I have booked a cabin which company website states bath is included. Since October last year it has been confirmed that these cabins will not have baths. I have raised this with the company twice but no change to website despite promise it would change 3 weeks ago. Any idea of next steps/compensation for not receiving what they are still advertising today. Thanks

I am sole trader beauty therapist who was approached by what I thought was a local doctors surgery rep offering advertising on the back of appointment cards. I agreed to meet with the sales rep who was acting on behalf of the Leisure Medical company handling the advertising and he came to meet Me at my home. The advertising seemed like a good deal at £295 for 2 years advertising & with over 2000 cards being printed I agreed. The rep filled out an order form/contract which was attached to his business folder/notepad. The spring clip covering the wording “This is a minimum Two Year Agreement subject to the terms & conditions herein” The sales guy was ‘lovely’ talked me though what happens next that I would receive full details through the post. I duly signed for £295 & paid £156 deposit by debit card. Now the sales guy filled his name and signed and I was handed a folded piece of yellow paper (my copy) in 4 with a paper clipped business card attached to ‘keep safe’. A couple of days later I noticed the deposit had been taken yet no correspondence from the company, I emailed the email address saying I had not heard from them. A week or so later I received artwork. A few days after that I got a letter from my bank saying they couldn’t set up he standin order as the collection was infrequent, and this rang alarm bells! Next day I get a letter from this company Leisure Medical saying they couldn’t collect Payment £156 was due in 7 days. I didn’t like the tone of the letter I called them & was told you signed a contract you’ve got to pay up and I owed £156 immediately plus another instalment of £156 plus £95+ VAT! This was not the £295 on the contract! I dug put the paperwork only to Find there was a whole list of T & Cs on the back that I was not shown and was deliberately kept from seeing! There was also £195 faintly added on which was not on the contract when I signed I think the sales rep added this on when adding his signature. Ive since stopped any debit card payments from being taken and googled the company only to feel Sick to my stomach that there have bad review after bad review saying they’ve conned people, they change the amount etc. etc. My question is although I’ve signed a contract business to business do I have any consumer rights as A) it was signed in my home & B) I’m a sole trader beauty therapist.

I'm going to see a friend in Germany and started booking it up and had a problem booking my ticket home. I'm flying out and got the hotel booked but after trying to book a train ticket on Loco2 and Bahn.de for the homeward journey I deserved a problem with the whole plan. The reason I tried to book the train was because flights were extortionate, around £300 minimum (around this time of year I expected that). The train I found leaves Hamburg at 00:34 on 29/12/2018 arriving into London at 12:57 and the fare offered for this train was £66 Standard Class or £123 First Class. I decided to go with the latter but Loco2 refused to book the train for me. I wanted to book there to get a 'through ticket' so if Eurostar or DB ran late I'd not face problems using an Advance ticket on the UK Railway. As it wouldn't give it to me I decided to book the international part on bahn.de This website gave reservations but when it came to entering card details to make payment, Their website would not reserve a seat on the 11:56 Eurostar service. There is a button which says "Force Reservation" which I pressed and it kicked a message back saying the train was fully booked. I thought this was odd so decided to try and book with Eurostar directly and noticed that their website was showing some fully booked trains but wasn't showing a 11:56 departure from Brussels. After investigation I found out both Bahn.de and Loco2 (Which presumably API's to the Bahn system) was trying to make a reservation for Eurostar Train #9129 ... That train runs only on Sundays... the 29/12/2018 is a Saturday, so it shouldn't be coming up as a possible journey at all... I've spent a few hours trying to figure out how to get around this problem. It seems that the 12:52 departure is fully booked for Both Standard Class, Standard Premier Class but Business Premier does have seats available bringing the total price to £505.15 if I delay departure in Brussels I can use Standard Premier on the 14:56 for £317.00 (Standard Class is sold out) Either way I'm left with a touch choice of abandon the trip and lose out on the Hotel and Flight I've booked, pay the extra £200 (Which isn't really doable) or take the ferry from Hoek van Holland which will bring the price down to around £138.50 (This is doable) or use the coach from Brussels bringing the total to £159.45 both of these options take significantly longer but offer a considerable saving over the Eurostars. Having looked at this, what are my options here? I reported the issue to Loco2 straight away who blamed the Bahn system being slow to update. Having checked today the ticket for the train that doesn't exist is still being advertised. I believe this is mis-selling as the companies concerned are advertising a service which doesn't exist. I had no idea that service didn't exist until I tried to book said service. Had I have known this I wouldn't have booked the outward journey and hotel. A friend of mine commented that I should've booked everything in reverse. I disagree with that because the same could happen for the Hotel or for the outbound journey. I will probably book the ferry and just accept I won't get home until 2AM... But do I have any comeback here for the extra costs? Thanks, Shark

