Stated prices always not available - which body, if any, deals with this?

cymruchris

ArbitraryRandom said:

Emmia said:

You always have the choice not to order, or not to use Amazon.

I was actually caught out by this - for a different product, cat treats.

£5ish with free delivery (which isn't a too good to be true price as it's slightly higher than the shops but less than the cost of petrol): the issue is the added delivery costs aren't actually noticeable/obvious because they're added on late in the checkout process and, if you've bought several items, it's easy to miss until you look at your statement later and think that was more than expected. 

Fill out a form then if a few people submit reports, it might get the ball rolling a bit quicker. It'll be interesting to see what the outcome will be. 

Money_Grabber13579

I’m guessing this is a tactic by this particular supplier to appear higher up the list of third party sellers? As in, 76p plus free delivery must make them the cheapest supplier so appear at the top of the list, even though you can’t actually buy from them at that price.

Grumpy_chap

So, this product is £1.65 at the local supermarket (or £1.95 for those not in the loyalty scheme).
65 pence is, therefore, probably implausibly cheap.
Buy two at £0.65 each = £1.30 and add the £19.99 delivery equals £21.29 or £10.65 per pack.  One would like to think this is so expensive that no-one falls for it.  Presumably, someone does fall for it as otherwise the whole listing would  be pointless.

RefluentBeans

Grumpy_chap said:

So, this product is £1.65 at the local supermarket (or £1.95 for those not in the loyalty scheme).
65 pence is, therefore, probably implausibly cheap.
Buy two at £0.65 each = £1.30 and add the £19.99 delivery equals £21.29 or £10.65 per pack.  One would like to think this is so expensive that no-one falls for it.  Presumably, someone does fall for it as otherwise the whole listing would  be pointless.

I think being implausibly cheap probably counts in favour of the OP here. Bait and switch sort of marketing is illegal. 

Presumably if this was a genuine product, then at some point they would realise they were selling them for 65p instead of £1.65. 

Of course this could be a ‘quirk’ of Amazon that you can say there’s a minimum order quantity but the actual pricing of delivery isn’t checked until the user can add it to the basket and the user can’t add it to the basket until 2 is selected, so a place holder text is added. This should be ‘from free delivery’ 

mjm3346

Grumpy_chap said:

So, this product is £1.65 at the local supermarket (or £1.95 for those not in the loyalty scheme).
65 pence is, therefore, probably implausibly cheap.
Buy two at £0.65 each = £1.30 and add the £19.99 delivery equals £21.29 or £10.65 per pack.  One would like to think this is so expensive that no-one falls for it.  Presumably, someone does fall for it as otherwise the whole listing would  be pointless.

This company has over 430 products listed on Amazon - currently showing first are a 160gm bag of Haribo sweets at £1.01, Sainsburys have a 175gm bag for £1.25 so not much difference - same story of free delivery for 1 (which you cannot order) which changes to £19.99 when the minimum (and only) order quantity of 2 is selected. (clearly it is paying enough to make it worthwhile to list over 400 items).

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Money_Grabber13579 said:

I’m guessing this is a tactic by this particular supplier to appear higher up the list of third party sellers? As in, 76p plus free delivery must make them the cheapest supplier so appear at the top of the list, even though you can’t actually buy from them at that price.

Tactic is to get someone to pay £21.29 for 2 multi packs of crisps because they didn't notice the delivery fee.

The company currently has a compulsory strike off notice, certainly doesn't look like a legit business in any sense. 

mjm3346

Clearly there is money to be made doing this
Some other sellers (or the same one with different trading names) on Amazon doing the same thing, not always a low, low price but minimum order of 2 and free delivery becoming £19.99 upwards


Lotus Trd
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?me=AW4VZ18BDCDGF&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P

FANCY MART LTD
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?me=A2A7171SUHIG38&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P

Smart Store UKK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=AMMKM378EKAO7

Smart Store Okara Ltd.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A1LCAFL60CO1L3

WOCK LAND
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?me=A1LCAFL60CO1L3&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P

Umersys
https://www.amazon.co.uk/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A20XRKZCGUILZO

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

There’s probably a YouTube “how to make money on Amazon, try our course for 20 notes” video out there with this idea as the money maker. 

I’m sure grocery is a gated category, I wonder how they get approval.

Money_Grabber13579

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

I’m guessing this is a tactic by this particular supplier to appear higher up the list of third party sellers? As in, 76p plus free delivery must make them the cheapest supplier so appear at the top of the list, even though you can’t actually buy from them at that price.

Tactic is to get someone to pay £21.29 for 2 multi packs of crisps because they didn't notice the delivery fee.

The company currently has a compulsory strike off notice, certainly doesn't look like a legit business in any sense. 

What I meant though was I’m assuming this makes them appear as the recommended marketplace seller because they are, in theory, the cheapest? There’d be no point in them doing it if they were going to appear at the bottom of the list if marketplace sellers, as nobody would ever see them.

so it’s really a double con - appear as the top seller and then rip the a*** out of it.

mjm3346

Money_Grabber13579 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

I’m guessing this is a tactic by this particular supplier to appear higher up the list of third party sellers? As in, 76p plus free delivery must make them the cheapest supplier so appear at the top of the list, even though you can’t actually buy from them at that price.

Tactic is to get someone to pay £21.29 for 2 multi packs of crisps because they didn't notice the delivery fee.

The company currently has a compulsory strike off notice, certainly doesn't look like a legit business in any sense. 

What I meant though was I’m assuming this makes them appear as the recommended marketplace seller because they are, in theory, the cheapest? There’d be no point in them doing it if they were going to appear at the bottom of the list if marketplace sellers, as nobody would ever see them.

so it’s really a double con - appear as the top seller and then rip the a*** out of it.

if the price is set to low to high they will appear near the top of the listings for the item on Amazon, "best  seller" applies to the product not who supplies it. I assume the "Amazon's Choice" tag that some of the items have is automatic and probably based on the unavailable single item price. (if something is supplied by Amazon or another seller it's all on  the same listing)