.

I disagree. From what we've read the OP has ordered something which has no statutory right to cancel (due to being custom made) and no contractual right to cancel. Since there is no legal right, the OP would have no case simply because he couldn't cancel.