Homebase - Refused Refund as in Administration

Okell

DullGreyGuy said:

SH88 said:

The same way if I bought a 64in TV, I expect the TV screen to be 64in regardless of how much bezel or outer shell the TV has.

... Guessing its this thing - https://www.homebase.co.uk/natural-willow-christmas-tree-skirt-64cm/12838564.html 

If so, the website for a start is odd as it gives the dimensions as: (H)32 x(W)64 x (Dia)38cm... for a circular item you'd expect the W and "D" to be the same but they say it only has a 38cm diameter, also doesn't help the 4 different products in the photo but you can only vary the colour not the finer staves/higher frustum also shown...

I looked at that and I think the dimensions are very confusing.

I suppose the height is obvious but I've no idea what the width and depth refer to.  Like you I'd expect the width and depth to be identical for a circular item.

(I'm assuming D stands for depth.  You think it's diameter?  Either way it makes no sense and I have no idea how you're meant to decide which size to buy)

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

DullGreyGuy said:

SH88 said:

The same way if I bought a 64in TV, I expect the TV screen to be 64in regardless of how much bezel or outer shell the TV has.

... Guessing its this thing - https://www.homebase.co.uk/natural-willow-christmas-tree-skirt-64cm/12838564.html 

If so, the website for a start is odd as it gives the dimensions as: (H)32 x(W)64 x (Dia)38cm... for a circular item you'd expect the W and "D" to be the same but they say it only has a 38cm diameter, also doesn't help the 4 different products in the photo but you can only vary the colour not the finer staves/higher frustum also shown...

I looked at that and I think the dimensions are very confusing.

I suppose the height is obvious but I've no idea what the width and depth refer to.  Like you I'd expect the width and depth to be identical for a circular item.

(I'm assuming D stands for depth.  You think it's diameter?  Either way it makes no sense and I have no idea how you're meant to decide which size to buy)

No, on this they are defining it as Diameter. 

Thankfully there is no "which size to buy" because despite the photo showing two different heights there is only one size available. 

Per the last post from the OP it turns out the outer diameter is 64cm, as advertised but the material is thick so the internal useable space is 58cm hence doesn't fit their needs. Whilst the detail makes no sense the header saying it is 64cm is defensibly true and probably one of those damned if they do/ damned if they dont as if they'd given the inner dimensions the OP wouldn't have had the issue but someone else would have come along saying it doesn't fit in the 65cm space they have because its actually 70cm outer diameter. 

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)

AIUI, information on the back of a receipt or such like that is not available prior to entering into agreement to purchase cannot be part of the contract.

Ordinarily, a policy notified on the back of the receipt about 30-day returns would be fine as it is to the benefit of the consumer and giving the consumer something over and above their statutory and contractual rights.

I also understand, as I set out in more detail above, that a claim cannot be taken against a company in Administration.  The original "Homebase Ltd" ceases and any ongoing transactions are as "Homebase in Administration Limited" (proxy names used) which is operated by the Administrators with the sole objective of saving the company or, if that cannot be achieved, of returning as many pence in the pound as possible to creditors.

Anyone with a new claim would simply be added to the list of creditors. Creditors cannot initiate legal action against a company in Administration:
https://www.gov.uk/put-your-company-into-administration

I am unclear as to whether CC protections existing in this scenario but I suspect not.  The individual has knowingly purchased from the company in Administration, knowingly accepted the reduced rights associated with that.  It would be absurd to make a CC liable above those reduced rights to normal consumer rights.


I have two "aside" questions:
 - How does one put a Christmas tree through the Christmas tree skirt?  I have never seen this type of item before and they do look like a good idea, but the item shown seems to be a solid round and I would have thought it needs two halves that clip together.
 - We are actually in need of a new sofa and armchairs and I am tempted to grab a Homebase version if there are reduced prices available in the next few weeks.  Given these are not held in store, I can order online.  I am happy enough to accept the risk of not being quite as great as I'd like, but (especially given my own comments above), where would I stand if I place an order and the sofa never arrives?

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

I am uncertain as to how chargeback and / or S75 rights would apply.  Banks may well refuse chargeback requests if the business accounts do not allow funds to be recovered and S75 would require a breach to be demonstrated.

Bank can not refuse a chargeback on the basis of no funds. Money comes from retailers merchant bank.

