Unanswerable question in NatWest 'scam' form

WatlingA5

Just to add... an expensive lesson learned!

naedanger

WatlingA5 said:

Thanks - we have replacement debit card now. Thanks to browser history I was able to study the payment page. It featured 'Hurry Now' type lines including a countdown that started at about 15 seconds. When it stopped, it showed a static line for about 15 seconds then repeated the countdown. A big colourful arrow pointed to the payment section, so your eye is drawn to the right and you can easily miss the small-print panel below the arrow. There is not even a T&C headline. As born_again says, they really have it tied up and we see little point in making a claim. 

Well you know the details of your case better than anyone else. However it can sometimes be worth complaining in the type of circumstances you described e.g.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/23886/DRN0274629.pdf

born_again

naedanger said:

WatlingA5 said:

Thanks - we have replacement debit card now. Thanks to browser history I was able to study the payment page. It featured 'Hurry Now' type lines including a countdown that started at about 15 seconds. When it stopped, it showed a static line for about 15 seconds then repeated the countdown. A big colourful arrow pointed to the payment section, so your eye is drawn to the right and you can easily miss the small-print panel below the arrow. There is not even a T&C headline. As born_again says, they really have it tied up and we see little point in making a claim. 

Well you know the details of your case better than anyone else. However it can sometimes be worth complaining in the type of circumstances you described e.g.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/23886/DRN0274629.pdf

Well it will not be in FOS remit to deal with the company.
You would be looking at whoever deals with consumer regulations where the company are based.

naedanger

born_again said:

naedanger said:

WatlingA5 said:

Thanks - we have replacement debit card now. Thanks to browser history I was able to study the payment page. It featured 'Hurry Now' type lines including a countdown that started at about 15 seconds. When it stopped, it showed a static line for about 15 seconds then repeated the countdown. A big colourful arrow pointed to the payment section, so your eye is drawn to the right and you can easily miss the small-print panel below the arrow. There is not even a T&C headline. As born_again says, they really have it tied up and we see little point in making a claim. 

Well you know the details of your case better than anyone else. However it can sometimes be worth complaining in the type of circumstances you described e.g.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/23886/DRN0274629.pdf

Well it will not be in FOS remit to deal with the company.
You would be looking at whoever deals with consumer regulations where the company are based.

If the complaint was against the card issuer i.e. the bank then it would be within FOS's remit. (The FOS case that I have referenced seemed, to me, to have sufficient similarities to the op's case to be worth noting. In that case the complaint was against NewDay Ltd being the company that supplied the complainant's Debenham's credit card not the seller of the cosmetics. And the complaint against NewDay Ltd was upheld.)

born_again

naedanger said:

born_again said:

naedanger said:

WatlingA5 said:

Thanks - we have replacement debit card now. Thanks to browser history I was able to study the payment page. It featured 'Hurry Now' type lines including a countdown that started at about 15 seconds. When it stopped, it showed a static line for about 15 seconds then repeated the countdown. A big colourful arrow pointed to the payment section, so your eye is drawn to the right and you can easily miss the small-print panel below the arrow. There is not even a T&C headline. As born_again says, they really have it tied up and we see little point in making a claim. 

Well you know the details of your case better than anyone else. However it can sometimes be worth complaining in the type of circumstances you described e.g.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/23886/DRN0274629.pdf

Well it will not be in FOS remit to deal with the company.
You would be looking at whoever deals with consumer regulations where the company are based.

If the complaint was against the card issuer i.e. the bank then it would be within FOS's remit. (The FOS case that I have referenced seemed, to me, to have sufficient similarities to the op's case to be worth noting. In that case the complaint was against NewDay Ltd being the company that supplied the complainant's Debenham's credit card not the seller of the cosmetics. And the complaint against NewDay Ltd was upheld.)

Interesting. It is basically saying that Visa/Mastercard are not trading fairly by allowing companies to trade in this way.

Not that I do not disagree that these companies should be shut down as they are a PIA to anyone that works in disputes. Due to the way they play on words.
I do think Fos are wrong as, if these are not UK companies & they are not breaking the consumer regulations where they are based, then FOS are overstepping their remit. 

>>The seller’s terms and conditions said that it would take the payments if Mrs D didn’t tell it not to; they also said she should do so before the end of the free trial. But the adjudicator felt that the information about the payments wasn’t clear or prominent – in line with regulatory guidelines.
the relevant regulatory guidance and legislation. He said that the guidance required notification of payments like these to be clear and prominent. He didn’t think that it was in this case. <<

While that may be park of UK consumer regs, I would hazard a guess that is not in many countries, inc USA.

Voyager2002

born_again said:

SNIP

While that may be park of UK consumer regs, I would hazard a guess that is not in many countries, inc USA.

That does not matter. The provider of credit is liable in the same way as the supplier of the goods and services.

naedanger

born_again said:

naedanger said:

born_again said:

naedanger said:

WatlingA5 said:

Thanks - we have replacement debit card now. Thanks to browser history I was able to study the payment page. It featured 'Hurry Now' type lines including a countdown that started at about 15 seconds. When it stopped, it showed a static line for about 15 seconds then repeated the countdown. A big colourful arrow pointed to the payment section, so your eye is drawn to the right and you can easily miss the small-print panel below the arrow. There is not even a T&C headline. As born_again says, they really have it tied up and we see little point in making a claim. 

