Difference between a discount code and a voucher? Annoyed with Look Fantastic

mrbrightside842

Oh for god’s sake. People love to be pedantic. If you want me to be more specific, what I mean is that there should be this information in the product details on the page when I click add to basket. No, I can’t be bothered reading through a 24 clause contract, I expect to get what is universally understood to be a gift voucher.

Anyways, despite their t&c saying that they don’t offer refunds, I’ve been offered one. Pays to question the t&c sometimes.

Azari

mrbrightside842 said:

Oh for god’s sake. People love to be pedantic. If you want me to be more specific, what I mean is that there should be this information in the product details on the page when I click add to basket. No, I can’t be bothered reading through a 24 clause contract, I expect to get what is universally understood to be a gift voucher.

Anyways, despite their t&c saying that they don’t offer refunds, I’ve been offered one. Pays to question the t&c sometimes.

Ignore the usual suspects bleating about how the t&c 'clearly state' blah blah blah.
There is legislation relating to 'unfair terms' in contracts, and a term that makes it unnecessarily difficult to use the credit that you have established might well be struck out by a judge on that basis. Companies know this, and rely on people just accepting that is was in the terms and giving up. However, they are very well aware that they are on dodgy ground and are likely to cave in if it looks as if a customer is determined enough.

It's a pity that the 'you should have read the t&c' brigade continue to derail threads like this, because your warning is useful. No one reads every term and condition for every single thing they buy - if they claim they do, they're liars. Being alerted to onerous terms is very useful.

George_Michael

Personally, I think it makes more sense to ignore those that seem to think that others should never take responsibility for their own actions or inactions (such as opting not to read up on what they are agreeing to when making a purchase.)
No, I don't always read the full T&C's of what I am agreeing to but if I don't and it comes back to bite me in the ***, I accept this and don't try to blame everyone but myself.

If you think that having the T&C's one click away and right by the "submit order" button is an unfair practice, I think you are seriously deluded about what an unfair term in a contract really is.

tempus_fugit

I must admit I probably wouldn’t check the terms and conditions when buying something described as a “gift voucher”, as I would expect it to be usable in the same way as other gift vouchers. If they call them gift vouchers and they don’t work in the way that most people would expect, then it’s a little underhand and of course they just hide behind the T&Cs. Legally they are in the right of course, but it’s not really acting in a very genuine way.

However, as others have said, I would avoid gift vouchers as they are not the best way of giving someone a present, as they can end up worthless if the voucher company goes bust (as happened to my brother when they had vouchers for an afternoon tea from our mum) - an exception to this would be Amazon as their vouchers last for 10 years.

Zedicus

George_Michael said:

Personally, I think it makes more sense to ignore those that seem to think that others should never take responsibility for their own actions or inactions

Georgie, I don't think you quite understand what "taking responsibility for your own actions is. It means admitting you made a mistake. It does not mean that you cannot complain about any other factors involved in your misfortune.

If you think that having the T&C's one click away and right by the "submit order" button is an unfair practice, I think you are seriously deluded about what an unfair term in a contract really is.

ROFLMAO. Again, I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of "unfair terms". It refers to what the terms say, not where they are or how you link to them.

Moglex

Anyone interested in the reality of the law with regard to t&c's (and certainly all the jumped up little know-alls who continually parrot 'it was in the t&c's, it's your own fault'), might like to have a look here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51463153. 

"The law

Dating.com says its terms and conditions are as clear and transparent as they can be. But at 12 full pages of A4 paper long, they may not be enforceable, says legal expert Gary Rycroft.

"Any T&Cs which a company seeks to rely on must be prominent and explained to the consumer in order for it to be enforceable in law.

"A company cannot just say 'It's in the T&C's - we got you'. So on that basis the consumer could sue the company for taking money under an unenforceable contract."

Gary also says the fact the auto-payment box was ticked as the default option could be another potential breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because it has a requirement for transparency "which has, on the face of it, been breached".

'Unfair commercial practices'

Regardless of legalities, George Kidd, chief executive of the Online Dating Association (ODA), says Sacha has had a terrible experience and "unimpressed would hardly cover it".

"I'm not happy with the idea that you've joined a service and the capacity to charge sits with the other parties and not Sacha.

"The most relevant [regulation] here is unfair commercial practices. As an ex-regulator I would be concerned that presenting something that costs £3 and highlighting that as the key fact, and not presenting the fact there could be further charges in days, is misleading.

"I mean what is the most relevant piece of information here? I don't think it's the £3.""

The law is not such an !!!!!! as it was in Mr Bumble's days and recognises that people should not be expected to read pages and pages of terms for what should be straight forward purchases.

I have helped people get money back from gift cards that have 'expired'. A simple LBA and the companies cave, because they know they will be defeated, and, although lower court does not set actual precedence, it only takes publicity from one case and the flood gates would open.