Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Amazon - increasing prices before deals


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3663 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

unsure whether this belongs here or another forum area so please move if needed

 

I noticed something this morning on an item I've had in my Amazon basket for a while. It was priced at £250 for a couple of weeks and the same item was the same price in Argos, John Lewis and even Halfords was similar (Couple of pounds more)

 

What seemed like seconds before todays lightning deal kicked in for that item, the price went up to £268 and the lightning deal kicked in @ 30% off RRP.

To me RRP was £250 and from what I can see, the item was increased in price for the deal.

 

If I remember correctly, shops used to do this before in-store promos and was deemed either wrong or maybe even unlawful though I may be wrong here.

 

Online chat was pointless and they just maintain prices go up and down but I find it too much of a coincidence it was increased seconds before the deal.

Deal still means it's cheaper than JL but it's more the morality of it.

 

What do you think? Looking too much into it?

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi aj84

 

The price has to be at a higher price for a period of time i.e. 30 days, then only after that period can it be reduced 'for sale'. If what you are saying has happened it's illegal practice.

 

Have you got proof?

 

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/manchester/bus1item.cgi?file=*badv087-1111.txt

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply - I knew I was not going mad!

 

Proof - in what way? Obviously while it was in my basket, it changed to the current price however, camelcamelcamel does show the price jump:

 

http://uk.camelcamelcamel.com/K%C3%A4rcher-Premium-Water-Cooled-Pressure-Washer/product/B009QX8B9Y

 

If you set it to 1 month, you can see how it's been at the £250 mark up until the 28th. It then changed from that £250 to £268 just before the 9:30am lightning deal went up this morning (Still going for that item)

The 30% discount was then applied to the hiked price

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)

I'll wait to get the item before they cancel it (I'm a prime member so will have it tomorrow) and then do it.

A couple of quid isnt an issue but it's more the principle and cheek of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)

I'll wait to get the item before they cancel it (I'm a prime member so will have it tomorrow) and then do it.

A couple of quid isnt an issue but it's more the principle and cheek of it!

 

Hang on!

It is unfair of them to jack the price to £268 to make the £220 lightning deal look better than if it was compared with from £250 to £220.

 

However, the stated "30 % off" IS valid, and not misleading.

The 30 % off is 96.50 off the RRP of 316.49

 

The "percentage off RRP" is independent of any intermediate pricing .... It doesn't matter if it was £268 or £250 before, as it won't affect the lightning deal price being 30% off RRP : as long as they are stating it is 30% off RRP, not "x% off our previous price"

 

All Amazon need do is say "price after lightning deal will be £268", and they are compliant with guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the actual bump in price just before the deal is allowed?

 

In actual fact, it does not say 30% of RRP or their price

It just stated "You save £96.50 (30%)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was priced at £250, now they've got it at £268 in the lightening sale, a saving of 15% off (48.49) the RRP of £316.49

 

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/what-are-my-rights-when-i-shop-in-a-sale-

 

It was on 'lightning deal' at £220.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/K%C3%A4rcher-Premium-Water-Cooled-Pressure-Washer/dp/B009QX8B9Y

It is now at £268, not on lightning deal. See my post #7 above, where I predicted this is what they would do so as to be compliant.

Sharp practice? possibly. Breaching guidelines? unlikely, as they don't mislead : it was 30% off the RRP

 

So the actual bump in price just before the deal is allowed?

 

In actual fact, it does not say 30% of RRP or their price

It just stated "You save £96.50 (30%)

 

It was 30% off the RRP, and is now back to 15% off RRP.

By your logic, if they had to compare it with the previous £250 price, they would have to say it is "7.2% increased" rather than "15% off" ; but the website shows the RRP, with it "struck through", their price underneath that, and the 'saving' beneath those, clearly showing that they are comparing their current price with the RRP.

 

I don't see how this can be held to be misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all - I guess bottom line is morality-wise, it's wrong/unfair for them to do what they did but as you quite rightfully pointed out, the RRP has not changed.

 

I would not be surprised if the Amazon price is back down to £250 tomorrow!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...