Hi, I bought a used car tonight that was advertised with the tagline "Mazda 2 TS with A/C ..." and in the description as "GREAT 5 DOOR SUPER MINI with AIR CONDITIONING". Having driven the car home there does not appear to be any air conditioning in the car. Not that the A/C is broken, there is no A/C. Having checked the vehicle specs it appears that, when purchasing new (I am buying used, 2009 reg car), there is A/C as an optional extra, which doesn't appear to have been taken. What are my rights as a consumer having handed over ~£3k of my hard earned. The car was bought from an approved Mazda dealer but as I have only bought the car just before they closed I haven't had a chance to raise this with them. I plan on calling them tomorrow to ask about the problem but would like to understand my rights before hand as I don't want to be fobbed off. Thanks, Andy

Got this through the post. Attention grabbing or what ?

I am a little puzzled - a month or so prior to Christmas and up until about now, Furniture companies have had 'end of stock' sales, 'Black Friday' and 'Black Friday week' Sales. Prior To Christmas they had 'mid season' sales, 'Bank Holiday' sales ... and now they are having "new stock introductory" sales ! When exactly does anyone actually pay the recommended retail price for these items ??

I noticed this company is still advertising on the TV - I thought they were to cease doing that ?

Christmas advertising Insight comes early The themes and images surrounding and associated with the festive season provide ample opportunity to create memorable and impactful ad campaigns. But some yuletide words of warning, the ad rules are for life, not just for Christmas. For instance, promoting a casual attitude to using a loan to fund Christmas spending is likely to be seen as irresponsible. Be good for goodness sake, read on to find out how. So if we see anything we think could be irresponsible we should report it to the ASA.

Hi, new to this forum, found it when searching for a bit of advice. I've searched for an answer to my specific issue but can't find it here, so..... I recently bought a microsoft surface pro 3 from Currys. The advert clearly shows it with a keyboard, which is what I was looking for. I went ahead and bought it. The next day my girlfriend said she didn't think it came with the keyboard, so I looked at the advert again. It definitely does not say keyboard not included, and there is separate offer for the tablet and keyboard as a bundle. I realise I made a mistake here but are Currys in the wrong advertising it like this ? I have written to them and they have replied saying the keyboard is only shown as part of the bundle offer. If you look at the advert for the tablet the keyboard is shown. Tried posting a link the the advert but it won't let me. it's the 128gb model for £749.

I dont know whether to be annoyed or feel sorry for this company. Every time I log in I see the same message. "Congratulations you are our 1.000.000th visitor". However, this same message has been shown for the last 5 days !! So, have they not had any more visitors ?

I'm new to this site. (Hi all). Got a shock when I noticed the site accepts advertising from a bailiff company! Isn't that the enemy? Archie

There has been a banner, advertised on cag stating that I am the 1,000,000 visitor amd I could win a mini, however no clue as to who put it there. Any ideas ?

I have a query relating to a situation my partner finds herself in. This is happening in Scotland if it makes a difference. A little background first to let you know why we find ourselves in this position: My partner rents a house at the moment and the tenancy is managed by a letting agency. She has lived in the property for around 6 years, slightly more, and in January this year renewed her tenancy for a further 6 months. She did this knowing we were about to begin looking for our first home together, however we both felt it was a good idea to give ourselves some time without having to worry about a roof over her head. At the time of renewing she inquired with the letting agency whether a shorter-term lease might be available but was told 6 months was the minimum they would offer. She agreed to that, however she was told that at any time she could pay them £180 to readvertise the house. If they found another suitable tenant the tenancy would transfer and she would no longer be liable for the remaining rental period. We thought that seemed a bit steep but agreed. Move forward a month and we have quite unexpectedly found a house we love, we've bought it and get the keys in a few weeks time. As a consequence my partner popped into the letting agency, paid the £180 and they readvertised the house. Within a day they found someone who wanted the house and paid a holding deposit. As far as we know they haven't signed any formal agreement yet, however the letting agency are no longer advertising the house. I'm finally getting to my question you'll be delighted to hear. We checked with the letting agency about what would happen if this new tenant pulled out. We were more than a little shocked to hear that they plan to hold my partner liable for the rent up to the end of the 6 month period. That probably seems quite reasonable, except that she paid her £180, they readvertised for less than 24 hours and found a new tenant. Can they really take her money, essentially not readvertise the house, yet continue to hold her liable?

