Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Fosterdog

Zerofear you'll actually find that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which covers this purchase specifically states that the refund must be given by the original payment method unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise. Meaning that Currys can insist on refunding to the original method but if they chose to provide a refund by an alternative method, providing the consumer agrees there us nothing illegal about it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/what-remedies-are-there-if-statutory-rights-under-a-goods-contract-are-not-met/enacted

Explained under section 20 (16)

Zerofear62

Yes, but that's if the statuary rights of the customer are not met by the order, and because the item was not in stock but was coming in this would still meet that statuary rights, therefore meaning it would not fall under that legislation and therefore meaning there is not a good enough reason to change they method of refund, meaning it would be look into as fraud.

Fosterdog

You are right I apologise for quoting the wrong legislation as so far no contract has been breached.

This case instead comes under the CCRs as it's a distance sale where OP has the right to cancel.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

As explained here the exact same line appears as in the CRA.
(7) The trader must make the reimbursement using the same means of payment as the consumer used for the initial transaction, unless the consumer has expressly agreed otherwise.

So my previous point is still correct I just quoted the exact same wording from the legislation that runs alongside the one I meant to. There is nothing illegal about refunding to an alternative method providing both parties are in agreement.

Zerofear62

No apology needed friend. As far as I am aware, the consumer can like you say refund to a different means if an agreement is made, but that won't stop that transaction being investigated as possible fraud. If there is not a good enough reason for the change in payment method this can be lead to it being classed as fraudulent, so may not seem illegal at first but can definitely be legally seen to be fraud.

Hermione_Granger

Zerofear62 wrote: »

Yes, but that's if the statuary rights of the customer are not met by the order, and because the item was not in stock but was coming in this would still meet that statuary rights, therefore meaning it would not fall under that legislation and therefore meaning there is not a good enough reason to change they method of refund, meaning it would be look into as fraud.

A "Customer service executive" at a major bank who doesn't know the correct spelling for the word that means something is enacted into law by statute.
Standards must be dropping at the major bank you work for.

Fosterdog

I really don't see how it could be considered fraud, the legislation makes no reference to such refunds being conditional or only applicable in certain circumstances. It makes it perfectly clear that the only condition is that both parties agree to it.

The legislation you have posted above, what Act exactly is that from? It seems to allude more towards the handling of stolen goods rather than a financial transaction so I can't quite see what relevance it has here.

peachyprice

darktan wrote: »

Back story - We wanted a home cinema system by the end of the week, so on Monday I ordered one from Currys PC World, as their stock checker stated that it could be in store by 5pm the next day. In order to carry out the transaction, I purposely bought an e-gift card from an employee benefits program for the exact amount, and placed the order.

We only got caught out like this once. Now we'll only buy from Curry's using OH's employee benefit scheme, now we only ever buy if we can pay in-store on collection using the instant vouchers.

Zerofear62

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

A "Customer service executive" at a major bank who doesn't know the correct spelling for the word that means something is enacted into law by statute.
Standards must be dropping at the major bank you work for.

Oh, so you can't come back with a intellectual argument so you start making personal digs. I'm sorry that I've dealt with dyslexia all my life, I'm sorry I'm not good enough for your self righteousness and that you have to put people down because you can't come up with an intellectual point of reply. I was just having a friendly debate, but you have to make it personal and offend people and take it way to personally, hope you're happy. You obviously take things way too personally to have a friendly debate. Horrible person, making fun of me, sorry everyone's not perfect like you and have disabilities.

Hermione_Granger

Zerofear62 wrote: »

Oh, so you can't come back with a intellectual argument so you start making personal digs. I'm sorry that I've dealt with dyslexia all my life,

And I must have dealt with psychic abilities all of my life because I just knew that would be your response.
Isn't it strange that there are zero errors in any of your other posts?

Just like the DPA and money laundering legislation being used as an excuse, dyslexia seems to be a very common reason for poor spelling and grammar nowadays.

BorisThomson

Selective dyslexia seems common in these parts.

Zero your reasoning on the refund being illegal is way off, not least because s.328 covers handling of stolen goods and money laundering. This is not money laundering, the OP is not trying to push proceeds of crime through the system.