Living Social - Never Again!

LannieDuck

I'm with the people saying that since it was a book-by date, not a use-by date, the salon should honour the voucher.

I don't like that 'subject to availability' clause either. What's to stop the website/salon accepting far more bookings than they can cope with, pocketing the money, then refusing to refund citing the 'subject to availability' clause?

evanjonesaber

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Well no, not really. It obviously is down to availability, and if there is no appointments for the next day (which there wasn't , and is quite usually the case at beauty salons), then there really isn't anything the salon can do. If it had have been booked earlier, then there would have been appointments. There is no hiding behind anything.

Absolutely agree.

lisssa

Hi

Hopefully I can help a bit as last year I worked on a project to launch a similar scheme with a well known rival ....
Basically groupon and living social got hammered last year by the ASA and OFT for offering deals that either couldn't be fulfilled by the end supplier / the disounts quoted were not genuine discounts and / or the actual service / product received was not as described in the advertised offer.
as a result a number of guidelines were introduced which the companies had to implement or face the threat of fines / restrictions imposed on them trading. ( just do a google search on groupon / living social ASA complaints )
When they take on a deal they now have to undertake a number of checks to validate that the discount offered is genuine and that the supplier can fulfil the number of 'deals' they wish to offer. It's another reason why they have to quote a 'book by' and 'end of deal' date. And if the supplier still don't meet their obligations the customer should be refunded and LS should then get the money back from the supplier.

You have fulfilled your obligations - it's irrelevant that you rang the company the day before the 'book by date' , it was within the given time frame and that is sufficient.
Ring living social again, state the facts, and ask for a refund, if they refuse,Meitner email / write to them and again reiterate the facts and state that if you don't receive a refund you will be referring the matter to both the OFT and ASA - hopefully that will focus their mind accordingly !

Hope that helps !

ThumbRemote

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Well no, not really. It obviously is down to availability, and if there is no appointments for the next day (which there wasn't , and is quite usually the case at beauty salons), then there really isn't anything the salon can do. If it had have been booked earlier, then there would have been appointments. There is no hiding behind anything.

Why does it matter that there were no appointments for the next day? The voucher said "book by 17 July". Not that the appointment had to be made by 17 July.

The salon are attempting to impose an extra deadline that was not part of the original terms and conditions.

rhidassa

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Well no, not really. It obviously is down to availability, and if there is no appointments for the next day (which there wasn't , and is quite usually the case at beauty salons), then there really isn't anything the salon can do. If it had have been booked earlier, then there would have been appointments. There is no hiding behind anything.

The redeem by date was a date in August, not in July. It wasn't a case of expecting next day availability.

Anywho, thanks to everyone for the responses. LivingSocial are investigating after I posted on their facebook page.

Georgiegirl256

rhidassa wrote: »

The redeem by date was a date in August, not in July. It wasn't a case of expecting next day availability.

Anywho, thanks to everyone for the responses. LivingSocial are investigating after I posted on their facebook page.

Well, you didn't actually mention that in your first post. That makes a big difference. You just made it sound like the voucher was due to expire the very next day.

Why couldn't the salon fit you in? Are they booked up until the date in August? If not, then of course you have a case, if they are, then my original opinion still stands.

ThumbRemote

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Well, you didn't actually mention that in your first post. That makes a big difference. You just made it sound like the voucher was due to expire the very next day.

Why couldn't the salon fit you in? Are they booked up until the date in August? If not, then of course you have a case, if they are, then my original opinion still stands.

I really can't see how you can blame the OP if the salon is booked up a month in advance. The salon could have sold 5000 vouchers, had 50 appointments available, and just told the others that they didn't book in time.

lisssa

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Well, you didn't actually mention that in your first post. That makes a big difference. You just made it sound like the voucher was due to expire the very next day.

Why couldn't the salon fit you in? Are they booked up until the date in August? If not, then of course you have a case, if they are, then my original opinion still stands.

Regardless of whether 'your opinion' still stands, the OP has kept to the terms of the deal and as a result is entitled to a refund. As I previously mentioned all the deal sites now have to carry out checks when agreeing a deal to ensure the companies can fulfil the offer. In theory the company should have sufficient capacity to fulfil all orders should all purchasers try and book between the voucher expiry date and final redemption date. These safeguards were put in place to also protect retailers ( u may remember the story of the 'cupcake ' lady who offered a really low priced offer on cupcakes - there was no cap on the number of deals sold, and as a result she was deluged with these offers and ended up going out of business ! )

OP if Living Social don't do the right thing, and u don't want to go down the route of complaining to the ASA or OFT you do have the option of disputing the transaction with your card company , as you have not received the service you purchased, and you have followed all the terms of the deal. That should be sufficient grounds for a 'chargeback' - although I'm sure by now they will have resolved this for you !

rhidassa

I've today finally received a refund of £16.

I complained on the facebook page and it got investigated. I chased it a week ago to no avail, so decided to use Lisssa's tip and emailed yesterday giving Living Social 7 working days to respond or I would refer the matter to ASA and OFT. And now it's been sent back to my paypal account, so despite all the hassle, at least I've got my money back and learnt a lesson for the future regarding Living Social.

Thanks all for the opinions and advice, whether I agreed with them or not.

tinkerbell28

I actually cannot believe so many people are justifying a company taking money for a service which then is not provided and then justifying it, because it says "subject to availability". It was a BOOK by date. So why was op unreasonable to think she could book at anytime up until that date? It was not a redeem by date.

You pay for a service, you expect to be able to use that service. T&C's are pretty useless of a court would deem them unfair. To continue to take money for a service, which op couldn't use within the times stated, due to availabilty, seems pretty unfair to me.

I'd be pretty confident op if you took this to small claims, you'd win. It's an unfair term, you're paying for a service, which you did follow the instructions for, you tried to book within time. Then hiding behind subject to availability? I don't think so.

That's like having one spa appt available at £50, selling thousands and making tens of thousands, then just letting one person book, but saying "subject to availability".

These types of places are quite shady and lots of small business easily get pressured into deals they can't fuflfil or are loss leading. You paid living social. I'd take them to small claims if it were me.

Just seen you got a refund, too right.