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

eskbanker

no_real_names_please said:

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.

Just to pick up on this specific point, if someone has evidence that a company is actually breaching legislation, etc, then there are measures that can be taken, such as reporting to Trading Standards (via CAB) or the CMA, or ultimately court action, but, as above, it's obviously counter-intuitive to want the right to insist on purchasing from them!

DullGreyGuy

no_real_names_please said:

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.

Chargebacks are not based on law. 

So in your theoretical situation of an only supermarket in town... a customer has been caught shoplifting from the shop a dozen times and has been racially abusive to its staff on numerous occasions... you think the person should have an automatic right to continue to shopping there? What about the rights of the workers to have a safe environment?

It would be a major headache for anyone to have to police a company and their decisions to block undesirables from shopping there -v- an intrinsic right to force a company to sell to you. It's hard enough to police the existing anti-discrimination law hence court cases from "christian" bakeries refusing to provide "gay wedding cakes" etc. 

Back to reality, Amazon is not the only website that sells things and so your "only supermarket in town" scenario is irrelevant. 

As mentioned previously, actions have consequences, if they do bad you litigate, if you litigate you can no longer be a customer. Simple cause and effect you can factor in when thinking of filling in the forms. 

no_real_names_please

Chargebacks are not based on law. 

So in your theoretical situation of an only supermarket in town... a customer has been caught shoplifting from the shop a dozen times and has been racially abusive to its staff on numerous occasions... you think the person should have an automatic right to continue to shopping there? What about the rights of the workers to have a safe environment?

It would be a major headache for anyone to have to police a company and their decisions to block undesirables from shopping there -v- an intrinsic right to force a company to sell to you. It's hard enough to police the existing anti-discrimination law hence court cases from "christian" bakeries refusing to provide "gay wedding cakes" etc. 

That's an argument on what a business can do to protect themselves from problem customers not how can customers protect themselves from dodgy businesses propped up by the state which they are forced into using.

Back to reality, Amazon is not the only website that sells things and so your "only supermarket in town" scenario is irrelevant. 

As mentioned previously, actions have consequences, if they do bad you litigate, if you litigate you can no longer be a customer. Simple cause and effect you can factor in when thinking of filling in the forms. 

Amazon and the supermarket comment are separate issues though both have monopoly power.

born_again said:

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"

because these businesses shouldn't be ripping off customers and be held to account. If their actions weren't letting them profit over other business then they wouldn't be doing it.

<blockquote class="Quote">
  <div><a rel="nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile/sheramber">sheramber</a> said:</div>
  <div><i><br></i><span>https://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/articles/do-businesses-have-the-right-to-refuse-to-serve-customers.7060/#:~:text=As a business owner, there,(more on this later).&lt;br&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;As a business owner, there is a common law right to refuse service, as long as you’ve got a legitimate reason for doing so and this reason is applied equally to customers. It’s unlawful to refuse to serve someone because of a protected characteristic (more on this later).</i><br></div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>

That was an interesting article but the focus isn't on customers.

Hoenir

"Amazon and the supermarket comment are separate issues though both have monopoly power."

Neither have monoply power. Alternatives are available. For the record the Monopoly and Restrictive Practices Act was passed in 1948. 

DullGreyGuy

no_real_names_please said:
Amazon and the supermarket comment are separate issues though both have monopoly power

What monopoly do you think either has? 

The only things exclusively sold on Amazon are Amazon Basic and whilst it may be a surprise to you Amazon doesn't manufacture HDMI cables or saucepans or socks they are all third party products just branded to Amazon. Those same manufacturers sell the same products self branded or branded to others in many other stores. 

Consumer rights, which doesn't include chargeback, are to protect you retrospectively if things go wrong. No government is ever going to pass a law stating a shop has to do business with anyone that wants to... the partial exception is when a state operated monopoly is privatised and opened up and there the rule only applies to the former monopoly to give the new entrants opportunity to gain market share against a monopoly. 

You do not have a human right to be able to buy an Amazon Basics HDMI Cable. If you want to then either you play nicely with Amazon, buy it secondhand on eBay or do some digging and buy a The Range HDMI Cable if you find out they're the same cable from the same manufacturer. 

