online retailer refusing return - need advice ***Resolved***

[rebel11]

Hi Brigs

 

Trade / wholesale websites don't allow access to members of the public, you have to register with them, they carry out checks etc. This for some reason wasn't applicable to the OP. As you know terms and conditions can be unfair.

 

Hi Rebel,

I (as added to post23) have taken a look at these "trade only"/ "wholesale" sites, one only has to "click on" the Ts & Cs/ returns policies sections to see that returns are restricted to "faulty" goods.

Also in the preamble/ intro to the site the words Trade Only and Wholesale are mentioned and more often than no highlighted.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Brigs

 

Trade / wholesale websites don't allow access to members of the public, you have to register with them, they carry out checks etc. This for some reason wasn't applicable to the OP. As you know terms and conditions can be unfair.

 

 

Hi Reb,

 

 

Most of these will allow Non Trade Purchases (tested this in the past) but the same Ts & Cs apply as to trade customers.

IMO unless the OP asks for a gesture of goodwill this will go nowhere.

[2REAL2RYAN]

Hi Brigs

Trade / wholesale websites don't allow access to members of the public, you have to register with them, they carry out checks etc. This for some reason wasn't applicable to the OP. As you know terms and conditions can be unfair.

 

 

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.

[2REAL2RYAN]

Hi Reb,

Most of these will allow Non Trade Purchases (tested this in the past) but the same Ts & Cs apply as to trade customers.

IMO unless the OP asks for a gesture of goodwill this will go nowhere.

 

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!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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 can't agree with calling them cowboys, one must especially when buying on line check Ts & Cs and trading policies or take the consequences of not doing so.

[2REAL2RYAN]

I can't agree with calling them cowboys, one must especially when buying on line check Ts & Cs and trading policies or take the consequences of not doing so.

 

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.

[rebel11]

A site can have all sorts of T & C's posted on their website, it doesn't make the T & C's fair or legal.

 

A classic example is Virgin Media, if you move somewhere where there is no Virgin Media coverage, they still expect you to pay the remaining months of the contract although you still want the product, but there is no coverage whatsoever. This is in their T & C's.

 

How fair is that?

 

I can't agree with calling them cowboys, one must especially when buying on line check Ts & Cs and trading policies or take the consequences of not doing so.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

 

 

NOT TRUE AND NOT FUNNY!!

 

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.

 

 

When offering advice here one tries to see the logic of both sides of a problem.

 

 

You refer again to "retailers" the site you used appears to clearly " trade only/wholesale" not retail.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A site can have all sorts of T & C's posted on their website, it doesn't make the T & C's fair or legal.

 

A classic example is Virgin Media, if you move somewhere where there is no Virgin Media coverage, they still expect you to pay the remaining months of the contract although you still want the product.

Hi reb,

 

 

The talk here is all about an "online retailer" looking at these sites again a few minutes ago all state " Trade Only"/" Wholesale"

But Not "retail".

If one wishes to take advantage of trade/wholesale prices offered by these dealers then their terms will still apply.

The titles of the sites make their status quite clear, obviously I cannot post links to such sites as they would be removed but they are there for all to see on the net.

[2REAL2RYAN]

When offering advice here one tries to see the logic of both sides of a problem.

 

 

You refer again to "retailers" the site you used appears to clearly " trade only/wholesale" not retail.

 

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...

[rebel11]

I can't find anything that states Trade/Wholesale are an exception to consumer rights, he's not a trader buying in bulk.

 

The other thing is that Trade/Wholesale invoice, the OP's transaction was carried out immediately because he's not a Trader.

 

Lets see what delevlops, he has other options.

 

Let's see how we get on.

 

Hi reb,

 

 

The talk here is all about an "online retailer" looking at these sites again a few minutes ago all state " Trade Only"/" Wholesale"

But Not "retail".

If one wishes to take advantage of trade/wholesale prices offered by these dealers then their terms will still apply.

The titles of the sites make their status quite clear, obviously I cannot post links to such sites as they would be removed but they are there for all to see on the net.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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 an admin fee and delivery charges.

 

what's this world coming to...

 

 

It's come to it, gone past it and is getting worse!

[rebel11]

Time for a 60's revival:-)

 

It's come to it, gone past it and is getting worse!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Time for a 60's revival:-)

OOOHHH "free love" an all that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BazzaS]

Hi Rebel,

I (as added to post23) have taken a look at these "trade only"/ "wholesale" sites, one only has to "click on" the Ts & Cs/ returns policies sections to see that returns are restricted to "faulty" goods.

