Can Amazon keep my Gift Card balance?

daytona0

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Companies claim that "they know" all sorts of things, many of which would not stand scrutiny here let alone stand up in court.

I want to draw attention to the criterion really being to a standard of proof accepted external to Amazon, not just Amazon deciding in the light of their own wisdom.

Fair enough lad.

You are right, though, because I used to work in a similar place and generally fraud was easy to spot but trickier to prove. It tended to exist, though, and would probably have stood up in court.

Really not sure why amazon would withhold the payment here. They SHOULD refund it back onto the DC/CC which initially bought it and that should rectify everything usually.

[Deleted User]

daytona0 wrote: »

Really not sure why amazon would withhold the payment here. They SHOULD refund it back onto the DC/CC which initially bought it and that should rectify everything usually.

And this is the problem, because a gift card could have been issued by a wholesale reseller who has nothing to do with the end user. For example I get Amazon GC by doing surveys. When I add them to my account and I spend the amount, Amazon marks the value of my transaction £0.

London50

I wonder after reading so many of these situations on this forum why it is that companies bother to have t&c's as it seems to me that {while I do not disagree} whatever t&c's companies have people on this forum at least seem to think {rightly or wrongly} that they are not fair and even would not stand up in court.
Yet although these things are put forward I do not see or hear of anyone that has been in the position with companies and have won their case. If this is true how can anyone have an informed perspective or is this just a case of overall points scoring over each other??.
I admit I do not know but believe that companies would have their own legal people that before putting the t&c's in place would read them to make sure that all was allowed in law and that if the government {or whoever} change the laws the information would then be revised to cover.

wealdroam

London50 wrote: »

I wonder after reading so many of these situations on this forum why it is that companies bother to have t&c's as it seems to me that {while I do not disagree} whatever t&c's companies have people on this forum at least seem to think {rightly or wrongly} that they are not fair and even would not stand up in court.
Yet although these things are put forward I do not see or hear of anyone that has been in the position with companies and have won their case. If this is true how can anyone have an informed perspective or is this just a case of overall points scoring over each other??.
I admit I do not know but believe that companies would have their own legal people that before putting the t&c's in place would read them to make sure that all was allowed in law and that if the government {or whoever} change the laws the information would then be revised to cover.

You seem to be suggesting that consumers should not question the legality of a seller's T&Cs.

Surely that is not what you are saying. Please tell me that you are joking.

keyser666

bet the OP has done a double dip refund a few times

London50

wealdroam wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that consumers should not question the legality of a seller's T&Cs.

Surely that is not what you are saying. Please tell me that you are joking.

Why should it be joking?? as I said tell me ANYONE on here that has proved that the t&c's are wrong, tell me anyone that has won a case against them. I am not saying that the t&c's are morally right I am saying that everybody says that it should not happen but it has and no one is proving that the t&c's are not legal

unholyangel

London50 wrote: »

Why should it be joking?? as I said tell me ANYONE on here that has proved that the t&c's are wrong, tell me anyone that has won a case against them. I am not saying that the t&c's are morally right I am saying that everybody says that it should not happen but it has and no one is proving that the t&c's are not legal

Unfair Terms in Consumer contract regulations state:

Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if
they have the object or effect of:
(f) … permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for
services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or
supplier himself who dissolves the contract.

Now granted, as I said earlier contracts of sale with amazon are governed in accordances with the laws of the duchy of luxembourg. But the above came from an EU directive - and that is what makes terms unfair which have the effect of:

(f) authorizing the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

So it will have been incorporated into law there too.

The reason these laws exist is because of retailers taking the mickey so I have no idea why you find it so hard to believe that a retailer might not fulfil their legal obligations 100%. Or were watchdog, OFT, Trading Standards etc all just making stuff up to keep themselves in jobs? OFT was and TS is still extremely overworked. They don't usually even investigate a single complaint because of their workload.

Thats possibly why wealdroam asked if you were joking. Not to mention you asked that on a consumer rights board....

wealdroam

keyser666 wrote: »

bet the OP has done a double dip refund a few times

Very likely.

ThumbRemote

London50 wrote: »

Why should it be joking?? as I said tell me ANYONE on here that has proved that the t&c's are wrong, tell me anyone that has won a case against them. I am not saying that the t&c's are morally right I am saying that everybody says that it should not happen but it has and no one is proving that the t&c's are not legal

Thomson Holidays: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-advice/10662931/Thomson-case-could-spell-end-of-unfair-holiday-cancellation-charges.html

All gyms: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2027971/Locked-gym-contract-year-Then-cancel.html

Bank charges: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges


Ryanair (note specifically point 7, in which their T&Cs sought to restrict a claim to 2 years, which was found to be unlawful): https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=53d29da6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

bod1467

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Ryanair (note specifically point 7, in which their T&Cs sought to restrict a claim to 2 years, which was found to be unlawful): https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=53d29da6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

And this is the most telling example. All the others are simply articles reporting the cases/events ... THIS one is an actual court report.