Hidden VAT in online purchase

flaneurs_lobster

Then they’ll be able to exercise their consumer rights just as I have. 

Are you saying that Acme Candle Co (or whatever) have refunded your "overpayment"?

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157421#Comment_82157421

Why are you avoiding answering the questions?

You are aware of the per item limits on S75? So buying 100 items is not get you S75 cover.

As chargeback, there is none to cover this, as the price given at the end is the price to pay, Nothing in card regulations covers drip pricing.

Alderbank

…Similarity the Section 75 laws - although I will use Chargeback first if I can, because that more fairly sanctions the retailer rather than the credit-card issuer….

Have you actually read the Consumer Credit Act? The Act requires the supplier to fully indemnify the card issuer not only for the refund to the consumer but also for all the card issuer's costs in doing so.

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157421#Comment_82157421

So your final "hurrah" is to libel them?

I don't see "drip pricing" here, I see a small business that is slightly naive and perhaps doesn't understand the complexities of the law. They appear to have products aimed at businesses (which consumer needs a literal "case" of candles?) and they perhaps haven't done their complete due diligence when it comes to consumer sales.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157631#Comment_82157631

As has been mentioned many times. Consumer rights & chargeback are 2 tootally seperate regulations & do not mirro each other.

highlander58

Just in case any normal folk looking for advice are still reading this, & might need clarity on some of these comments above:

UK has separate laws covering consumer rights, unfair pricing & credit/debit cards, which all apply concurrently. They don’t duplicate each other! So the 2015 Consumer Credit Act doesn’t need to mention drip pricing, because that’s covered by 2024 DMCCA. Neither of them have to mention credit cards, because they are covered by 1974 Consumer Credit Act. They each complement each other.

Chargeback is a bank scheme for debit cards - not a law. If it applies, it’s easier/quicker for bank to get money back for consumer. So in the excellent Guide about credit/debit cards on the main MSE site - Martin himself recommends using it first, Here’s a link:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

My case: I was subjected to ‘drip pricing’ ie hidden mandatory charges that weren’t revealed to me from the start of the purchase. That’s illegal. The fact that the charges were VAT is irrelevant; they were illegally applied, according to the DMCC law. So the merchant can’t charge me & has to reimburse them. The goods themselves are fine, so Consumer Rights Act doesn’t apply. I don’t have to reject/return them - i just keep them for the original agreed price. I paid by credit card & the individual item (inc VAT) was over £100. So if retailer refuses to refund the hidden charge, I could use Section 75 to claim back. But as Martin recommends, I’ll try Chargeback first, which does also apply to credit as well as debit cards. The distinction there is that debit card payments are only covered by Chargeback, whereas credit cards are covered by both. Chargeback is also good because it can be used on lower purchase prices. Also Section 75 is a law so protection is stronger. And Chargeback has shorter time limit to claim - 120 days.

I’ve now told the merchant what they did wrong, & given them a day or 2 to put things right: to refund my charge & to correct their website.
But I’ve also made clear that if they don’t respond promptly to both, I will sadly have to report them to Trading Standards - for the future protection of other consumers.

Although I’m now confident of my rights & the relevant Laws - I definitely wasn’t at the start. Hence my question to the Forum. But in the absence of any polite & sensible advice on offer here - I informed myself instead. With the help of AI & some sensible fact-checking - it was pretty easy! I’d recommend that as the preferable, safer route - to any other would-be users of this Forum, who find themselves the unfortunate & innocent recipients of the same kind of unkind, unverified & simply incorrect responses that I have.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157273#Comment_82157273

They are designed for restaurants or hotels, you buy them by the case and there are discounts for buying 3 or more cases etc. Plus they are mainly oil lamps rather than candles plus holders, shades etc

QrizB

Although I’m now confident of my rights & the relevant Laws - I definitely wasn’t at the start.

Do let us know how you get on.

eskbanker

My case: I was subjected to ‘drip pricing’ ie hidden mandatory charges that weren’t revealed to me from the start of the purchase. That’s illegal. The fact that the charges were VAT is irrelevant; they were illegally applied, according to the DMCC law. So the merchant can’t charge me & has to reimburse them.

While I agree that the failure to display VAT-inclusive pricing on a consumer-facing site breaches the regulations, it remains unclear to me what specifically grants the consumer the right to nominate a partial refund as a remedy for that breach, as opposed to unwinding the contract - not actually saying that your logic (applied via the above 'so') is flawed but just unaware of exactly where that is spelt out within DMCC or other legislation?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159123#Comment_82159123

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation was mainly replaced by DMCC but not completely. As already pointed out it has a fixed schedule of damages depending on how material the actions of the seller are. for under £5k, which we can probably safely assume this is, then for a minor issue its a 0% refund, the next band up is a 25% refund and goes all the way to 100% in steps

Dripping prices is unfair, hence now banned, they did show the complete price before the OP bought so it reallly depends on how a judge considers the issue of the sales funnel and that by page 5 of the process the addition of 20% of cost isnt going to dissuade all