eglobaldigital.co.uk VAT/import scam.

bris

There is nothing to pickup, if your going to be buying on the internet you need to learn fast that the world, especially China, is a major seller into the UK.

.co.uk does not mean they are UK based but just that they are open to do business in the UK and any 20 second google on the company you are about to spend big money with will tell you all you need to know.

There are no DSR or consumer rights issues that will have any impact on any sellers outside the EU, difficult enough to enforce rights even in the EU but out side you are on your own and need to know if you are importing or not and any charges that will bring.

If you want MSE to run anything it should be about educating people about the fact that not everyone knows .co.uk is not just UK based and teach them the basics of internet shopping in the free market world.

rrobbo

Sorry Bris, but I do find you your response pretty unhelpful. I know that there was reference to the .co.uk suffix previously but that didn't influence me at all. The company claims to be (and according to Companies House is) a UK Limited Company. Their own description is "eglobadigitalstore.co.uk is a website operated by DWI Merchants Ltd, a UK registered business which aims to provide excellent value in digital products and accessories to our customers in UK.".

The point that I was making was that the current regulations surrounding distance selling don't specifically require retailers to indicate if additional costs will be incurred when completing a purchase - they are allowed to bury these details in the small text of a website, effectively producing a rogue's charter. My credit card company is unable to apply a chargeback claim even though they believe the company to be operating a scam because they believe that the legislation doesn't support this. Fortunately my credit card provider made a discretionary payment to cover my losses in this case.

Saying that a scam is acceptable purely because other people have been scammed previously is not really a constructive approach. When a great many people agreed mortgages with clearly documented tie-ins there was a real campaign to save them from themselves even though they knowingly entered into a clear contract. In this case, where the contractual implications appear to have been consciously hidden, you feel that it's the consumer that's at fault. Are there simply not enough political points to be scored for you to think that it's a worthy cause?