Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Airlines in the region are coming up with different strategies to tackle the pandemic travel slump. View the full article
    • The 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters were destroyed to make way for an iron ore mine last year. View the full article
    • yep did warn of this before.   let it run they'll sell it on.  
    • Update from FOS. They have sided with Tesco Bank. Their main reasoning for this is due to "floor limit's"   Thee statement the FOS put is as follows: "Regardless of who the retailer is, it’s not unusual for stores to have the aforementioned ‘floor limit’ in place. And if the store doesn’t request authorisation from Tesco for the transaction to be approved then it doesn’t have the opportunity to decline it, and once the transaction goes through Tesco has an obligation to pay that amount even if it takes the consumer over the agreed limit.   So based on the information that I currently have I can’t find that Tesco’s done anything wrong because it’s correctly applied the over limit charges as per the terms and condition of the credit card.   And while these same terms and conditions state Tesco has the ability to stop transactions and prevent consumers going over their limit, again this is only possible if the retailer requests authorisation for the transaction.   But there’s also no obligation on the business to stop these transactions, the terms and conditions say that it can or may stop them but don’t state that they will.   It’s important to remember that ultimately it’s always the consumer’s responsibility to manage their account and make sure that they stay within the agreed credit limit. It’s not the business’ responsibility to manage the consumer’s account for them and stop them from going over the limit."   If all merchants have floor limits then what's to say for example Currys having a floor limit of £500 and someone with a credit limit less that £500, does this mean the transaction goes through?   It seems like this so called floor limit is an excuse for Tesco's to make money.
    • We cannot be certain that VCS are aware of the Airport Act's existence. So it cannot be said that they neglected or denied it. Much safer just to infer that it calls into question the accuracy of their WS.   What you want to do is to put doubt in the Judge's mind about the veracity of the WS without using such strong language as yours. They can vehemently deny they were aware of any such Act and your final sentence is thrown out of the window. By simply calling into question the accuracy of their WS you are putting a query into the mind of the Judge even if VCS do deny knowledge. And the Judge will already have downgraded their WS  somewhat with the non appearance of its author.   But it is good that you are looking to improve your WS. Ideally you want VCS  not to turn up in Court and one way to do that is that VCS will not want something in your WS scrutinised or queried by the Judge. And casting doubt on their WS is to be avoided since they are usually a concoction of lies and half truths. Which is why the author of the WS does not appear since they could then be subject to charges of perjury.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Amazon took the wrong amount for my purchase

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2650 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, I purchase one of Amazon's lightning deals (Voi Jeans Men's Dutton Relaxed Jeans - £19.99) while the lightning deal was still active, in-stock and within the 15 minutes of placing it in my cart.


Unfortunately, they have charged me £50 for these and despite repeated arguements via phone, e-mail and live chat, they are refusing to do anything whatsoever.


I then contacted my credit card company to report this - but they just said that it is not fraud because I gave Amazon my credit card details. They also told me that if you give your credit card details to anyone, they have free reign to take as much money as they want from you and that this isn't "fraud".....


What can I do ???

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just putting it in your cart doesn't necessarily get you the Lightning deal though. When you actually went through the checkout was the deal over because all units had been purchased? If so that's why it went through at full price. If you had it in your cart for 15 minutes before going through the checkout, that's the most likely scenario.

Your only options are to either pay the full price, or cancel the order I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated in my original post: "the lightning deal was still active, in-stock and within the 15 minutes of placing it in my cart."


I did everything correctly to claim this lightning deal, but their system has made a mistake. This is the same system that thinks £100 is less than £12 when you sort by price...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then when you get the item refuse delivery and send them straight back for a refund. Amazon and the bank are wrong in what they say but getting them to do things will be slower. You can then get your refund via your amazon account

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...