I bought a mobile phone from an ebay licenced trader in March. 6 weeks later it stopped working - whereas it was advertised as NEW it turned out to have had a previous owner, who's probably reported it stolen/lost after selling to the shop I bought it from. The shop have offered 50% of £430 purchase price, but I believe I should be able to claim all under Consumer Rights Act 2015? Nobody can tell me if it has been stolen or whether it's just lost, incidentally. Original network appear to have barred phone. The ad title was UNLOCKED - NEW & BOXED. The trader said that the item condition was NEW not that it hadn't been owned or used before. I thought I was buying direct from a store (and didn't realise they were a pawnbroking chain at the time) with a small saving v RRP as it was a phone (galaxy S6) that was becoming obsolete. The store said that ebay was for resellers and secondhand goods and that I shouldn't have expected a NEW phone (they have since sold another S6, advertising it as BRAND NEW......). Please see attachment for full details. Thoughts appreciated as I am strongly contemplating legal action now. ad for S6 I bought.pdf

Hi, I run a small hair salon. J ust over a year ago, I was approached about the possibility of having some advertising, the advert would be 1000 leaflets for my use, as well as leaflets being left under the seats at a local ice rink, and an advert put up on screen. This would last for 1 year. The adverts would be on a rolling advertisement, but guaranteed to be shown at least once during each event that was held there. I never went to the ice rink, but had faith that it would be done.. . having said that, over the course of a year I've had no custom from it. The leaflets all said to bring the leaflet with them, and the customer would receive a discount. I put it down as a lesson learned, and a failed attempt to advertise, and thought nothing of it. However, today I received a letter saying year 2 of my contract had started last month, and I now owe a full year payment (in full or installments) as I have agreed to a second year. I never did this. I have called them up, and was informed that I was given a second year because I did not cancel my contract in the first 9 months of year one and it was a rolling contract, minimal of two years, unless a cancellation was requested. Now, I would put this down to another lesson learned, and I should have read the small print, etc. when I took out the contract, I stated very firmly I did not want two years. I wanted one (which was an option they gave me), and I was told that 'Optional' would be written down for year 2, so I could choose to have it at the same rate if I wanted it. I signed the contract, after again confirming it was for 1 year and my request for it to be 1 year only meant it would not roll over. I set up a quarterly Direct Debit, and that was that. this request for payment seems to be unfair, because I was told it was 1 year and my request for 1 year counted as an immediate request for cancellation. I also find it strange (yet I'm also thankful) that it wasn't just taken from my bank, since they have my direct debit details. Why the request for me to send them the money? I've been in touch, it is legitimately from the same people. But it just seems odd to me. They've been very offish about it when I've contacted them, and basically told me tough as no request was made in that 9 month period. But as I was told, on signing in the first place, that it was accepted and no second year would come... why would I call and cancel again? What are my options here? should I have received a letter (in good grace) to remind me I needed to cancel, if they truly thought I'd not done already? If anyone could help, I would be most gracious

Hi to all i own a Msi gtx 970 graphics card and over last weekend it has been confirmed by NVIDIA’s Senior VP of GPU Engineering Mr J Alben in a online article (tried to link article would not let me) that nvidia have made an error (or lied:?::? in the spec sheet given to review websites last year and intern has led to consumers being misled with false specification. It has taken nvidia two weeks to come clean about this since consumers first noticed something might be wrong with the card it has also taken them another 3 days to decide they will give a refund to anyone who wants one but the way they have gone about it is a joke the card i have is no longer fit for the intended purpose that i got it for. What i would like to know is have nvidia broken any UK or EU consumer laws and should they be offering more than a refund like compensation or free upgrade to a card that closer matches the original advertized spec. the only option i am open to is the free upgrade as that is the only one that dose not put me out of pocket Any advice or help is greatly appreciated col adlington