Well you know the details of your case better than anyone else. However it can sometimes be worth complaining in the type of circumstances you described e.g.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/23886/DRN0274629.pdf

Well it will not be in FOS remit to deal with the company.
You would be looking at whoever deals with consumer regulations where the company are based.

If the complaint was against the card issuer i.e. the bank then it would be within FOS's remit. (The FOS case that I have referenced seemed, to me, to have sufficient similarities to the op's case to be worth noting. In that case the complaint was against NewDay Ltd being the company that supplied the complainant's Debenham's credit card not the seller of the cosmetics. And the complaint against NewDay Ltd was upheld.)

Interesting. It is basically saying that Visa/Mastercard are not trading fairly by allowing companies to trade in this way.

Not that I do not disagree that these companies should be shut down as they are a PIA to anyone that works in disputes. Due to the way they play on words.
I do think Fos are wrong as, if these are not UK companies & they are not breaking the consumer regulations where they are based, then FOS are overstepping their remit. 

>>The seller’s terms and conditions said that it would take the payments if Mrs D didn’t tell it not to; they also said she should do so before the end of the free trial. But the adjudicator felt that the information about the payments wasn’t clear or prominent – in line with regulatory guidelines.
the relevant regulatory guidance and legislation. He said that the guidance required notification of payments like these to be clear and prominent. He didn’t think that it was in this case. <<

While that may be park of UK consumer regs, I would hazard a guess that is not in many countries, inc USA.

FOS actually have a very wide remit as they say they don't just consider the legal position but also expect financial companies to treat their customers fairly. On the downside they don't necessarily treat every case consistently, so just because they uphold one case doesn't necessarily mean they will uphold another virtually identical case. So there is an element of luck in finding a receptive Ombudsman.

On the legal position I actually think retailers (I am not now talking about the card issuers) that adopt the practice described by the original poster probably don't have legal valid/enforceable contracts with the customer. A contract actually requires both parties to be in agreement (or have a common understanding) about what the contract entails. Here the retailer is relying on the buyer being unaware of the full terms by making them hard to find and so the customer's understanding is not the same as the retailer's.

[If a retailer makes an obvious pricing error, even if all the paperwork shows the erroneous price, then there is not a valid contract and that is because the courts recognise there was not actually agreement between the two parties on the terms. I would have thought a court would take a similar view when one party (the retailer) actually engineers a misunderstanding by the other party. And I think on the balance of probability it is clear the customer's misunderstanding was something the retailer wished to bring about, not simply the customer's fault.]

born_again

naedanger said:

 A contract actually requires both parties to be in agreement (or have a common understanding) about what the contract entails. Here the retailer is relying on the buyer being unaware of the full terms by making them hard to find and so the customer's understanding is not the same as the retailer's. 

[If a retailer makes an obvious pricing error, even if all the paperwork shows the erroneous price, then there is not a valid contract and that is because the courts recognise there was not actually agreement between the two parties on the terms. I would have thought a court would take a similar view when one party (the retailer) actually engineers a misunderstanding by the other party. And I think on the balance of probability it is clear the customer's misunderstanding was something the retailer wished to bring about, not simply the customer's fault.]

This is one of the things with these companies. They say "Free Trial" and people assume that it means you are getting a FREE product to try.
NOT that it is a Free Trial, Period" covered in the T/C (which people should read (more fool them that do not on these sites) as the fact they ask for you card details should be a warning sign)
So they play on words. Which are correct, just people do not fully read what they are buying into.
At least 10 years these have been going on for, yet people still fall for them. Usually as they take everything they see advertised on social media as a great deal.
Simply add "FREE" and you can see the people swarm round these companies.

naedanger

born_again said:

naedanger said:

 A contract actually requires both parties to be in agreement (or have a common understanding) about what the contract entails. Here the retailer is relying on the buyer being unaware of the full terms by making them hard to find and so the customer's understanding is not the same as the retailer's. 

[If a retailer makes an obvious pricing error, even if all the paperwork shows the erroneous price, then there is not a valid contract and that is because the courts recognise there was not actually agreement between the two parties on the terms. I would have thought a court would take a similar view when one party (the retailer) actually engineers a misunderstanding by the other party. And I think on the balance of probability it is clear the customer's misunderstanding was something the retailer wished to bring about, not simply the customer's fault.]

This is one of the things with these companies. They say "Free Trial" and people assume that it means you are getting a FREE product to try.
NOT that it is a Free Trial, Period" covered in the T/C (which people should read (more fool them that do not on these sites) as the fact they ask for you card details should be a warning sign)
So they play on words. Which are correct, just people do not fully read what they are buying into.
At least 10 years these have been going on for, yet people still fall for them. Usually as they take everything they see advertised on social media as a great deal.
Simply add "FREE" and you can see the people swarm round these companies.

Yes, it is deceptive or in other words misleading, while not being actually untrue.

Interestingly under the Fraud Act a representation is defined as false not just if it is knowingly untrue but also if it is knowingly misleading. (Of course we are not considering fraud, as that would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.)

Armorica

I'd guess it's a non-UK company? UK based companies would eventually get slapped down for things like that - through a range of options.
If it's credit (not debit) card you could try pressing for a s75 refund under service not delivered.  https://www.moneysupermarket.com/credit-cards/guide-to-credit-card-protection/ (sorry if already covered above)
More practically try to find and get them to install a toolbar/extension that sets out how dodgy a website is!