Argos TV Fiasco -The bigger picture (merged)

Dave=m55

maj wrote:

please see this, very intresting as posted in dvdreviewer.

http://v2.theclaimroom.com/index.lxp?host=246&area=form&form=165

Chances are its the same person thats posted here, and on DigitalSpy, if you look at the wording, times posted, (2 different posts on here and dvdreveiwer done as cut and pastes with similat time gaps),times joined the 3 forums, its a very BIG coincidence.

Probably try to drum up a bit more business for the ambulance chasers.

The plot thickens, but will the truth ever emerge. Only time, and IP addresses, will decide.

(wonder if she/he will ever answer my questions?) :rotfl:

ben500

maj wrote:

please see this, very intresting as posted in dvdreviewer.

http://v2.theclaimroom.com/index.lxp?host=246&area=form&form=165

One little sentence to sum that up.

Nee Naw Neee Naw Neee Naww!

It would be an absolue disaster for the consumer if this incidence was used to test the law as it is without doubt destined to fail and would thus present a damning precedence from the point of view of the consumer and a licence to buck the system for the supplier.


Dreams are wonderful things but they seldom come true but that is not necessarily cause to replace them with nightmares!

teeceeare

Rex_Mundi wrote:

Where does it say that? I find it hard to beleive because the information commissioner has started a crackdown on solicitors that don't comply with the Data Protection Act.

s. 35. of the DPA:-
(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-
(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

as to "the non-disclosure provisions" - these relate to the data protection principles that create the need for the privacy policy.

This is all makes sense because solicitors have much greater professional obligations as to confidentialty of personal information.

The statement you paste relates to the quite separate duty to notify (i.e. register) for which solicitors are not exempt.

Dave=m55

teeceeare wrote:

.........

Mind answering the following then :-

Do you have an account with Argos?

Did you opt-out of receiving email from argos when you set up an account?

If you did opt-out, whats your problem, if you didn't opt-out, why not if it bothers you so much?

Are you dozeerascal that posted on the dvdreviewer and digitalspy forum?


You may also want to look at thread 13 on this post, and comment on that rather than just comment on the 'easy' DPA questions, which was actually about the Privacy Policy of websites which isn't DPA related, it comes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

teeceeare

Dave=m55 wrote:

Mind answering the following then :-

Do you have an account with Argos?

Did you opt-out of receiving email from argos when you set up an account?

If you did opt-out, whats your problem, if you didn't opt-out, why not if it bothers you so much?

Are you dozeerascal that posted on the dvdreviewer and digitalspy forum?

I plead the fifth amendment - well I would if we had one. Why spoil the fun by answering. Put 2 and 2 together -bet you get 5 :-)

You may also want to look at thread 13 on this post, and comment on that rather than just comment on the 'easy' DPA questions, which was actually about the Privacy Policy of websites which isn't DPA related, it comes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

There is no specific requirement for a 'privacy policy'' ... just a duty to give information under s6. Both sets of Regs impose requiremenst that CAN be met by a privacy policy but there are other ways. Seems to me that the statement on the solicitors' site satisfies s6. Anyway as you have pointed out, there is the same exclusion for lawyers as in the DPA. Also, providing a form on a website does not mean that the collection of information is not excluded anyway under s6(4) .

This is all very interesting but straying away from the subject matter of the thread.

Dave=m55

teeceeare wrote:

I plead the fifth amendment.

SO no denial of anything, or even if you're spamming forums for business. If you have nothing to hide, you would have answered those questions. Everyone else here would.

teeceeare wrote:

There is no specific requirement for a 'privacy policy'' .......

As I never asked that question I'll ignore it.

Dave=m55 wrote:

Privacy Policy comes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, not the Data protection Act, and theres a nice little get-out clause for solicitors, but thats as far as I'm going with that one!

Its strange though that you decide to answer questions that have no relevance to why you are spamming forums, and that I have never asked.

teeceeare wrote:

This is all very interesting but straying away from the subject matter of the thread.

