Taking Payment without Stock?

hjdodzi

Hi Guys,

Dial-a-phone has taken payment from my card for a phone which they have no stock (Samsung Galaxy S4) and keep pushing back the delivery date because of this. They knew they had no stock on 25th for dispatch, but still charged on 26th which was when I was meant to receive it.

Now with several other companies (in fact all I have dealt with in the past) have always taken payment only when they have stock.

Two of these spring to mind - Sainsburys and QVC

Sainsburys for online delivery only charge what they deliver that day because some items may be out of stock (such as deals/loopholes on beer and wine etc) so would offer substitutions etc.

QVC (my mum's addiction) also if they are out of stock, will not charge until item is back in.

So.... are Dial-a-phone in the wrong?
I have been reading up on the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, but cannot find anything.

Some chapter and verse would be helpful on this.

Any help from you guys will get thumbs up from me! :beer:

Agricolae

hjdodzi wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Dial-a-phone has taken payment from my card for a phone which they have no stock (Samsung Galaxy S4) and keep pushing back the delivery date because of this. They knew they had no stock on 25th for dispatch, but still charged on 26th which was when I was meant to receive it.

Now with several other companies (in fact all I have dealt with in the past) have always taken payment only when they have stock.

Two of these spring to mind - Sainsburys and QVC

Sainsburys for online delivery only charge what they deliver that day because some items may be out of stock (such as deals/loopholes on beer and wine etc) so would offer substitutions etc.

QVC (my mum's addiction) also if they are out of stock, will not charge until item is back in.

So.... are Dial-a-phone in the wrong?
I have been reading up on the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, but cannot find anything.

Some chapter and verse would be helpful on this.

Any help from you guys will get thumbs up from me! :beer:

The short answer is yes, they can do this, but it depends on what it says in the contract/terms and conditions.

Basically you've entered a contract to buy a phone. Your contractual obligation is to pay x amount of money. Their contractual obligation is to supply you with said phone.

If there are no express terms in your agreement with them that the phone will be delivered by x date, then the expectation is that you will receive the phone 'within a reasonable time'. What is 'a reasonable time' is a question of fact.

I don't think it matters that they had no stock at the time they took your money. Presumably they still intend to supply you with the phone and a largish company is going to be able to get more in.

I know it's frustrating but you may have to sit tight.

elainestev

It wasn't due for release until the 27th anyway. I kno u didn't exactly get it on the 27th by the looks of it, there was a statement issued that demand was exceeded so people may have to wait one week later for it. Sounds as though u have fallen into that category

hjdodzi

Hey Guys,

Thank you so much for your reply.

I feared I fell into that catagory, problem is Samsung are having a bit of a battle with Phones4u (parent company) and I feel like they might not be able to deliver within a "reasonable timeframe"... will have to read over their T&Cs in a little bit more detail. The Consumer Credit bit I was reading over talks about 30 days for delivery... we shall see!

Thanks again

Jamie_Carter

hjdodzi wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Dial-a-phone has taken payment from my card for a phone which they have no stock (Samsung Galaxy S4) and keep pushing back the delivery date because of this. They knew they had no stock on 25th for dispatch, but still charged on 26th which was when I was meant to receive it.

Now with several other companies (in fact all I have dealt with in the past) have always taken payment only when they have stock.

Two of these spring to mind - Sainsburys and QVC

Sainsburys for online delivery only charge what they deliver that day because some items may be out of stock (such as deals/loopholes on beer and wine etc) so would offer substitutions etc.

QVC (my mum's addiction) also if they are out of stock, will not charge until item is back in.

So.... are Dial-a-phone in the wrong?
I have been reading up on the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, but cannot find anything.

Some chapter and verse would be helpful on this.

Any help from you guys will get thumbs up from me! :beer:

It's common practice, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you aren't happy, then you can cancel your order and get a refund.

Jamie_Carter

hjdodzi wrote: »

Hey Guys,

Thank you so much for your reply.

I feared I fell into that catagory, problem is Samsung are having a bit of a battle with Phones4u (parent company) and I feel like they might not be able to deliver within a "reasonable timeframe"... will have to read over their T&Cs in a little bit more detail. The Consumer Credit bit I was reading over talks about 30 days for delivery... we shall see!

Thanks again

Why don't you get one from Tesco Mobile? There is no up front cost.
http://shop.tescomobile.com/samsung-galaxy-s4

hjdodzi

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It's common practice, and there is nothingwrong with it. If you aren't happy, then you can cancel your order and get arefund.

Jamie,

Your contribution to this thread is less than useful.

It is NOT common practice to charge when no stock is present, and you havenot provided any knowledgeable insight. Yes, I can get a refund, but I don’twant to do that. And yes, Tesco may provide no upfront cost, but the value ofthe deal I have outweighs it.

Good night, all!

shaun_from_Africa

hjdodzi wrote: »

It is NOT common practice to charge when no stock is present, and you havenot provided any knowledgeable insight.

Many online retailers will take payment in full or put a hold on the money from a credit or debit card even though they don't currently have stock of the required goods.
I have had this happen to me when I placed an online order with Boots, and it's something that crops up on these boards with regards to many other retailers, so when Jamie Carter stated that it was a common practice, he was correct.

With comments such as this:

Your contribution to this thread is less than useful.

you will be lucky to get any more replies, helpful or not.

Jamie_Carter

hjdodzi wrote: »

Jamie,

Your contribution to this thread is less than useful.

It is NOT common practice to charge when no stock is present, and you havenot provided any knowledgeable insight. Yes, I can get a refund, but I don’twant to do that. And yes, Tesco may provide no upfront cost, but the value ofthe deal I have outweighs it.

Good night, all!

Your contribution to this thread is less than useful.

Actually you are wrong!

If deliveries are expected soon, then companies can and often do take payment while they are out of stock.

unholyangel

Agricolae wrote: »

If there are no express terms in your agreement with them that the phone will be delivered by x date, then the expectation is that you will receive the phone 'within a reasonable time'. What is 'a reasonable time' is a question of fact.

Under DSRs its 30 days unless otherwise agreed. Its SoGA thats "within a reasonable time" - also unless otherwise agreed/fixed.

Performance

19.—(1) Unless the parties agree otherwise, the supplier shall perform the contract within a maximum of 30 days beginning with the day after the day the consumer sent his order to the supplier.

Its actually a useful thing in DSRs as it allows people to cancel customised goods if the retailer is dragging their heels. I wonder if thats going to be kept the same in the new regs.

Agricolae

unholyangel wrote: »

Under DSRs its 30 days unless otherwise agreed. Its SoGA thats "within a reasonable time" - also unless otherwise agreed/fixed.



Its actually a useful thing in DSRs as it allows people to cancel customised goods if the retailer is dragging their heels. I wonder if thats going to be kept the same in the new regs.

I agree that it is useful in terms of protecting consumers but you can't actually bring an action for breach of contract under DSRs, which can make them a bit awkward in practice (e.g it can make section 75 claims more difficult).

This is why I favour SoGA and other statutes over the DSRs, because they imply various terms into contracts.