Tweet
Hi all,
Last week I went to a well known DIY retailer and bought a piece of furniture from them. It was a chair priced at £99.99, reduced from £349.99 as it's ex-display.
Anyway, just before actually handing over the cash, I notice that the tag on the item has two prices on it. One for the chair itself at £40.00 and another for furniture care at £59.99.
I tell the clerk that I don't need the furniture care but I'm told that "it comes with it anyway, it's part of the deal". I have my suspicions but am still happy with the price so proceed.
I get home and take a look at the paperwork.
This furniture care is, indeed, an insurance product and entitles me to the statutory 14-day cooling off period PLUS an additional 11 days.
So today I head back to the store to ask for my refund. I get into a slanging match with the 'manager' on duty.
I tell him that, as it's an insurance product, he REALLY shouldn't be forcefully selling it to me and CERTAINLY shouldn't be giving me no option other than to take it. I liken it to the mis-selling of PPI and he says "it's completely different".
I explain that the terms and conditions entitle me to a refund and he says "nobody here will give you a refund and if you phone head office they'll just ask for the chair back or cancel and refund the insurance and charge you another £59.99 for the chair instead."
I tell him that the FSA would take a dim view on the situation and he scoffs. He tells me that the deal on all ex-display stuff is that you have to take the insurance. I suggest that that's only the case because of the huge commissions they make on ex-display.
The pre-pubescent teen behind the desk then chimes up and says "it says on the label that you have to take it, so it's not false advertising". I challenge this by telling him that it's neither on the label (as other ex-display products are nearby with identical labels) nor legal to force sell it. He says "it's part of the deal".
I was astonished at the blase attitude these guys had to what I think COULD be a pretty major problem for them.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Cheers
Last week I went to a well known DIY retailer and bought a piece of furniture from them. It was a chair priced at £99.99, reduced from £349.99 as it's ex-display.
Anyway, just before actually handing over the cash, I notice that the tag on the item has two prices on it. One for the chair itself at £40.00 and another for furniture care at £59.99.
I tell the clerk that I don't need the furniture care but I'm told that "it comes with it anyway, it's part of the deal". I have my suspicions but am still happy with the price so proceed.
I get home and take a look at the paperwork.
This furniture care is, indeed, an insurance product and entitles me to the statutory 14-day cooling off period PLUS an additional 11 days.
So today I head back to the store to ask for my refund. I get into a slanging match with the 'manager' on duty.
I tell him that, as it's an insurance product, he REALLY shouldn't be forcefully selling it to me and CERTAINLY shouldn't be giving me no option other than to take it. I liken it to the mis-selling of PPI and he says "it's completely different".
I explain that the terms and conditions entitle me to a refund and he says "nobody here will give you a refund and if you phone head office they'll just ask for the chair back or cancel and refund the insurance and charge you another £59.99 for the chair instead."
I tell him that the FSA would take a dim view on the situation and he scoffs. He tells me that the deal on all ex-display stuff is that you have to take the insurance. I suggest that that's only the case because of the huge commissions they make on ex-display.
The pre-pubescent teen behind the desk then chimes up and says "it says on the label that you have to take it, so it's not false advertising". I challenge this by telling him that it's neither on the label (as other ex-display products are nearby with identical labels) nor legal to force sell it. He says "it's part of the deal".
I was astonished at the blase attitude these guys had to what I think COULD be a pretty major problem for them.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Cheers
Comment