Domestic and General - is this a shady practice?

SamDude

Last August, I purchased an oven and gas hob for our new kitchen. It was bought online and everything was in my name (Mr A, for the purposes of this thread).

Today, my wife got two letters from D&G addressed to her by name (Mrs A, for the purpose of this thread) inviting her to extend the manufacturers guarantee for a year.

I'm not against receiving letters of this nature, as it's their business to sell insurance/warranties - just the same as it's my right to take up or decline the offer.

I'm concerned and wonder if the following questions need answering:

• Why did D&G address the letters to my wife, seeing as it was not her that placed the order?
• Are they preying on 'female partners' of relationships to be more susceptible to their cold-call offers?
• When they looked up the 'mrs' in the household, what if she wasn't my partner? (or had nothing to do with the purchase?)
• Are other companies doing the same thing?
  Is this allowed?

Thanks all.

SuperHan

Have they just addressed it Mrs A and no initial?

Maybe they have an error on the system.

My other half gets letters from Pets at Home addressed to Mrs Simon X, despite quite obviously not being a Mrs. At some point, there's been an typo, that's all. Maybe that's what's happened here.

utab007

Does it really matter? If it bothers you just phone them ask them to delete your details from any marketing database

SamDude

The letters are addressed to my wife by name - they've taken the trouble of finding out who the female/'Mrs' is at my address.

There is no mistake about it - the order was typed by me on their website with myself as the customer, so this isn't a human error, it is a deliberate human sales ploy.

Funny about D&G scaring my kids - however it's the sinister sales tactic that I'm annoyed about.

I just wanted to share this with others and see if anyone else had the same experience.

rs65

We tend to buy things in my name but she registers the product for guarantee purposes.

Could it be the same for you?

SamDude

rs65 wrote: »

We tend to buy things in my name but she registers the product for guarantee purposes.

Could it be the same for you?

Nope - the online retailer order and manufacturer registration was in my name.

The D&G letter was 'in conjunction with' the online retailer, not via the manufacturer in any case.

The items were both Rangemaster and the retailer was Appliances.co.uk. My details would have been passed to D&G via Appliances.co.uk - but none of my wife's details were requested or disclosed to anyone regarding this purchase.

McKneff

Am I right in thinking you are Mr a and she is Mrs A.


Perhaps it is just typo on the letter and someone has added an 's'


Just tell them to delete your details from any database they may have.

Buzby

D&G get data from the retailer and additionally the manufacturer 'warranty' cards, which go direct to D&G and 'register' the product - which is simply a data mining exercise.

There is small print where this is actually stated, but as I dispose of all D&G mail, I treat them with the same contempt they treat me!

SamDude

McKneff wrote: »

Am I right in thinking you are Mr a and she is Mrs A.


Perhaps it is just typo on the letter and someone has added an 's'


Just tell them to delete your details from any database they may have.

I am 'Mr A.S. Surname' and my wife is 'Mrs L.W. Surname'.
There isn't a lot of wriggle room for human error, typos or fat fingers. This was deliberate.

I do get the sentiment that this isn't really a big deal. It's the principle of the matter that I have a problem with.

I'm going to call D&G tomorrow to get my/our details removed - just to state again, I wanted to canvas the MSE community to see if I was the only one that this had happened to (apparently it is).

trailingspouse

No, I think it is a big deal.

I recently opened a bank account for myself and my husband - I was Applicant 1. But until I rang them and gave them what for, they were addressing all correspondence to my husband.

I think, despite all efforts to the contrary, some people have their own personal 'default' whereby they ascribe their own traditional roles to married couples. In our case someone has decided that 'the man' should handle the money. In your case someone has decided that 'the woman' should deal with the cooker.

It's sexist, it's irritating, there are issues of confidentiality, and it's just plain out-dated.

rudekid48

trailingspouse wrote: »

No, I think it is a big deal.

I recently opened a bank account for myself and my husband - I was Applicant 1. But until I rang them and gave them what for, they were addressing all correspondence to my husband.

I think, despite all efforts to the contrary, some people have their own personal 'default' whereby they ascribe their own traditional roles to married couples. In our case someone has decided that 'the man' should handle the money. In your case someone has decided that 'the woman' should deal with the cooker.

It's sexist, it's irritating, there are issues of confidentiality, and it's just plain out-dated.

Does your husband know that you're using his computer?