M & S online shopping

[vinorose]

I hope I've put this question in the right place.

 

I placed an order online with M & S and duly received it. My problem is they sent me one item with an original tag that had a price lower than what I was charged.

 

Having spoken to their customer services I was told that it was an error in their packing dept. and the tag should have been changed to the price I was charged but it was obviously overlooked. They are refusing a refund of the difference.

 

Does anyone know the law on this please? Do I have to accept the price I was charged or should I get a refund?

[Michael Browne]

What was the price you were charged and the price on the tag?

[vinorose]

I was charged £12 and the tag price is £9.50. I know it's not much of a difference but every little helps.

[Michael Browne]

Yes it's a small amount, but it represents a 20% difference. I've no idea of the legal position, but I suspect you would have no case and even if you did it would be an awful lot of hassle for £2.50. I suggest you write a very polite letter pointing out the discrepancy and that you are very disappointed that they are selling items on-line for more than the ticket price.

[vinorose]

OK MB thank you for your replies.

[vinorose]

I've decided to take this further. If 1,000 consumers purchased the same item that would mean M & S made a profit of £2,500. It may seem small fry to you but it's the principal to me.

[heliosuk]

I'm not so sure that they can do this. What it implies is that the price has been reduced from £12 to £9.50 so the question has to be have they put the price back up ( as most ordinary people would more than likely think) or failed to reduce the £12 pair.

 

Whichever way you look at it, what cannot be condoned is not honouring the price on the tag and if I were you I'd go back and say that this is not acceptable treatment of a M & S customer. Perhaps use their ad slogans "This is not an ordinary deal but a M&S deal" and add "where we feel entitled to rip you off for an extra 20%"".

 

Perhaps a call to trading standards would not go amiss as if it's happened once then it more than likely has happened to others. A cutting letter to the CEO won't go amiss either.

 

It's not necessarilly the legal position here but the attitude of a institutional British company and their honour and principal.

[vinorose]

Thank you for your response helios. I've sent another email to customer services stating that I will take this up with Robert Swannell unless the matter is sorted to my satisfaction.

 

I'm a consumer and I see it that M&S have added the new 20% vat (rounded up) to con the consumer. I expect a reply within 24 hours so I'll reply with the outcome asap.

[heliosuk]

Reckon you're doing the right thing vinorose as you rightly point out M&S are quite probably taking consumers for a ride here.

[perplexity]

A usual rule with regard to an eventual adjustment of the a price is that the same should apply to both sides of a bargain.

 

If they sent you an item with a £14.50 price tag, would you then be willing to pay the extra £2.50?

 

I have often purchased goods that were marked with a price that is lower that the price I paid, but never saw fit to complain.

[heliosuk]

Can see your point perplexity but don't you think it's a matter of principal??

 

Especially from such a co such as M&S.

 

I think Vino has a good point albeit moral rather than legal. It's interesting to note that had this been posted on the motoring forums Tom , Dick and Harry would be going for the lower price. Interesting site this as the opinions seem to change based on value of the goods and what they are whereas in reality they are "goods" irrespective of what!

[perplexity]

The EU Directive 1999/44/EC defines the relevant principles, e.g.

 

The consumer is not entitled to have the contract rescinded if the lack of conformity is minor.

----

 

Section 5(5) of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 provides a useful list of the main characteristics of a product.

[Crapstone]

If you agree to a price then regardless of the tags and previous sales price you are held to that. How many times have people bought something only to see it reduced the next day or see the price raised? You had an invitation to treat, took that opportunity and were happy with the price paid. The fact that it may have have been on sale previously at a lesser price has no meaning unless they have breached any laws on advertising a 'sale'. The law doesn't decide what is a 'fair' price to pay in a contract, you do.

 

If I pay for an antique and it arrives with a tag in shillings and pence would I have the right to demand to pay that price?