Millies Cookies - incorrect order refund policy

Alderbank

Wonka_2 said:

born_again said:

What basis was the chargeback done on?

Only one I can think of working would be "Goods not as Described" 

Accepted by bank after they had read the emails - goods not as described, accepted by retailed but retailer has not refunded - let's see what the outcome is

The outcome will be that your bank will take the money from Millie's merchant bank and will return it to you.
Millie's then have a set number of days to appeal against this from the banks if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

Okell

I suspect what Millies are (or is) trying to rely on is 14(d) in their T&Cs:

"d. Subject to these Terms and Conditions and images submitted, we will offer you at our discretion either a replacement cookie, full or partial refund, or company vouchers"  [My bold]

I think what they haven't realised is that (in their own words)  14(d) is "Subject" to the other T&Cs which includes 14 quoted earlier by Alderbank, that if (for example) the wording is wrong, they will "credit or refund your purchase".

Although my own view is that this is pretty trivial, I'm surprised they don't just cough up...

Alderbank

The cookie itself went down well apparently.
And they did offer 50% refund for piping one letter wrong
So Angela not Angelo,
or Louise not Louis,
or Carol not Carl,
or Joan not John,
or even Doreen not Dorien

But I agree that Millie should be made to eat her words.

Wonka_2

Alderbank said:

Wonka_2 said:

born_again said:

What basis was the chargeback done on?

Only one I can think of working would be "Goods not as Described" 

Accepted by bank after they had read the emails - goods not as described, accepted by retailed but retailer has not refunded - let's see what the outcome is

The outcome will be that your bank will take the money from Millie's merchant bank and will return it to you.
Millie's then have a set number of days to appeal against this from the banks if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

Indeed - interesting to see whether they challenge it or not. First time I've ever used chargeback and seems wasteful for a relatively trivial amount but they !!!!!! me off with their response and I got hung up on the principle of it after that.

Wonka_2

Alderbank said:

The cookie itself went down well apparently.
And they did offer 50% refund for piping one letter wrong
So Angela not Angelo,
or Louise not Louis,
or Carol not Carl,
or Joan not John,
or even Doreen not Dorien

But I agree that Millie should be made to eat her words.

Just about sums it up - the 'food' element of the cookie was appreciated, the 'gift' element (which is what effectively doubled the cost) was less so.

And you did better that me in finding examples of where a single letter changed the gender - none of which are our example but the Louise/Louis is the closest

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The ins and outs don't really matter, the goods don't conform and OP is entitled to a remedy, they can't repair, a replacement can't be provided within a reasonable time (it's a gift clearly to be ordered close to the date as the goods will perish quickly) so OP is entitled to a price reduction and keep the goods or to reject them for a full refund.

If rejecting they have a duty to return/make available for collection but if the company don't want the bother of having the goods back that's up to them.

The problem OP is the amount, too little for small claims so you have to pester them really, I would suggest a bad review on Trustpilot but you'd be one of many and they just reply with "contact us via the website" 

They do have a Facebook page and ask for users to DM them so perhaps the social media team are separate and more willing to help, I don't know.

If your chargeback fails and you want to keep chasing them you are better off directing stating you are exercising the final right to reject the goods, as per the Consumer Rights Act, as they do not conform to the contract.

The main business is based in Camden and their trading standards email can easily be found on Google to cc in (not that they will reply but it's a bit more pressure on Millies). 

It's a shame a big company like this doesn't honour their obligations and a bigger shame they are left to continue their poor behaviour. 

As a note, perhaps a bit more expensive, but there will be lots of independent business on Etsy or the like selling such items who will be very grateful for custom   

ThumbRemote

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem OP is the amount, too little for small claims  

This isn't true. For example, recently the twitter user 'Legal Gengar' took Jack Monroe to small claims court - and won - over a £10 payment. 

There is no minimum limit for the court; all amounts are acceptable. (Whether people think it's worthwhile for smaller amounts is for themselves to decide). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ThumbRemote said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem OP is the amount, too little for small claims  

This isn't true. For example, recently the twitter user 'Legal Gengar' took Jack Monroe to small claims court - and won - over a £10 payment. 

There is no minimum limit for the court; all amounts are acceptable. (Whether people think it's worthwhile for smaller amounts is for themselves to decide). 

Thanks ThumbRemote, I'll have to have a look at that.  

I was under the impression lower value claims ran the risk of being dismissed under the de minus rule? 

Wonka_2

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

As a note, perhaps a bit more expensive, but there will be lots of independent business on Etsy or the like selling such items who will be very grateful for custom   

Indeed there are - but finding them for a relatively remote delivery location - was difficult so i ended up falling back on a company with a promise, and I believed a reputation, to uphold.

Learnt my lesson