'Bought' something to pay at a later date, got told it was more expensive

globetraveller

You would be in a much stronger position if you had just taken the bedding back that night. I don't understand why you didn't. It would have saved all this grief. Carry on battling or just think you paid £112 a week instead of £108.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

alexdrans wrote: »

I'm not living here as a student. I'm a professional, and the place isn't owned by a University.

I was going to suggest OP give up University and go back to school. As they indicate they are some kind of professional, I suggest either they ask mummy how to make a bed or book a hotel!

Poppie68

arcon5 wrote: »

I think op has a fair point. The guard said it was either £20 or £25 and sold it to op on that basis. Later they up the price by 40/50%.

The price is ridiculous as it is and op certainly shouldn't be treated like this because the guard has royally messed up.

Op send a formal complaint to them in writing firstly. Make a full and final settlement offer of the £25.

It being with debt collectors isn't really that scary tbh.

The guard hasn't 'royally messed up' anything

The guard didn't say it was either £20 or £25...
He said 'it might be £20,£25 i will find out tomorrow'

It was an estimate, the confirmed price was £35..maybe the price is ridculous or maybe it's a fair price for a duvet, pillow,sheets and towel!

lucy03

Poppie68 wrote: »

The guard hasn't 'royally messed up' anything

The guard didn't say it was either £20 or £25...
He said 'it might be £20,£25 i will find out tomorrow'

It was an estimate, the confirmed price was £35..maybe the price is ridculous or maybe it's a fair price for a duvet, pillow,sheets and towel!

IMO the guard did make a mistake (or at least his employer put him in that position) and as another poster mentioned, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations is relevant in my opinion. Transactions shouldn't take place where consumer behaviour is distorted by information given by a member of staff. That is what happened here.

The staff member was either in a position to sell the bed linen or he wasn't. Assuming that he was then the accommodation owner should have made provision for ensuring that pricing was understood by all those concerned. They are the retailer and the OP is the consumer, the onus is generally on them, not the consumer.

I can't personally see that a court is going to accept that this was an estimate as defined by law. It's a very different situation from giving an estimate for work which might be difficult to exactly price and a company which doesn't know the price of its products.

This doesn't mean IMO that the staff member was unhelpful, but I personally think it's unreasonable for the accommodation provider to pursue the matter.

jackieblack

lucy03 wrote: »

the accommodation owner should have made provision for ensuring that pricing was understood by all those concerned.

There was a poster on the wall that the OP says he saw later the same evening.

alexdrans wrote: »

A little while later when I went back to reception for another query, I noticed a poster on the wall that advertised a bedding set for £35. No way in hell am I going to pay £35 for a paper thin single duvet and one pillow, white sheets, and a towel.

He could have returned/rejected it then, but he didn't. He held on to it for some undetermined length of time (says this happened 'recently') and then returned it, claiming he had not used it :cool:

Poppie68

lucy03 wrote: »

IMO the guard did make a mistake (or at least his employer put him in that position) and as another poster mentioned, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations is relevant in my opinion. Transactions shouldn't take place where consumer behaviour is distorted by information given by a member of staff. That is what happened here.
No transaction took place..there was no contract, agreement or transfer of cash.

The staff member was either in a position to sell the bed linen or he wasn't. Assuming that he was then the accommodation owner should have made provision for ensuring that pricing was understood by all those concerned. They are the retailer and the OP is the consumer, the onus is generally on them, not the consumer.
The staff member didn't sell anything, for a sale to of made cash would of had to been exchanged.

I can't personally see that a court is going to accept that this was an estimate as defined by law. It's a very different situation from giving an estimate for work which might be difficult to exactly price and a company which doesn't know the price of its products.
This was clearly just an estimate/guess and the op even knows it was he isn't happy because the actual price is £10 more than the highest estimate/guess from the security guard, the 'company' was a security guard and not a sales person..who clearly stated he didn't know the price.

This doesn't mean IMO that the staff member was unhelpful, but I personally think it's unreasonable for the accommodation provider to pursue the matter.

It's not unreasonable as the OP took the goods without knowing the price and agreed to pay the next day. He unpacked them and didn't return them until the next evening.The goods are most probably not now resaleable due to health and hygenie as the resonable expectation is that they have been used before they got returned.

Money-Saving-King

ThumbRemote wrote: »

or he was acting without authorisation - in which case OP cannot be made to pay either.

So going by your theory I could ask some guy in Tesco who's been called in to fix a freezer (security guards are almost always hired from another company), ask him the price of something, open it/use it then when I get to the till and find out the price isn't what I expected refuse to pay anything with the argument he wasn't authorise to guess a price. I don't think you've got that right somehow.