What options are there if a company tries to stop serving a customer that upholds their rights?

born_again

MobileSaver said:

no_real_names_please said:

If that company tries to block someone for upholding their rights what measures can they take to force them to do business with them

As everyone has already said, there are absolutely no measures you can take to force a company to do business with you apart from the infinitesimally small number of cases where a company discriminates against a protected characteristic (age, sex, disability, religion etc.).

Which in the likes of a online company would be hard to prove. Given that most will only have name, address & card details.

DullGreyGuy

no_real_names_please said:

I saw this message in another thread here.

"Just to say that Amazon tends to not deal well with chargebacks (even when they are justified, like in this case). They tend to close the account and blacklist names and addresses to prevent someone from opening an account similar to the one you currently have."

If that company tries to block someone for upholding their rights what measures can they take to force them to do business with them on the straight and narrow?

Chargeback isn't a right

A company is free to choose who it wants as a customer or not as long as it's not based on protected characteristics (race, sexual orientation, gender etc) . So yes Amazon or any other company is entitled to refuse to do further business with someone thats done a chargeback, taken them to court, made too many returns etc. No one is going to force them to do business with anyone. 

You really should think of long term relationships before taking such actions. Also, why'd you want to be a customer of someone that requires you to take such actions when things go wrong? It's like people that sue their employers and then expect their work life to continue as normal. 

no_real_names_please

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

eskbanker

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

Why don't you believe the posters who are correctly saying that there's nothing to force companies to deal with those they choose not to (subject to discrimination legislation)?  There's no law against companies or their employees being "rude and disrespectful" (have you seen how successful Ryanair are?), regardless of how much local competition they may have....

PHK

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

There's a shocking naïveté and lack of understanding about the difference between rights and rules that one business insists another follows. 

Chargebacks etc aren't a ruling that a business is bad or up to no good. 

If a firm genuinely avoids your rights then the ultimate action is to e force rights in the court. 

But you have no right to insist they do business with you. 

You might be unhappy with this, if so you'll need to speak to your MP and try to get laws changed. 

Undervalued

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

Sometimes the best advice is that which you least want to hear!

This forum is about consumer rights, as they actually are, and not for rants about what you would like them to be. There is a praise and vents section for that. 

booneruk

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

You've had nothing but accurate answers to your question. 

What there sure is around these parts are a large number of people who don't like completely reasonable and factual answers to their questions just because they're not what they want to hear

EnPointe

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

you  seem to be forgetting the second half of Mr Selfridges' famous statement  

 the customer is all ways right ... 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
in matters of style and taste 

GingerTim

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

Won't competing businesses actually benefit? They'll be able to serve customers who others no longer want to deal with.

born_again

no_real_names_please said:

For a consumer rights forum there sure is a few people defending suspect companies here.

I have edited the post to make it clear that it is about any action taken against these businesses.

It isn't just the public that's harmed but other competing businesses that are losing out for doing the right thing.

elsien said:

None at all. It’s a commercial decision which is theirs to make. No different to the people who are asked not to return to High Street supermarkets - from previous posts on here, when in upholding their rights they have overstepped the line and become rude / over forceful. 

In this instance let us assume it is the company that is rude and disrespectful and that's the only supermarket in the area.

I find it hard to believe there aren't measures to deal with this as bad companies can screen out anyone that knows they are up to no good and prey on the stupid while undermining laws meant to stop that behaviour.

I don't get it.
One hand you are saying you want rights to force a company to allow you to shop, then on the other saying they are a suspect.

Amazon is hardly a suspect company... 

Why does it harm other competing bossiness? Logic dictates they will pick up a new customer 🤷‍♀️

As a consumer if treated badly. I would not deal with the bad retailer again. End of. Not wait for them to say, "Sorry you can't shop here"

It's not a case of defending them. It's a case of their right. Just the same as a pub can refuse to serve you if you are drunk, or a supermarket if you have been caught shoplifting.
& you voting with your feet & going to another retailer..