Littlewoods wants discount refund

[Majago]

Source

Seems a bit cheeky to me, I expect there are many people who only shopped with them becuase of the voucher so to get the consumer to reimburse them seems a bit off.

I remember the bit in the article about Threshers, printed off one of those voucher myself!

Did anyone on here try using one of these discount codes? If so, is the situation in reality the same as being made out by the news outlets?

 

[Gilly]

Precedent has been set for the retailed to honour the agreements but by the letter of the law it seems they're fully entitled to approach the purchaser for the money back.

 

[Majago]

Yes, they're fully entitled to ask for the money back, as stated in their terms and conditions. Had it not been to the voucher though, I expect there are many orders that wouldn't have been placed so I don't believe that they have really lost out by honouring the voucher.

 

[Gilly]

Thats true, however, if the small print had been read the purchasers would have seen that they weren't entitled to the money off.

If they really have been to trading standards and they've OK'd it then people are going to have to pay money back or have possible bailiff/court problems.

 

[TheCrow]

Isnt it up to them at time of purchese to decide whether the voucher is valid or not due to the small print?

I thought a sale was a contract agreement x for y - y happens to be a invalid voucher but could have been anything that they agreed to sell it for?

 

[JIM_BOB7813]

Seems a bit cheeky to me

Very cheeky, they must have seen that loads of orders were being made using £25 off vouchers, they must get thousands of hits from places like hukd because the vouchers get posted.

Seems like a bit of a con, very underhanded thing to do. They may have gotten lots of extra sales, but now comes the bad publicity. noobs

 

[Muffin`]

Err floodgates?

Anyone know if this is in other big retailers T&C's? Give a retailer half a chance to have a guaranteed cash in and they are there.

 

[Breeze]

Isnt it up to them at time of purchese to decide whether the voucher is valid or not due to the small print?

I thought a sale was a contract agreement x for y - y happens to be a invalid voucher but could have been anything that they agreed to sell it for?

Is correct. According to trading standards they (LW's) have broken the law. The idiots have also broken there own T&C's.

 

[Muffin`]

Is correct. According to trading standards they (LW's) have broken the law. The idiots have also broken there own T&C's.

Says who?

Littlwoods/Primark will have some ex-TS working for them like every large retailer to have someone on hand for fast response on these sorts of matters, and I doubt they would have gone public with this if it was illegal to demand the money back.

 

[Gilly]

Is correct. According to trading standards they (LW's) have broken the law. The idiots have also broken there own T&C's.

How do you arrive at that?

From the linked article:

He added that Trading Standards in Liverpool had been informed and were "satisfied" with their actions.

The terms and conditions on the discount voucher state that the promotion can only be accepted if used by the person to whom it has been directly issued.

It also said: "In the event that the code has not been issued to you for your personal use or you do not qualify for the offer, the price of the order will be adjusted notwithstanding any email or other confirmation that you receive.

That says Trading Standards are backing them and that the purchasers were breaking the Terms & Conditions...

 

[TheCrow]

"can only be accepted if used by the person to whom it has been directly issued." whats the definition of directly issued when there is no names on them?

 

[Phil99]

2.1 All orders placed through our website will be subject to our acceptance of the order.

2.2 When you submit an order to us on our website you will receive a 'bounce back' confirmatory email of this order saying that we are processing your order. You will then receive a second email from us acknowledging your order and giving you estimated timescales for delivery. You should check both emails for accuracy and let us know immediately if there are any errors. Neither of these emails constitute acceptance of the order by us. Your order will be accepted by us (and a contract will then be formed between us) when we despatch the goods to you. Title to the goods will pass to you on delivery.

2.3 Where you have redeemed a promotional code or any other offer ("a Code") against your order, acceptance of this order is subject to our verifying that the Code has been issued to you personally, that you comply with all the terms of the offer and qualify for the Code. In the event that the Code has not been issued to you for your personal use or you do not qualify for the offer, the price of the order will be adjusted notwithstanding any email or other confirmation that you receive.

2.4 Should you wish to cancel your order or return any goods, please go to the Returns section for further information.

I'm no lawyer, but surely them dispatching the goods is as a result of them confirming the order, which as it says above involves confirming 'that you comply with all the terms of the offer and qualify for the Code.'. I would imagine that on the flip side they could say the contract was made void by the fact that you do not comply with the T&C of the code though

 

[Gilly]

"can only be accepted if used by the person to whom it has been directly issued." whats the definition of directly issued when there is no names on them?

Issued directly from the company at a guess. You don't think they'd have kept a list?

I'm no lawyer, but surely them dispatching the goods is as a result of them confirming the order, which as it says above involves confirming 'that you comply with all the terms of the offer and qualify for the Code.'. I would imagine that on the flip side they could say the contract was made void by the fact that you do not comply with the T&C of the code though

Yep, they're confirming the order but not that you qualify for the discount. 'acceptance of this order is subject to our verifying that the Code has been issued to you personally'.

This has now been verified and found not to be the case.

 

[Phil99]

Just remembered another factor that may make this case different to some others - Littlewoods charge the full amount to the card (and is listed as such on statements) and then the discount is then refunded back on to the card in a seperate transaction.

 

[Shadez]

The way i read the t&c's

Your order will be accepted by us (and a contract will then be formed between us) when we despatch the goods to you. Title to the goods will pass to you on delivery.

So by shipping the goods they have accepted the order, they cant now turn around and change there mind.

2.3 Where you have redeemed a promotional code or any other offer ("a Code") against your order, acceptance of this order is subject to our verifying that the Code has been issued to you personally, that you comply with all the terms of the offer and qualify for the Code. In the event that the Code has not been issued to you for your personal use or you do not qualify for the offer, the price of the order will be adjusted notwithstanding any email or other confirmation that you receive.

As part of the acceptance process they will check you have used a valid voucher, if they find that its not yours will charge you more.

 

[chimaera]

Maybe they should've distributed more secure discount codes, it's their own fault for being so stupid in the first place.

It doesn't take much to develop a system where a unique code can only be used once. Littlewoods were lazy and got exactly what they deserved.

 

[Gilly]

So by shipping the goods they have accepted the order, they cant now turn around and change there mind.

And they're not. The order is fine.

As part of the acceptance process they will check you have used a valid voucher, if they find that its not yours will charge you more.

Incorrect. Not as part of acceptance of the order.