Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Great thanks, will leave 2 in then, replace 3 and I think its good to go.    This is exactly what I have in my word file ready to send, I think im happy with it and can send to mcol monday morning. Any further thoughts or things to update please let me know.   Again thank you both for your help, really is priceless.         Defence:   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.    2.     The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   3.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either having failed to plead an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   4.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      5.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a)   show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b)   show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c)   show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d)   show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Hi just a quickie   Now in reference to my Post#2 here have they actually provided you with those policies that I pointed out and importantly a copy of there Public Liability Insurance?   If they haven't   Make sure and send them a little reminder adding to the letter in Post#32 that so far they have failed to provide these and you require clarification as to their reason for this failure     Dear Sir/Madam   Complaint Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   Further to my recent letter about this matter Dated XX/XX/2021 I would also like to add that so far you have still failed to provide the following:   Copy of your Compensation Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Customer service Charter/Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Public Liability Insurance (not the leaflet) Copy of Repairs an Maintenance Policy (not the leaflet)   I asked for these is my letter to yourselves dated XX/XX/2021, to date you have failed to respond to this request nor is the Housing Association being Open and Accountable to it's Service Users and I require full clarification for the reason for this failure and when you are going to provide what I have requested.   If you refuse to provide these I require full clarification as to your reason with links to the relevant legislation and exactly which parts you are relying on for your refusal of my request.     Note: If they have answered this please ignore but from your responses I think they have tried to ignore this so you add this to put a rocket up their 'beep' so to speak.   You are more than welcome to the help it's what we are here for, you just look after yourself and take care     
    • The DVLA know less about POFA than my dog that died twenty years ago. They also never admit they have made an error.   Trading Standards would probably be a better avenue for you either on Council inaction on no pp thus appearing to aid and abet a PE scam, condoning PE committing an offence and allowing them to rip off the Council customers as well as financial impropriety by not insisting that PE pay for the requisite fees for permission. You could also complain to the ICO on the same grounds and get two investigations going.
    • I am surprised that POPLA found that your appeal had failed when Initial's response to the appeal had been withdrawn. There was no need for them to adjudicate. POP.LA should have agreed that you had won your appeal. I wonder if Initial  knew something that you and obviously POPLA didn't.  Ignore DRP. I was going to advise  you  write to Initial stating that as they had withdrawn their PCN on appeal so if DRP were acting on instructions from Initial they have breached your GDPR. However on second thoughts you may be best to send them a SAR first to get confirmation that they had withdrawn their claim before going for the breach.
    • so the eon A/C was never in her name anyway?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Woolworths 42" Tv £150 Advice Please


theauth0r
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5418 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

Today Woolworths advertised a Sharp 42" HD Ready TV for £150 on their website.

I logged on and decided to order 2 of these because these TV’s are valued at about £1200-£1600.

I proceeded through the checkout process and received my conformation code so all was looking good.

Delivery was set for Tuesday 19th Dec!!!!!

Now...

When I login, my order has been cancelled stating..

"Item cancelled by us at your request, or as notified by us (Email, SMS, Account Message or Phone Call)."

I have received no notification email/sms/account message or phone call.

I phoned the customer support team who advised that the price was listed in error as the TV’s are worth £1400+ and they have every right to cancel my order.

Can anyone advise if what they are saying is true, or if there is anything I can do with this case?

Cheers.

NatWest - £3750 - Settled

HSBC - £1100 - Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did their email say to you, after you had ordered the item?

 

The wording is quite important.

 

If it was just "we have received your order", simply an acknowledgement, then they can argue that they have not accepted your offer to purchase the televisions and no contract is in place.

 

If this is the case, there's absolutely nothing you can do (Most retailers are pretty hot on this now, after the Kodak camera case a few years ago where Kodak got the price wrong and labelled digital cameras at £100 rather than £329 - they ended up settling all orders).

 

 

If they took your money and confirmed your order, then there is an argument that you have a contract for the two televisions.

 

Now if this is the case, their defence in contract law will be that of "mistake".

 

Mistake is a vitiating factor in contract law (a factor which renders a contract voidable). In order to rely on this defence, the company has to prove that the mistake would have been obvious to the buyer.

 

If the goods are very obviously ridiculously cheap, this could be seen to prove that the mistake was obvious. In addition, if the consumer behaves in such a way that indicates they realise it is a mistake - for example, ordering more than one of the items - this also would help the company's argument that the mistake was obvious.

