CAN I JUST POINT OUT that being a longstanding respected member should not validate special rights to belittle other members...and to then silence those who retaliate. shows how ridiculous the management are on this website.

yet BRIGADIER2JCS can post negative abuse as he pleases: "My guess is Halls were just glad to see the back of you." just reinforces how this website is biased and unprofessional at all levels.

love how you censor all my posts...cant take the truth haha.

noomill060 you are clearly the most knowledgeable and wise contributor here since I was able to get my money back in the end (although I had to pay returns postage) and I had to spend a great deal of time typing emails covering the consumer contract regulation. Anyhow let this be a lesson to people seeking advice on this forum...do not listen to posters with military avatars. Bless you noomill060 for your detailed and refined response. I would have referred to some of your points in my email to the company, however you response was a little too late and by that time I had already used the advice kindly given by rebel11 which secured my refund in the end. But thank you again for the response as some of your points would have been great to highlight to them...in hindsight p.s. if you try to challenge the admin's opinions you will be censored...absolute joke cannot take this cowboy forum seriously anymore.

Sure thing, my apologies. I appreciate him putting fourth the opposite view, but he kept disagreeing with my argument when my points were valid. So it made sense to tell him where to go!

Errrrr not really, I am unemployed and have no affiliation in the trade industry. Unless anyone can prove I am then I constitute as a retail customer, just because I mistakenly purchase from a trade company does not constitute me as a trade customer. Especially when I only purchased a pair of jeans...think that says it all lol. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I'm surprised all you who have replied haven't spotted the error this company has made selling this product to me (an online retail consumer). In their T&C's it says: "11.1 Please Note: Hall-Fast supplies to trade customers only." The fact of the matter is I am NOT a trade customer, I am NOT part of a company or buying on behalf of a company. I am purchasing as an online retail customer. I have got this dispute in the bag

How interesting there is no where on the home page that says "trade only" LOL. This company just wants to extort money from consumers and withhold their rights. I hope a court would recognise this, because at this rate I may file an application to small claims court for £25. Even if I lose my case, I will be happy that I kept them on their toes. Funnily enough the rude customer service assistant that couldn't seem to reply constructively to me XXXXXXXXXXXX THATS ALL I'M SAYING!

I appreciate hearing both sides honestly, I just find it depressing that an online company can't even have the goodwill to accept the return of 1 item LOL. Even when I have offered to pay a handling fee and delivery charges. what's this world coming to...

Yeah it would have been so much work and money for the company to put the words "NO RETURNS" on their homepage...I'm guessing you are probably one of their loyal employees haha. At the end of the day, any company that replies to my emails in a rude/unhelpful manner and that notifies me about their NO RETURNS policy post-purchase via email is in my opinion a retail cowboy. And yes I think I have learnt that in the future I need to check the T&C's since some online retailers like to be less vocal about their NO RETURNS policy...and like that's a coincidence lol.

Tomorrow I will let you guys know what they say, even if they refuse again I will keep going to the end, I ain't giving up just yet!

Yeah I can confirm they failed to undergoe checks on me. This is getting so complicated especially if they argue they are trade only, could be quite hard using SOGA and the Consumers Contract Regulations, but I will still refer to it as it would be my only hope in getting these cowboys to comply with my return request.

I'm also arguing on the grounds the trade only term was not made clear on the website prominently, along with the no returns policy, and retail consumers like myself who have never come across such a thing are vulnerable to being duped into purchasing items under a false sense of consumer security.

Ah I see, that said I was not buying on the behalf of a company but solely as a retail consumer, so shouldn't I be entitled to the consumer protection law?

The only place they state "trade only" is in their website terms of use section... "Please note we are a trade only website and do not accept returns on snickers products for any other reason (except where goods are faulty)." Surely this doesn't affect my consumer rights?