Hi, Hope this is in the correct forum. Been a longer time member of Quidco and have made a few £ back from my purchases over the years. Looking to reduce our monthly outgoings I saw a nice offer from Sky on Quidco for Sky Digital TV with cash back estimated in January 2015. Got Sky installed, paid the first bill and checked my Quidco and the estimated payment has changed from 11-01-2015 to 24-04-2015, 4 months extra has been added to the estimated payment. I have queried this with Quidco and they have stated that Sky are currently only paying out after 4 months. The problem I see is that Quidco are still advertising Sky offers with Estimated payments in February 2015 when they know full well Sky are taking 4 months. Would this come under false advertising to entice customers up to these offers when they know full well the cash back dates are completely incorrect, even false. Regards George

Hi there, Today, I have received an answer back from the Furniture Ombudsman and my claim against Sofaworks was not upheld, which obviously is very disappointing. I am now left with a 2-seater sofa and a footstool which I hardly use as such. I have taken up to have one cushion on the floor (as then it doesn't sag as much as when it is on the sofa springs - the floor providing a harder and more supportive base) and leave the other cushion to provide lower back support. Imagine!!!! Hence, don't really have any use for the footstool. Anyway, I am uncertain as to how the Ombudsman came to their decision. Supposedly they have written to not only the retailer, but also to the manufacturer, and surprise, surprise both would have defended their products, saying that there is nothing wrong with them. I am left rather confused, upset and downright unfairly treated. The 1st letter from the Ombudsman says that ""a conciliation officer will take a detailed look into your [my] complaint and contact you with our initial opinion": this did not happen. They also say "We aim to come to a fair conclusion so it is necessary for us to gather evidence from both parties to the dispute". All the evidence they have "gathered" from me was the application form I have sent at the beginning of October. I have not been visited by anyone to check the furniture for themselves before they"come to a fair conclusion". I had physio sessions for my back and using that sofa (even for short periods) only seemed to have made things worse. I am unsure as to what to do next. Any idea? At I am at my wits end.

Has anyone had recent dealings with a company called Big Green Book? I paid for a directory listing last year on the basis that the fee would be repaid if I had no appropriate enquiries - the only 'enquiry' I received was a really strange phone call from someone at BGB saying he was phoning on behalf of a company who wanted to bring me their business. When I asked for the name of the company or a contact there, he became rather vague. I asked for an email to clarify the situation but, of course, it never materialised. And when I tried to contact BGB to find out what was going on no-one replied to me. A year on and needless to say they are not repaying my money and as no paperwork has ever materialised there is not much chance of seeing it again. What I am doing is reporting it to Action Fraud. A couple of colleagues in the same field (counselling) have come forward with similar stories. I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has had dealings with this company.

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) is launching a review of how the advertising rules are being applied to payday loan advertising appearing on TV to ensure that young people, in particular, continue to be protected. Payday loan advertising has attracted concern across society, including Government, media, consumer protection bodies and the public as the use of short-term, high-cost credit has increased during the economic downturn. In that context, BCAP consider it is timely to review how the advertising rules are being applied. BCAP has published terms of reference, which set out the scope and approach of the review. Find out more

ASA Adjudication on Debt Specialists Ltd Debt Specialists Ltd 8‒10 Bolton Street Ramsbottom Bury Lancashire BL0 9HX Date: 4 December 2013 Media: Text Message Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 2 Agency: None Complaint Ref: A13-241695 Ad A text message, from a Payment Protection Insurance claims management company, stated "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due, reply POST and we will post a pack out". Issue Two complainants challenged whether the claim "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they had never taken out such cover. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.7 Response Debt Specialists Ltd said the text message was sent by a third-party company on their behalf. They said the message was sent to recipients on a speculative basis to make them aware that they offered a service in helping to reclaim Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). The message alluded to providing the recipient with an opportunity to get further information on making a PPI claim, should they have taken out PPI, and the message was not intended to imply that they had details of the recipient having taken out PPI. Debt Specialists said the message was intended to be personal to recipients, which was why it stated "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim". The wording "we now have details of how much you could be due" related to how they would work with the recipient after they responded to the text message. They said that when recipients responded to the text message they contacted the recipient to discuss whether they may have been mis-sold PPI and what the details of that may have been. They then worked with the recipient to calculate how much compensation they might be owed should they wish to pursue a claim, and would provide information on their fees. After making those calculations they would be able to provide an indicative figure to the recipient as to how much they could receive in total. Assessment Upheld The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due" to mean that the company sending the message had definitive information, prior to contacting the recipient, that the recipient had been mis-sold PPI and how much money they would be able to claim back. We understood that in fact Debt Specialists did not have such information and the text messages were sent to recipients on a purely speculative basis. Debt Specialists were only able to determine whether a recipient might have a PPI claim and the amount of a potential claim once the recipient responded to the text message and provided that information to them directly. We therefore concluded the claim in the ad had not been substantiated, and was therefore misleading. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Debt Specialists not to make claims for which they did not hold substantiation.