 

The Kodak case mentioned above would have had trouble, as the price was not ridiculously wrong. However, in a much older case - Hartog v Colin and Shields - there was a pricing error much more serious and the contract was voided in court as a mistake. This incident would seem likely to be seen as mistake, even if the contract had been made electronically.

 

Basically, either way there isn't a strong case I'm afraid.

  • Haha 1

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice!!!

I haven't received any emails from them. The only information I have had is in my account summary.

 

I have been looking further into this and it seems that Woolworths have covered themselfes in their T&C for things like this...

 

1.
Prices and Promotions

 

1.On occasion, the prices payable and promotions offered in respect of goods advertised on the Website may differ from those prices and promotions offered at the same time in Woolworths stores. We are under no obligation to honour any in-store price or promotion in the event that they differ from those on the Website. Similarly, Woolworths stores are under no obligation to honour any Website price or promotion in the event that they differ from those in-store.

2.Although we endeavour to ensure that all pricing information on the Website is accurate, occasionally an error may occur and goods may be mispriced. If we discover a pricing error we will, at our discretion, either: contact you and ask you whether you wish to cancel your order or continue with the order at the correct price; or notify you that we have cancelled your order. We will not be obliged to supply goods at the incorrect price.

3.Prices that are reduced for sales and promotions are only valid for the specified period.

4.We reserve the right to adjust prices, offers, goods and specifications of goods on the Website at our discretion at any time before (but not after) we accept your order.

 

I also had a look on the Trading Standards site and found this...

 

The Price is Right!

Under law, a retailer is entitled to decide the price he wants to charge for his goods.

The price on display is simply what the law calls an 'invitation to treat'. In the same way you don't have to buy goods from anyone, a retailer is under no obligation to sell you anything.

You cannot insist that a shop sells you anything at a marked price, whether or not they have made a mistake.

The law does not allow prices to be fixed and, contrary to common belief, goods are not subject to price controls.

 

 

Doesn’t look hopeful because as far as I can see they haven’t debited my account :mad:

NatWest - £3750 - Settled

HSBC - £1100 - Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes under section 2 as an error, and not the reserve the right to adjust prices part. They haven't done it out of spite or changed the price, they have just corrected an incorrect one.

If an offer looks too good to be true, it usually is, so as no money has been taken and no official confirmation, no action can be taken. Whilst it has been misadvertised, they have corrected this price as soon as possible.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and they are cracking telly's I have one of those..lol

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go onto woolworths site and buy something there is no mention at all of "click to accept terms and conditions" or "I accept t's and c's" etc.

 

Does this mean that consumers are bound by them if they are 'hidden' ?

 

Also, it would have been reasonable to assume that £150 for a £1000 telly was a genuine offer when they stated: "MASSIVE SAVINGS ON TV's - upto £800 off!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terms and conditions ought to be easily accessible and in order to form part of the contract ought to be flagged up during the order process.

 

However, that's not an issue here as what they are relying on to get them out of this mess isn't their terms and conditions, but contract law.

 

As they did not accept the OP's offer to purchase the TV (they didn't send him an email stating that the order had been accepted), there is no contract in place and therefore they do not have to sell the TV to him.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it would have been reasonable to assume that £150 for a £1000 telly was a genuine offer when they stated: "MASSIVE SAVINGS ON TV's - upto £800 off!!"

 

£1000 - £800 is still more than £150 - and thats ignoring the fact that they are actually £1400 tellies....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The £150 was a temporary error on the site. Although your order had been taken and confirmed, You would not have been billed for the television until it was ready for despatch. As you had not been billed and the error realised. Woolworths cancelled the order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone I work with told me about this mistake. We went onto the site to try and buy them but the 'more details' page didn't exist anymore! His friends had ordered them and had confirmation emails. They later received emails saying that it had been a mistake, although they had called Woolworths to check if the offer was legitimate and they confirmed that if it was on the website it was correct. One of his mates also had the money taken out of his account but I haven't heard if he recieved it or not - I assume he didn't.

 

I think that unless they actually take money you're not going to get very far with a complaint. I emailed them to ask why I couldn't purchase the TV which was showing as available and never got a reply (didn't really expect one!). I've heard that companies sometimes honour these mistakes as a goodwill gesture but most of them don't bother.

Credit Cards

Mint - £100 claimed :-)

Capital One - £60 claimed :-)

 

Bank Accounts

Barclays - SAR sent 05/02/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...