JetpackVelociraptor

Hands up any small business owner who wants to operate in a country where you don't have the right to decide who you do business with - don't all clamour at once!

Alderbank

JetpackVelociraptor said:

Hands up any small business owner who wants to operate in a country where you don't have the right to decide who you do business with - don't all clamour at once!

Careful here - this topic is specifically about retailers being able to choose who they enter into a contract of sale with.

There are business areas where this is not the case, the obvious one being black cab drivers. Since Victorian times cabbies at a taxi rank have been obliged to take the next fare that comes along, regardless of whether they like the look of them or not.

At the other end of the pay scale, barristers also operate strictly on the 'cab rank' principle under which they don't have the right to decide who they do business with.

Are there any other areas of business like this?

DullGreyGuy

Alderbank said:

JetpackVelociraptor said:

Hands up any small business owner who wants to operate in a country where you don't have the right to decide who you do business with - don't all clamour at once!

Careful here - this topic is specifically about retailers being able to choose who they enter into a contract of sale with.

There are business areas where this is not the case, the obvious one being black cab drivers. Since Victorian times cabbies at a taxi rank have been obliged to take the next fare that comes along, regardless of whether they like the look of them or not.

At the other end of the pay scale, barristers also operate strictly on the 'cab rank' principle under which they don't have the right to decide who they do business with.

Are there any other areas of business like this?

Not 100% true... there are geographical limits to it so if you ask a London black cab to take you to Dover they can tell you no. The limits are much closer than Dover but cannot bother googling them. 

It certainly applies if you flag one down but assume it also applies at a formal rank too

Then there is the reality, tell a driver you stop that you want to go to somewhere south of the river and urban legend has it they'll refuse. Living just south of the river its not all cabs but certainly some cabs will refuse to take you despite the law saying they should. 

The majority of other areas are where monopolies once existed. When I used to work with BT many years ago we were obliged to offer to connect up most properties for a fixed fee whereas the then new providers were free to refuse customers or charge what they liked, we used to get people calling saying they wanted a new connection but would be cancelling straight away as the other company had offered to pay the early exist fee and it was cheaper than the £3k quote for the other company to provide the connection... think the model with OpenReach has improved since then. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

JetpackVelociraptor said:

Hands up any small business owner who wants to operate in a country where you don't have the right to decide who you do business with - don't all clamour at once!

I think the issue is that in the main most small businesses will deal with most people unless they have a really good reason, i.e the pubs ban drunks, sweet shops ban shoplifters.

When we get to the level of Amazon part of the problem is their policy can trump the consumer's rights leaving people to fall back on things like chargebacks.

I know Amazon are pretty good but equally I've read threads where people are told to go to the manufacturer as it's been longer than 30 days and there's a fair few threads on here about empty boxes/wrong item for delivery/returns with customers not getting far with CS.

Whilst I admit to being sceptical of the honesty of some threads, and recognise these big companies are a target for fraud in general, there have been press articles on the matter as well. 

If a retailer is doing their utmost to abide by consumer rights then I can see why they'd be justified in not wanting to do business with customers who go for a chargeback but when you become global, ship customer service overseas and train staff on policy rather than rights I think a proportion of the blame can fall on the retailer. 

Granted a retailer can refuse to do business with anyone (protected characteristics aside) but a better question would be whether businesses are adhering to consumer rights correctly (could easily name a few large retailers who aren't) and why consumers are left to third party avenues, such as chargebacks or small claims, rather than the likes of Trading Standards enforcement pushing larger companies to have their house in order to not only give the consumer what they are entitled to but to also set an example for everyone else to meet. 
 

born_again

no_real_names_please said:

born_again said:

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"

because these businesses shouldn't be ripping off customers and be held to account. If their actions weren't letting them profit over other business then they wouldn't be doing it.

If a business is not going to deal with a customer, then they are not making any profit out of them.

If company is ripping customers off there are ways to get your money back.

But as a customer of such a company. Why would you ever want to use them again?
You are not answering that point?