Wilko.com - Knowingly ignoring Consumer Contracts Regulations

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

Regulation 34 which deals with reimbursement covers both "withdrawal or cancellation", so I don't think it matters if a contrcat has been formed or not?

My mistake, yes you are spot on

Okell said:

What I do think might be a problem - and I'm wondering if I'm suffering from sort of temporary amnesia here - is I thought the CCRs only dealt with withdrawal or cancellation by the consumer, not by the trader.

Am I having a senior moment?

If the CCRs do apply to cancellation/withdrawal by the trader then the OP is entitled to recover postage.

I don't think the CCRs do but perhaps Wilko have not fully withdrawn from the offer by retaining an aspect of the payment so in turn OP may now do so.

Okell said:

Even if they don't apply the OP should get his delivery costs back.  Wilko can't just take money for an order, then cancel, and not give a full refund.  Otherwise Arthur Daley would have been doing it 40 yeras ago...

Oh I agree, just wasn't sure what it would be classed as, don't like to use the words "theft" or "fraud" as I'm not sure it's dishonest, rather more incompetence. 

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

... I don't think the CCRs do but perhaps Wilko have not fully withdrawn from the offer by retaining an aspect of the payment so in turn OP may now do so...

Another interesting idea.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Oh I agree, just wasn't sure what it would be classed as, don't like to use the words "theft" or "fraud" as I'm not sure it's dishonest, rather more incompetence. 

I think @HillStreetBlues' previous post might be on the right sort of track.  That was what I was thinking about but they've expressed it better than me.

I can't help feeling that despite what Wilko's T&Cs might say that there must be some sort of contract in existence.

Obviously(?) Wilko can't legally keep the delivery charge, but I'm not sure how you'd build a legal argument for it

Okell

zoonyx said:

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst their actions are indeed poor their terms seem to imply a contract is only formed upon dispatch in which case it wouldn't be a breach of the CCRs*...
 

... *I'm not sure what taking money and then not giving it back would be classed as where a contract wasn't formed, @Okell might have an opinion 

Regulation 34 which deals with reimbursement covers both "withdrawal or cancellation", so I don't think it matters if a contrcat has been formed or not?

What I do think might be a problem - and I'm wondering if I'm suffering from sort of temporary amnesia here - is I thought the CCRs only dealt with withdrawal or cancellation by the consumer, not by the trader.

Am I having a senior moment?

If the CCRs do apply to cancellation/withdrawal by the trader then the OP is entitled to recover postage.

Even if they don't apply the OP should get his delivery costs back.  Wilko can't just take money for an order, then cancel, and not give a full refund.  Otherwise Arthur Daley would have been doing it 40 yeras ago...

and that's kinda my point - I know I'm out of my depth here (Sorry - no idea where 29 came from!), ...

Purely out of curiosity do you remember at all where you might have found that wording re regulation 29?  Maybe the Which? website or CAB?

Doesn't matter if you can't recall - just that I'd be curious to read it

zoonyx

Okell said:

zoonyx said:

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst their actions are indeed poor their terms seem to imply a contract is only formed upon dispatch in which case it wouldn't be a breach of the CCRs*...
 

... *I'm not sure what taking money and then not giving it back would be classed as where a contract wasn't formed, @Okell might have an opinion 

Regulation 34 which deals with reimbursement covers both "withdrawal or cancellation", so I don't think it matters if a contrcat has been formed or not?

What I do think might be a problem - and I'm wondering if I'm suffering from sort of temporary amnesia here - is I thought the CCRs only dealt with withdrawal or cancellation by the consumer, not by the trader.

Am I having a senior moment?

If the CCRs do apply to cancellation/withdrawal by the trader then the OP is entitled to recover postage.

Even if they don't apply the OP should get his delivery costs back.  Wilko can't just take money for an order, then cancel, and not give a full refund.  Otherwise Arthur Daley would have been doing it 40 yeras ago...

and that's kinda my point - I know I'm out of my depth here (Sorry - no idea where 29 came from!), ...

Purely out of curiosity do you remember at all where you might have found that wording re regulation 29?  Maybe the Which? website or CAB?

Doesn't matter if you can't recall - just that I'd be curious to read it

It was pages deep on google to be honest but I can't find it now.  The more times I'm read it back the more I punish myself for just blinding copying "the internet".

BTW, thanks all for the help.  I will update if anything exciting happens.  I am aware they can argue the chargeback - but I don't think they will.  I think this is a classic case of outsourced(?) customer service who are completely disconnected from anyone senior to make a decision.

Looking at reviews, it does seem that they are struggling in general with customer service when things go wrong.  

zoonyx

Final update from me (hopefully).  After opening a dispute with credit card company, it appears they have given me the £4.95 back as expected, but wilko appear to have also managed to refund the 4.95 too - not received anything at all to say they done this, but the -4.95 value now appears twice.  Looks like I will have to close the claim manually now which is annoying - why couldn't they just do it in the first place!

Okell

Very annoying!    

What you need to be careful about is returning the chargeback because if wilko realise the chargeback has gone through they might reverse their refund.

Then you'd have to get Wilko to re-refund it because you only have one opportunity at a chargeback and wouldn't be able to do it again.

As I say, very very annoying of Wilko.

Keep your fingers crossed...