Subject of this seems to be you are so concerned about possible spamming of 'your' email that you want to get a bunch of mediators round a table and get money for yourself :-

the Act states Proceedings for compensation for failure to comply with requirements of the Regulations

30. - (1) A person who suffers damage by reason of any contravention of any of the requirements of these Regulations by any other person shall be entitled to bring proceedings for compensation from that other person for that damage. (ie sue them)

(2) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this regulation It shall be a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the relevant requirement. (ie lose, as they gave you the option to opt out when you signed up)

They seem to have covered that quite nicely, as you had to option to opt-out when you signed up (if you ever did). So whats your motivation here, money, or business.

teeceeare wrote:

which under the anti-spamming laws can include awards of compensation to the consumer

Quote_from_Bevans_site_that_you_linked_to wrote:

a right to compensation under European regulations.

From where I'm sitting it seems you are just spamming sites for business, dangling the carrot of money in the faces of people who should know better, not for the good of anyone but yourself. In which case you are an ambulance chaser. Shame this site doesn't post IP addresses, now that would be interesting.

trickytrolleys

ferretktf wrote:

This is not a conspiracy theory to harvest e-mail addresses for SPAM, so you can shelve that ridiculous concept. It is merely an unfortunate error ... and yes, it has happened TWICE in SIX Years .... blimey, when was the last time that YOU made an error if you can't tolerate that threshold.

But didnt it happen twice in one day?? First Argos then Homebase (same people)

If the mistake had been generated from one place that applied the price to a main server that then displayed on two different websites then surely when the argos one was corrected then the Homebase one would have been to?

TBH I couldnt care less about the teles - its worth a shot but not much else but as a law student i am extremely interested in the contract law side of things!

Dave2012_2

Think about the number of lines Argos stock, what is it now, 10,000+ ? Then think about the number of times they re-price their items for rotating sales, old stock and catalogue changes etc.

They are BOUND to make mistakes, because at the end of the day these numbers are originally entered by a human! They did a similar thing with X-box a couple of years back and I (accidentally - i didnt find out til much later) managed to pick one up at the lower price.

You people who madly went after a TV priced at 49p thinking you'd get away with it .... well, you need to get out more. And all of this compensation crap? Just get over yourselves.

Searcher2

Dave2012 wrote:

Think about the number of lines Argos stock, what is it now, 10,000+ ? Then think about the number of times they re-price their items for rotating sales, old stock and catalogue changes etc.

They are BOUND to make mistakes, because at the end of the day these numbers are originally entered by a human! They did a similar thing with X-box a couple of years back and I (accidentally - i didnt find out til much later) managed to pick one up at the lower price.

You people who madly went after a TV priced at 49p thinking you'd get away with it .... well, you need to get out more. And all of this compensation crap? Just get over yourselves.

Again - I don't expect a TV for 49p - but I do expect Argos to have better business practice. Aside from taking money before knowing if they can supply goods it doesn't seem to me (as an IT contractor) too much effort to put in place


IF SALE_PRICE_TO_CUSTOMER < COST_PRICE_TO_ARGOS
AND AUTHORISED_CLEARANCE_FLAG <> 'YES'
THEN DO NOT MAKE PRODUCT AVAILABLE ON WEBSITE

IF NUMBER OF ORDERS IN LAST HOUR > 50 (or whatever is unreasonable)
THEN TEMPORARILY WITHDRAW PRODUCT

In fact the first check should automatically be done before a new price is entered on the website. But there is no point writing to Argos to suggest changes which would help their business as they will just write back saying that their T&Cs mean that they will not be sending out any TV's for 49p.

biglugs

But there is no point writing to Argos to suggest changes which would help their business as they will just write back saying that their T&Cs mean that they will not be sending out any TV's for 49p.

In which case stop whining and in future buy from someone else. If you don't like their business practices you are perfectly free to go and buy from whoever you want, but I don't see why they should change their business model because you don't like it.