Oh how easy the job would be when a retailer went bust & we could just say sorry, no funds. Bit like the old Maestro days. 🙋

Usuallyconfused

Thought I’d add my tuppence worth.

Ordered a new kitchen two weeks before it all went a bit Pete Tong which is gutting on two levels as firstly it may mean no new kitchen and secondly the prospect of being dragged around all the kitchen shops again fills me with utter dread.

Naturally, Homebase or whomever is in charge now have gone radio silent and zero info in coming from them. We got the AO text stating we ain’t getting anything from them anytime soon but we contacted the kitchen manufacturer direct (Country Living) and they said as far as they were concerned, it’s business as usual as our kitchen was in progress. We also contacted Novuna who sympathised and asked us to fill out a section 75 claim form. I thought it might be a bit premature but sod it, we filled it in for the full amount and we’re now waiting to see what’s going to happen. There’s a slight wrinkle in that the sink, taps and handles are supposedly coming from Homebase direct but I’ll be satisfied if we get a kitchen and we source everything else ourselves provided the finance is altered respectively. Timing is also a pain. The fitter is booked but if we miss our ‘slot’ with him then it may as well be back to square one again. 

So there we have it. It seems we’re fully covered so shouldn’t really cost us a penny which is obviously good but it’s still a major pain in the backside regardless. Also bad in that I was going to pay it all via debit card but the missus advised me to do IFC instead and now she’s lording it over me at every opportunity.

born_again

Usuallyconfused said:

Thought I’d add my tuppence worth.

Ordered a new kitchen two weeks before it all went a bit Pete Tong which is gutting on two levels as firstly it may mean no new kitchen and secondly the prospect of being dragged around all the kitchen shops again fills me with utter dread.

Naturally, Homebase or whomever is in charge now have gone radio silent and zero info in coming from them. We got the AO text stating we ain’t getting anything from them anytime soon but we contacted the kitchen manufacturer direct (Country Living) and they said as far as they were concerned, it’s business as usual as our kitchen was in progress. We also contacted Novuna who sympathised and asked us to fill out a section 75 claim form. I thought it might be a bit premature but sod it, we filled it in for the full amount and we’re now waiting to see what’s going to happen. There’s a slight wrinkle in that the sink, taps and handles are supposedly coming from Homebase direct but I’ll be satisfied if we get a kitchen and we source everything else ourselves provided the finance is altered respectively. Timing is also a pain. The fitter is booked but if we miss our ‘slot’ with him then it may as well be back to square one again. 

So there we have it. It seems we’re fully covered so shouldn’t really cost us a penny which is obviously good but it’s still a major pain in the backside regardless. Also bad in that I was going to pay it all via debit card but the missus advised me to do IFC instead and now she’s lording it over me at every opportunity.

Just tell her that you would have had chargeback rights to get the money back, which could well be far quicker than a S75 claim, where lender will sit on it for a bit to see if anyone is going to take over.

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:
I am unclear as to whether CC protections existing in this scenario but I suspect not.  The individual has knowingly purchased from the company in Administration, knowingly accepted the reduced rights associated with that.  It would be absurd to make a CC liable above those reduced rights to normal consumer rights.

I have two "aside" questions:
 - How does one put a Christmas tree through the Christmas tree skirt?  I have never seen this type of item before and they do look like a good idea, but the item shown seems to be a solid round and I would have thought it needs two halves that clip together.
 - We are actually in need of a new sofa and armchairs and I am tempted to grab a Homebase version if there are reduced prices available in the next few weeks.  Given these are not held in store, I can order online.  I am happy enough to accept the risk of not being quite as great as I'd like, but (especially given my own comments above), where would I stand if I place an order and the sofa never arrives?

In this case it doesn't because the item was £30 so below the S75 threshold. As recently discovered it also conformed to contract but the 64cm was the outer diameter not the inner and so doesn't work for the OP. 

Putting the above aside, yes you absolutely can buy from them and make a credit card company liable just the same as buying a "Rolex" from overseas for £200 thinking it really is genuine. It is absurd but thats one of the may reasons why S75 isn't fit for this day and age. 

