Hidden VAT in online purchase

Alderbank

Lumeahome probably doesn't exist but lumeaathome (Lumea at home) does.

It is here: https://lumeaathome.com/

It's a Shopify site so don't expect too much.

QrizB

Can’t see that trade statement anywhere on Lumea.co.uk.

I provided a link in my post. The linked page has that statement on it.

highlander58

Lots of sites out there with ‘lumea’ in title - but only 1 that sells these liquid candles. Lumeaathome doesn’t - nor do several others.

Thanks for pointing out the link. However other T&Cs in same document, plus FAQs, contradict that ‘trade-only’ statement.

There is no ‘lumeahome’ website. If it did exist - it doesn’t now.
Suspect these T&Cs were cobbled together from what used to be 2 separate trade & retail websites.

highlander58

I wish I had noticed - but I didn’t.
Having gone through several purchase steps already, with absolutely no mention of VAT - I was more concerned about entering my shipping/billing address & card details correctly on the final page. There was no shipping to pay, so nothing to check there, & I’d already seen the total price displayed as I expected it to be on the previous pages. In short: I had no reason to suspect an extra charge would be slipped in on the final page.

The consumer laws & associated mandatory Guidance i cited above are quite clear: it’s the retailer’s fault - not mine. So it’s down to them to provide a remedy - not me to ‘suck it up’. This is drip pricing. It’s illegal. The fact that the retailer chooses to call it ‘VAT’ is irrelevant.

If you read the T&Cs comments above, the contradictions in the T&Cs are very likely due to them having been ‘cobbled together’ from a trade site & a (now non-existent) retail site. I suspect the same has happened here. The retailer was careless: they decided to combine B2B & B2C sales on the one site, but they didn’t check that their trade pages were compliant with retail consumer law.
I don’t think they set out to intentionally deceive or to break the law - but they did,

Retailers are required by law to refund such illegal charges. If you believe I’m not entitled to a refund of drip pricing surcharges - please provide a reputable verifiable source to back up your opinion - like I have.

Pollycat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6685133/hidden-vat-in-online-purchase

Have you given this business the opportunity to put things right yet?

You seem to be 100% sure that you are in the right so I'd go for it.

flaneurs_lobster

The fact that the retailer chooses to call it ‘VAT’ is irrelevant.

It's very relevant, if the retailer calls something/charges something called 'VAT" and doesn't pay that money so designated to R&C then that's fraud.

Lumea have added VAT to the selling price as they are required to do by law. Might well be that they should have indicated the inclusive price earlier in the purchase stream but that's secondary.

You made a purchase that included VAT. If you've got a problem with the order then you return for a refund. You can't just ask for 20% back (well you can but they'll say no).

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82155670#Comment_82155670

Yes, unless they are actively promoting it as B2B only (even if its not enforced) then prices must default to be the inclusive of VAT. However the main action is to be taken by the CMA for the protection of all not something about your individual case.

Your personal argument would be under the CPRs 27A-B that the misleading factor was a significant factor in your reason to buy. 27I puts the resolution as a percentage discount due, assuming it is under £5,000 then it ranges from 0% for a minor breach to 100% for a very serious breach.

The reality is that you saw the price including VAT before you decided to buy and a judge will be have to consider how much you were influcenced in your decision to buy due to the lack of VAT. Lowest band is 0%, the next band up is 25% discount.

You could ask for the 16.7% discount to get back the VAT but in court you'd be aiming at 25% but could very easily end up with 0%. The CMA would fine the company up to 10% of their revenue but those monies goes to the government not you.

highlander58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156277#Comment_82156277

Please just read the gov.uk Guidance & flowchart for yourself. It’s very clear on what constitutes price transparency or not.
I’ve no doubt the extra charge really is really VAT. But they didn’t make it clear to me upfront that 20% VAT was to be added to the price - so I don’t have to pay it to them. Now they’ll have to pay it themselves. If a business fails to state stating mandatory charges like VAT to consumers, from the very start - that is ‘drip pricing”. It’s unfortunate for them - but it appears they didn’t take enough care when combining their trade & retail online businesses - & so they made a bad & potentially costly mistake - if they were to be fined.
Under the 2024 DMCC Act - drip pricing is illegal & can attract a hefty fine - up to 10% turnover. Paying this VAT will only cost them a few ££s.

In answer to above: yes, I have now written to them & given them the opportunity to put it right - rather than just reporting them to CMAA & Trading Standards. They’re lucky that I have. If they refund me the illegal surcharge & update their website promptly, as I’ve politely asked them to do - they’ll have got off very lightly! But if they don’t - I will report them.

Consumers need protection from this sort of thing - it’s been increasing - which is exactly why the 2024 Act was passed.
It just a shame few here seem to understand that, or even support the rights of their fellow consumers.

Pollycat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156415#Comment_82156415

You're very busily batting advice/suggestions back.

But if you are so sure that you are on rock-solid ground legally…just give this business the opportunity to put things right.

And if they refuse to do so, you have an alternative option as per your original post.

Why are you continuing to argue with people when you say you are right?

Time to get off the fence…?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156553#Comment_82156553

S21 requires both an unwarranted demand and menaces. The threat to report is certainly menaces but its maybe more questionable if the demand is unwarranted.

The OP is asking for the VAT they paid back, which they feel is their losses, and so it probably would fail an unwarranted test… if they were demanding a 75% refund then thats clearly much greater than their losses and would be much more risky in terms of it being deemed an unwarranted demand.