Boiler juice

Aylesbury_Duck

mark_cycling00 said:

this is still an interesting insight into how BoilerJuice may operate. 
I've noticed that they have no availability when prices suddenly rise. I always assumed they were selling spare capacity that suppliers were happy to offload but maybe they make offer a price based on what suppliers are offering and then try to purchase from that supplier at the point of purchase (any maybe in this instance the deal can't be met due to the time delay in making the contract

I checked a while back and they were offering £1.20 a litre whereas the supplier websites were offering 80p.
In other times they have been cheaper than suppliers and been very useful in getting the lowest price

You may be right, and their business model can't withstand the pricing turbulence at the moment because of the lag.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP it's a bit confusing but you placed the order and paid, they called your husband and said they'd charge his card and then charged yours? 

Can you confirm how this is set up with them? Do they have your husband's card details or phone number? Do they have his name on the account or any permission to deal with him? 

If they don't then I don't see how they can agree an amendment to the price with someone who has nothing to do with the contract. 

If the account does have a relationship with your husband in some way I think you'd have to check the terms to see what they say about cancelling the contract and be looking for something that shows they didn't have the right to do this and their tactics in persuading you to pay more were misleading. 

Ergates

Lucy0011 said:

The chargeback is based on the fact they didn’t have my permission to take funds 

You have, essentially, phoned up your bank and accused your husband of committing card fraud.  Obviously that isn't what actually happened, but it could be interpreted that way by the bank if they look into the transaction.

Aylesbury_Duck

Ergates said:

Lucy0011 said:

The chargeback is based on the fact they didn’t have my permission to take funds 

You have, essentially, phoned up your bank and accused your husband of committing card fraud.  Obviously that isn't what actually happened, but it could be interpreted that way by the bank if they look into the transaction.

Something else for the 'legal team' to work on.

Lucy0011

No that’s not what I’ve done - the man on the phone assured my husband it was his card saved not mine after he said it’s my wife’s card you better call her - so it’s 100% the man on the phones error 

Ergates

Lucy0011 said:

No that’s not what I’ve done - the man on the phone assured my husband it was his card saved not mine after he said it’s my wife’s card you better call her - so it’s 100% the man on the phones error 

Do you have a recording of this phone call?   If the bank were to, hypothetically, speak to the company saying "our client says that transaction wasn't authorised by them" and the company said "We had authorisation from <Insert name of husband>" do you not see how that might be interpreted?

Lucy0011

I’m sure the company will have the recording of my husband clearly saying it wasn’t his card and the operator saying yes it is I’ll go ahead - 

Ergates

Lucy0011 said:

I’m sure the company will have the recording of my husband clearly saying it wasn’t his card and the operator saying yes it is I’ll go ahead - 

The company will, yes.   Will the bank?

Aylesbury_Duck

I thought all of this was resolved by OP's legal team, days ago, and that it was the end of the matter?  Surely any phone conversation recordings are moot?

Lucy0011

We will see