Its similar to ours... put the base down, put the skirt over it, put the tree in, lift the skirt to do up the screws that hold the tree (or if your my wife with tiny hands, reach down and do them up)

Chargeback and S75 remains in place. Chargebacks are paid by the merchant account provider, it's their problem if they can or cannot get the money back from their client and it traditionally why providers would hold a float which won't be released until the X days after the service is terminated. 

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)

AIUI, information on the back of a receipt or such like that is not available prior to entering into agreement to purchase cannot be part of the contract...

I know.

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)

... Ordinarily, a policy notified on the back of the receipt about 30-day returns would be fine as it is to the benefit of the consumer and giving the consumer something over and above their statutory and contractual rights...

But isn't the issue whether the consumer can enforce it against the store if it doesn't form part of the contract...?

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)

... I also understand, as I set out in more detail above, that a claim cannot be taken against a company in Administration.  The original "Homebase Ltd" ceases and any ongoing transactions are as "Homebase in Administration Limited" (proxy names used) which is operated by the Administrators with the sole objective of saving the company or, if that cannot be achieved, of returning as many pence in the pound as possible to creditors.

Anyone with a new claim would simply be added to the list of creditors. Creditors cannot initiate legal action against a company in Administration:
https://www.gov.uk/put-your-company-into-administration...

If you look at the other thread you will see that several posters - including one whom I believe is a solicitor - disagree with you about whether or not a company in administration can be sued.

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)

... I am unclear as to whether CC protections existing in this scenario but I suspect not.  The individual has knowingly purchased from the company in Administration, knowingly accepted the reduced rights associated with that.  It would be absurd to make a CC liable above those reduced rights to normal consumer rights...

I think s75 might do just that.  There's nothing in the Consumer Credit Act to say it wouldn't.  Similarly there's nothing in the Consumer Rights Act to suggest that those consumer rights disappear if the trader goes into administration?   [Edit:  the point being - which I've not explained very well - that if the consumer's rights against the seller are not extinguished if the seller is in administration, then s75 will still give the consumer a claim against the finance provider.  If the finance provider doesn't want joint liability with a seller in administration, perhaps they should stop accepting payments to those sellers?]

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:
If you look at the other thread you will see that several posters - including one whom I believe is a solicitor - disagree with you about whether or not a company in administration can be sued.

A company in administration can be sued but it requires the courts or the administrators permission to do so. Generally either will only give permission when the dispute is over ownership of property, if you are simply owed money then there is no need for a court case because the administrators have the authority to distribute assets but they have to do so based on prescribed ranking of creditors of which general consumers are second from the bottom. 

Okell said:
I think s75 might do just that.  There's nothing in the Consumer Credit Act to say it wouldn't.  Similarly there's nothing in the Consumer Rights Act to suggest that those consumer rights disappear if the trader goes into administration?   [Edit:  the point being - which I've not explained very well - that if the consumer's rights against the seller are not extinguished if the seller is in administration, then s75 will still give the consumer a claim against the finance provider.  If the finance provider doesn't want joint liability with a seller in administration, perhaps they should stop accepting payments to those sellers?]

Do Visa/Mastercard networks rules allow card issuers to wholesale block a particular merchant? Given both allow offline transactions (ie where the card machine cannot connect to the banking network) it would lead to notable issues if an offline authorisation was given but then the card issuer refused to pay funds because they dont like the merchant. 

RefluentBeans

I guess it’s the question of how accurate the product description needs to be. The more accurate, the more it costs as the cost to make tight tolerances increases. 30cm is no more accurate than 300mm but a consumer might expect that the product will be closer to the absolute value (ie less variance product to product). 

In this case, the product matches the description. The OP had a chance to clarify the dimensions before purchase (either by measuring themselves or asking the retailer). The fact it’s the outer diameter rather than inner diameter is unfortunate for the OP, but not misrepresented. So no grounds for refund as faulty.

As for the contractual right to refund - the OP of course can pursue this with the administrators, and put his claim in (just as anyone else who is owed money can do) - in a few years they may get £1 (if they’re lucky). Unfortunately the Homebase the OP purchase from has ceased trading.

OP - it could be a lot worse - £30 loss is not that deep. Sell it on Marketplace/give it to charity and write it off as a learning experience. Don’t expect outstanding customer service from employees who are concerned if they are going to be able to put the heating on next month. Good customer service is a luxury - abiding by consumer rights is an obligation.