📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Clinique, misrepresenting Christmas gift sets, and illiterate customer service

Options
24

Comments

  • mum2one
    mum2one Posts: 16,279 Forumite
    Xmas Saver!
    Also point out thst they are breaking the trades description and and the sales of goods act. and as you have the original advert you will have no hesitation in bringing a claim for misrepresentation via trading standards.

    Good luck
    xx rip dad... we had our ups and downs but we’re always be family xx
  • Lots of companies do this, Ginsters 4 pack pasties are smaller than individual ones for example, it is all done to deceive us!

    You'll find of most food items are like this ie. walkers crisps are only 25g when bought as part of a multi pack & although it is a little misleading & annoying, if you do look hard enough, the packaging will state this somewhere. This advert for Clinique however is a totally different matter. They clearly state in the original advert 4x4g.
  • mum2one wrote: »
    Also point out thst they are breaking the trades description and and the sales of goods act. and as you have the original advert you will have no hesitation in bringing a claim for misrepresentation via trading standards.

    Good luck

    Wouldn't it be better to see what their response is first, rather than threatening legal action? :confused:
  • uktim29
    uktim29 Posts: 2,722 Forumite

    That actually holds no legal weight. I could click view in Internet Explorer, then source. Then copy this into a html editor and download any backgrounds/pics I need and edit the page in any way I like. Save it as a html file, open it back up & take a photo (screen shot etc)& pretend it was an actual shot of the site.

    Any lawyer would use that argument.

    Just FYI!
  • mum2one
    mum2one Posts: 16,279 Forumite
    Xmas Saver!
    Searcher wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be better to see what their response is first, rather than threatening legal action? :confused:


    think you mistook where i was coming from, - not threatening legal action but to point out that the person is willing to take it further, Tradung standards and let them deal with it, it was meant as a pointer
    xx rip dad... we had our ups and downs but we’re always be family xx
  • taxiphil
    taxiphil Posts: 1,980 Forumite
    uktim29 wrote: »
    That actually holds no legal weight. I could click view in Internet Explorer, then source. Then copy this into a html editor and download any backgrounds/pics I need and edit the page in any way I like. Save it as a html file, open it back up & take a photo (screen shot etc)& pretend it was an actual shot of the site.

    Any lawyer would use that argument.

    Just FYI!

    This is just more misleading scaremongering on your anti-consumer crusade.

    Tim, are you seriously suggesting that Clinique would accuse the OP of faking this screen shot?

    Just have a think about what you are saying: many senior staff in a large multinational company closing ranks to commit perjury and knowingly slandering an honest customer as a liar/fraudster..... for the sake of a wrongly advertised lipstick.....?!

    "Any lawyer" would not use that argument at all, unless they were prepared to engage in the said conspiracy of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    Just because evidence could technically have been faked does NOT mean it "holds no legal weight" - this is more ill-informed hogwash.

    Virtually anything will be accepted as evidence by a court (unless there is an obvious glaring motive for it having been faked). Diary entries, written records of phonecalls, scribbles on beer mats, even verbal statements. Believe it or not, courts work on the principle that most people are honest most of the time.

  • the one I have just looked at is identical only it doesn't give the weight. Trading Standards may need to be called in here as they appear to have changed their advert so it is not misleading. IfI was in your position i would email consumer direct, they should reply within 3 days max.
    Wow, I got 3 *, when did that happen :j:T:p
    It is not illegal to open another persons mail unless you intend to commit fraud - this is frequently incorrectly posted:)
    I live in my head - I find it's safer there:p
  • mum2one
    mum2one Posts: 16,279 Forumite
    Xmas Saver!
    the one I have just looked at is identical only it doesn't give the weight. Trading Standards may need to be called in here as they appear to have changed their advert so it is not misleading. IfI was in your position i would email consumer direct, they should reply within 3 days max.


    Thank you - someone who agrees with me re Trading Standards, as the advert I looked at hadnt got the weights listed, where the one the op took had. x
    xx rip dad... we had our ups and downs but we’re always be family xx
  • uktim29
    uktim29 Posts: 2,722 Forumite
    taxiphil wrote: »
    Tim, are you seriously suggesting that Clinique would accuse the OP of faking this screen shot?

    That wasn't what my post was about. I was pointing out the picture can easily be faked.

    I have no idea how large this company is or know anything about it. Not all companies are large as you can range from something the size of Microsoft/Google/eBay to sole traders who may not be worried about repeat business/brand.

    The small traders if faced with a pic such as the one above may well be happy with a lawyer demonstrating in court how the picture can be faked. Then of course it no longer would be concrete evidence. These arguments can be used and may be used by lawyers according to the clients instructions. That could then lead them to not being proved guilty of whatever offence etc.

    Anyway back to work on my new site, tescoiswonderful.com;)
  • Sure the picture can be easily faked, but as TaxiPhil pointed out, why would Clinique accuse the OP of faking the screenshot??

    Clearly Clinique have realised their mistake and changed the advert. If a complaint was made to trading standards or the advertising standards authority all they would say is change the advert. It would never reach the courts.

    All the OP has to do is use the screenshot to demonstrate they were missold the product and complain to Clinique who should then offer a refund or partial refund. If they fail to respond the OP could then lodge a complaint to the ASA or trading standards.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.