Interesting epetition just found.Personally i am sick of seeing gambling adverts on TV. Trying to draw people in.I have never really looked at it before so just had a quick look round and it is surprising how big some of these companies are.Are more people getting addicted,i do not know,perhaps you do. Everyone in the adverts is so happy but how many are being taken in,getting into difficulties,do you know. But the sheer amount of money now being spent on TV advertising must be paying off.It is everywhere you look. Just in case anyone is interested.Only got 70 signatures . http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45780 But so much revenue to be gained by the TV companies.And perhaps causing troubles for some. Due to what seems to be a booming industry this is why i have started this thread.Have your say. 100,000 signatures is a tall order but at least some of your views or if you have seen any newspaper articles or know anyone in trouble would be interesting.Post them here.A new area for myself,so could do with a little help. You get a feeling there is something of the night about it all. Agree or disagree,have your say.Just trying to find out.Which we will. Just what is going on . Thanks. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45780

]This has to be the most ironic advertising placement ever.. (attachment resized to make it too small to view) -- https://www.dropbox.com/s/or5s0psu0ppqdbg/Ironic.jpg

There has been a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority which has been upheld. the website also does not comply with UK regulations in that it does not give any company details ie company number, company address, phone number. When challenged by the ASA, they completely ignored them and did not respond. It also does not abide by the Distance Selling Regulations in that it will not refund the postage charge. If there is a problem with the product, you have to ship it back to China yourself at a cost of £40 to you. This is a Chinese company so don't be fooled by the .co.uk in there website address. There are also a lot of complaints on the internet about various companies selling using this address who also appear to be Chinese and do not respond to any form of communication once they have your funds. The ASA ruling can be read below: I find it incredible that all they have said is that it must not appear again and have taken no further action. ASA Adjudication on wigshow.co.uk wigshow.co.uk Unit 10 Explorer Voyager Park Portfield Road Portsmouth PO3 5FL Background Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad A wig website, http://www.wigshow.co.uk, offered a "Human Hair Capless Short Curly Wig". Next to this product description was an image of the wig being worn by a model. Issue The complainant objected that: 1. the wig they received did not match the description in the ad; and 2. when they attempted to return the product they were informed that the product had to be shipped to China at a cost of £40 to the complainant. Investigated under CAP Code rules 3.1, (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 9.5.2 (Distance Selling). CAP Code (Edition 12) 1.73.13.4.19.5.2 Response Wigshow.co.uk did not respond to the ASA's enquiries. Assessment The ASA was concerned by wigshow.co.uk's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). 1. Upheld We considered that wigshow.co.uk had not provided evidence to show that the wig they sent to the complainant matched the description of the product in the ad. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading and could not be substantiated. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). 2. Upheld We noted that the Code stated that a marketer must bear the cost of a product being returned, if the product did not match its description within an ad. Wigshow.co.uk did not comment or refute the complainant's claim that they were to be charged £40 to return their product to them, because they believed it did not fit its description within the ad. We therefore concluded that wighow.co.uk had breached the Code. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rule 9.5.2 (Distance selling). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We asked wigshow.co.uk to ensure that their products match the descriptions of them on their website. We also asked them to ensure that customers are not charged to return items to them. We referred the matter to CAP’s compliance team.

Like so many people on these forums I too have suffered through my use and misuse of payday loans. At my lowest i had 13 of them yes thats right 13. Thankfully today I am clear of all companies but i truly know the stress and worry dealing with payday lenders causes. Recently there has been alot of talk about banning adverts from payday loans which I do think will help a bit but they will find other ways of getting there message across. I just wish there had been advertising about payday lenders in the same way as smoking adverts are aired. I.e using payday lenders may seriously damage our health and all the horrific tactics they use when someone does default. I think adverts like that would have a bigger impact on the industry than banning the lenders adverts will. its something I intend to raise via e-petition on the governments website in hope that if 100,000 people sign it it will require a dicussion in the house of commons. I will post the link once it has been finalised, hope you will all support the petition. note to admin, if talk about the petition is unsuitable for the forum i will happily delete and apologise in advance if this is the case.