Also in the preamble/ intro to the site the words Trade Only and Wholesale are mentioned and more often than no highlighted.

 

If the "Trade only" is an attempt to introduce an exclusion from the DSR's (or their replacements), then any such term must be prominent, rather than buried in terms and conditions.

 

Lord Denning's "in red ink, with a red hand pointing to it "

could apply : (from Spurling v Bradshaw) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw

 

As Brig has said : how prominent was this, either in the T's & C's or on the site, for a court to find if this really was "trade only".

[2REAL2RYAN]

If the "Trade only" is an attempt to introduce an exclusion from the DSR's (or their replacements), then any such term must be prominent, rather than buried in terms and conditions.

 

Lord Denning's "in red ink, with a red hand pointing to it "

could apply : (from Spurling v Bradshaw) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw

 

As Brig has said : how prominent was this, either in the T's & C's or on the site, for a court to find if this really was "trade only".

 

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!

[BazzaS]

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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

 

I've looked too : it doesn't seem to be on the home page.

 

It is in the T's and C's : more than once. (At 7.7 and 11.1)

 

Not in red ink with a red hand pointing to it, but it is on a separate line and bolded.

In 11.1 it is specifically set out for Snickers products.

 

In the end, a court would have to rule if it (as a term introducing an exclusion) was sufficiently highlighted to be allowed to stand.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If the "Trade only" is an attempt to introduce an exclusion from the DSR's (or their replacements), then any such term must be prominent, rather than buried in terms and conditions.

 

Lord Denning's "in red ink, with a red hand pointing to it "

could apply : (from Spurling v Bradshaw) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw

 

As Brig has said : how prominent was this, either in the T's & C's or on the site, for a court to find if this really was "trade only".

The Ts &Cs Returns Policy are there to click on and read.

 

 

The Terms "trade only" and "wholesale" as said are frequently mentioned and more often than not highlighted.

[2REAL2RYAN]

I've looked too : it doesn't seem to be on the home page.

 

It is in the T's and C's : more than once. (At 7.7 and 11.1)

 

Not in red ink with a red hand pointing to it, but it is on a separate line and bolded.

In 11.1 it is specifically set out for Snickers products.

 

In the end, a court would have to rule if it (as a term introducing an exclusion) was sufficiently highlighted to be allowed to stand.

 

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

Edited August 10, 2014 by 2REAL2RYAN

[BazzaS]

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

 

You claim you aren't a trade customer.

They'll claim that they don't need to make enquiries when you register on their site : their T's & C's are such that you hold yourself out to be a trade customer by agreeing to the T's & C's

 

It's a triable issue .....

[2REAL2RYAN]

You claim you aren't a trade customer.

They'll claim that they don't need to make enquiries when you register on their site : their T's & C's are such that you hold yourself out to be a trade customer by agreeing to the T's & C's

 

It's a triable issue .....

 

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

Edited August 10, 2014 by 2REAL2RYAN

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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

 

If you had read the conditions would you still have purchased to benefit from trade terms??

Your mistake for ordering in the first place, my guess is you can complain as much as you like if the wholesaler digs in you will have to litigate.

 

You are equally responsible here imo.

[BazzaS]

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.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate : a trader (A) has a retail customer (B) who asks them if they sell Snickers jeans.

They don't but agree to source a pair for one of their regular customers. A buy a pair on a trade only website as a trader, and act as a trader selling them on (at a profit) to B

 

The website has no way of knowing if A is a trader beyond the fact that it's T's & C's that A had to accept to submit their order.

 

The fact that this was for one pair of jeans only doesn't determine that it isn't trade.

It might increase the likelyhood it may not be trade but it is by no means conclusive.

 

I'm neither agreeing with you that it was never "trade",, nor agreeing with Brig that it had to be "trade"

I don't know how a court would rule : but I don't think it is as absolute as you feel confident it is.

[rebel11]

Hi 2Real2Ryan

 

Although Brigs disagree's with your position, you still need to respect him and his posts, you need to post within the site rules. I'm removing certain posts as they do not reflect the tone of the thread.

[2REAL2RYAN]

Hi 2Real2Ryan

 

Although Brigs disagree's with your position, you still need to respect him and his posts, you need to post within the site rules. I'm removing certain posts as they do not reflect the tone of the thread.

 

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!