Cancellation and refund of online order prior to shipment

WTFH

grumbler wrote: »

IMO this case has nothing to do with DSR.

They "stated delivery would be 22nd November", but now can't guarantee it even for Christmas. They shouldn't have taken the money in the first place.

False advertising springs to mind that needs reporting to TS and ASA.

False advertising, or short supply of stock? Nothing to report, in my book, but then again I don't try to blame businesses for everything.

The OP's actual complaint is why it takes 7-10 days for a refund.

grumbler

WTFH wrote: »

....
I was talking to a lady a few days ago who buys her clothes online. I asked her about how she makes sure she gets ones that fit well.
Simple, she replied. She orders 2 sizes, tries them both on at home, then "rejects" one size quoting DSR.

Tell me how that is fair on a business?

This is very fair for any online/distant selling. It's just an inevitable part of the business. If they don't like this they can open shops all over UK that is likely to be far more expensive.

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

They "stated delivery would be 22nd November", but now can't guarantee it even for Christmas. They shouldn't have taken the money in the first place and if they had, they must refund it ASAP.

False advertising springs to mind that needs reporting to TS and ASA.

More specifically, it's a breach of:

• Regulation 19(1) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
• Regulation 5(5)(a) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

grumbler

WTFH wrote: »

False advertising, or short supply of stock?

The former. If they don't have stock they shouldn't say "22nd" and should not take money until they have stock.

It would be a very easy way to solve cashflow problems. Advertise something at a heavily discounted price, collect the money, then blame 'short supply' and drag your feet with refunds.

The OP's actual complaint is why it takes 7-10 days for a refund.

I know, but for some reason the thread was diverted to DSR.

WTFH

grumbler wrote: »

The former. If they don't have stock they shouldn't say "22nd" and should not take money until they have stock.

Well, it depends what is meant by "(they) stated the delivery would be 22nd November".
Were they advertising that as a delivery date, or were they giving that as an estimated delivery date at the time of order, or giving it as the earliest date they might have stock?

Also, given that the phone was announced 2 days ago, I suspect the date was the expected delivery of the first batch, not a confirmed stock date.

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

It would be a very easy way to solve cashflow problems. Advertise something at a heavily discounted price, collect the money, then blame 'short supply' and drag your feet with refunds.

That is specifically considered to be an unfair commercial practice by Schedule 1 Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

WTFH

This might be of interest:
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/moto-g-release-date-where-can-you-get-it--1199169

Techhead_2

Can I point out that when you make a payment by card, whilst the bank removes the money from your available balance. The retailer doesn't receive it until some time later because of the way the bank works. Similarly, when a retailer issues a refund, whilst the money "goes" from them it takes a while to reach you.

Now that we have internet mobile banking, you can see the payment side of it happening as it shows both available and actual balance. Make a payment and with many banks, whilst your available balance will go down. The full details of the transaction won't appear until a day or so later. In fact, do it at the weekend and it could be three days or longer.

It's better for retailer to under promise on timescale and so will give pessimistic response. Even though they will process the refund much sooner.