Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[oldfogy]

 some idiot phoned up the day after the offer to query, at which point he was kept on hold for a while, whilst someone checked.

Usually the way.
Up-until that point it was probably automated so no-one knew anything different.
(Wonder if they are part of the FW Woolworth's group by any chance)

[UncleUB]

I can't believe they have taken £54.99 out of your bank account,what incompitence.I have always have good dealings with Play.com,but this will make make think twice and i shall always endevour to find the item somewhere else now,using Play.com as a last resort.
As you know I posted a link for a Joss Stone CD with www.dvd.co.uk.It was advertised at .99p,but after I posted the price went up to £4.49.They honoured the .99p price and I received the cd within a couple of days.

I hope you get a reply from trading standards Kitz,keep us posted.

Just to add,the official HP site are/were selling the printer for £150 (£100 off),so it looks like some idiot in charge of Play.com's website put the printer back up for sale at the rrp.

[camallison]

If you contact them again why not link to this thread and 'point out' the bad publicity that they are getting on a "World Renown Web Site".

dave

May I suggest that you wait a reasonable time for delivery first, then if no delivery "give em hell"

However, I was am under the impression that the law states that once payment has been received and "accepted" the deal is done.
So by them taking £54.99 they have accepted that as being the asking price, and not £149.99 or £259.99

*************
UB,
Please keep them coming, doddering old fxxxs like me can never seem to spot all these deals.

Since they took payment,a contract has (legally) been formed and you have every right to receive the goods at that price, mistakes or not.  The fact that they are in the Channel Islands shouldn't affect this either as a proper UK contract has been formed.  Certainly persevere with this and trading standards - the law has been broken.

[kitz]

Ive also got a cached copy of the page on Friday 21st of Nov 07:52 which shows that play.com were offering it £54.99 then.

This is looking less and less like a genuine mistake.   If it was why did it take them so long to cancel and recall all the orders.   Its now suspiciously looking like they got a higher than anticipated demand for these products are are trying to back out.

If they'd cancelled it on the same day and reversed the transaction it would be a different ball game, but they didnt and they still continued to take orders and process funds.
It should not have taken them until the Tues 25th to start processing refunds - my arrived this morning (27th).

[kitz]

Interesting development!

Play have today amended their T+C's

The following clause is no longer in their T+Cs and has been completely removed.

36: Title to any product ordered will pass to you once Play.com has received payment in full for that product.

 

[UncleUB]

So in theory even when you have paid for it its not yours.   

[roseway]

It's after the event though, isn't it? I think there's a very strong case for anyone who ordered and paid against this offer to get the product.

[kitz]

This is a copy of part of the email I got back from trading standards earlier this week, so it would appear that TS arent too enamoured with the situation

I am currently is discussion with Play in relation to their terms and conditions and hope to get back to you by the end of this week with our opinion and appropriate advice.

I think in this case the difference is that it took play so long to change their minds about this case.  After all the offer was certainly up on their site on Friday 21st at 07:52.
Play took a long time to recall/cancel the orders and continued to collect and process funds. They didnt start to arrange to process refunds until the 25th - (I got mine yesterday the 27th).
If it was an error on the site, then they should have realised the same day but they didnt, and they continued to take orders and process the funds.

I think what is looking extremely likely in this case is that it was a genuine good deal, but at some point on the Sunday some idiot phoned up to query it.
It was only after that time that they started to put a halt on things.... and IMHO its now looking like they just dont want to fulfil the amount of orders they got.

But play delayed again..  and although they somehow managed to stop the printers from actually going out...  they didnt attempt to start and arrange refunds until the Tuesday....  by which time.........   payment had been fully processed, and according to their own rules, title passed to me the day payment in full hit my account.

[kitz]

btw - whilst looking at their T+Cs this bit just stood out at me

If your delivery address is outside of Jersey, you may be subject to import duties and taxes, which are levied once a shipment reaches your country. Any such additional charges for customs clearance must be borne by you. You should note that customs policies vary widely from country to country; Play.com advises each customer to contact their local customs office for further information.

Does anyone know any more info about this - googling took me to HMRC which states

If you buy goods online from Jersey or Guernsey
Customs duty will not be charged.
Import VAT is charged if the value of the goods is €22 (£18)* and over.
Many Channel Islands companies are part of a ‘VAT pre-payment’ scheme. This means you will be asked to pay import VAT if the value of the goods is over €22 (£18)* at the time you pay for the goods. In this case you will not have to pay any additional costs when you receive your goods.

[camallison]

Late last week I bought something from Play that was certainly over that limit and wasn't asked to pay any additional VAT.  Interestingly, on the invoice/delivery note, it does mention that Play are part of the VAT prepayment scheme.

Hope that helps.

Colin

[kitz]

Thanks for that info Colin...   it was seeing the T+Cs that made me think about it.

[kitz]

Got this from Trading Standards this morning

Thank you for your patience in relation to the difficulties you have been experiencing with Play.com. I have been is discussions with the Directors who understandably have taken the opportunity to seek their own legal opinion.

It is clear that there appeared to be a conflict between a number of terms and conditions. As this is a contractual issue, the resolution of such issues on a point of law (other than through mutual negotiation) are through courts. Unfortunately, this particular issue has not been tested before so there is no judicial decision on which to place any degree of certainty of outcome.

It is therefore impossible for me to say whether the term relating to "title" has precedent over the other contractual terms.

Play, as we would expect, has taken immediate action in order to address the ambiguities for future customers. Whilst they feel the original terms and conditions were robust enough to deal with this mistake, taking into consideration the cost and lack of legal certainty, are at this point in time prepared to make a "without prejudice" offer, on a case by case basis.

If you would like to contact Play to discuss this offer, please send an e-mail to [dedicated contact address removed]. A dedicated representative from Play will then respond to you at the earliest opportunity.

I trust this information is of some help.

Many thanks

[camallison]

Good result - see what they come up with.  I disagree with the uncertain in law bit - errors and ommissions ar OK, that is until they take your money - at that point a legally binding contract is formed.  Best to sit it out and see what "wonderful" compromise they come up with.

Colin

[kitz]

I fired off an email but not had a reply from them as yet.

I'm thinking (guessing) that they are looking at each claim on a case by case basis, and hoping that they are going to give preference to those that ordered one, rather than those which ordered half a dozen or so to flog on ebay, which I did see mention of someone doing on another site.

[UncleUB]