Internet purchase - partial delivery.

[Jon Senior]

Nick wrote:
> I don't enjoy packing and shopping but I enjoy posting. Why do you read it?
>
> Just curious but if your time isn't worth much how much is your legal
> opinion worth?

I do wonder about the value of time. I could provide a number of
different values for my time, depending on what I'm am currently doing,
but the problem is that I'm only losing money if I do task x instead of
something that pays.

If you value your free time in £'s then presumably you pay yourself when
you aren't working. Perhaps Chainreaction value their time too highly to
contact customers about part orders on the grounds that one complaint in
<how ever many here have said that they prefer part orders?> costs them
less than the time required to wait for confirmation.

I can appreciate your point of view, and I understand why you'd prefer
that they had contacted you, but when someone says "My time is too
valuable" then they are opening the can of worms that you've just witnessed.

Jon

 

[The Cheese Machine]

Joe Lee wrote:

>>> Yep it definitely appears that ChainReaction are this type of
>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is not the general opinion of Chain Reaction who won
>>> Singletrack's Best Retailer award and generally get rave reviews for
>>> customer service.
>>>
>>>
>> Well I'm unhappy with them. By posting this thread I hope I have made
>> people like myself , who like to get what they order, aware of
>> ChainReaction's behaviour. Of course ChainReaction could easilly have
>> done this in their terms and conditions.
>
>
> The only thing you've demonstrated is your obsessive personality & sheer
> vindictiveness. No purpose has been served by your post other than an
> attempt to inflate your own ego.
>
>
>
I suspect there is more than a grain of truth there. A major factor
affecting the level of customer services received is... the attitude of
the customer. Most CS staff will go a long way to help a reasonable,
polite customer... but the self-important Arrogant **** will more often
get the short shrift.

[To the OP - you sound like somebody I know... are you a financial advisor
by any chance?]

 

[Nick]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>> I don't enjoy packing and shopping but I enjoy posting. Why do you read
>> it?
>>
>> Just curious but if your time isn't worth much how much is your legal
>> opinion worth?
>
> I do wonder about the value of time. I could provide a number of different
> values for my time, depending on what I'm am currently doing, but the
> problem is that I'm only losing money if I do task x instead of something
> that pays.
>

No the test is would you accept a job to do the work at the rate offered.
Personally I have to work longer hours than I would wish and have enough
money. If I could, I would work less hours for less money, but my job isn't
flexible. So I'm very defensive about my time. If others on the group value
money more than their free time it is up to them but my attitude doesn't
make me a bad person or arrogant.

Perhaps I don't express my self well and allowed it to sidetrack my
argument.

> If you value your free time in £'s then presumably you pay yourself when
> you aren't working. Perhaps Chainreaction value their time too highly to
> contact customers about part orders on the grounds that one complaint in
> <how ever many here have said that they prefer part orders?> costs them
> less than the time required to wait for confirmation.
>

Chainreaction could easily make the policy of partial delivery clear in
their terms and conditions. Instead they choose to state that I would be
informed the item was out off stock and given a choice to cancel the order.
My guess would be that this is decision take on purpose to maximise sales
and profits. I would also guess that despite what others say there are many
of us who are not willing to make the time to return unwanted goods

> I can appreciate your point of view, and I understand why you'd prefer
> that they had contacted you, but when someone says "My time is too
> valuable" then they are opening the can of worms that you've just
> witnessed.
>

The issue was that Chain Reaction are operating a dishonest policy, this was
not a mistake. It is also interesting to note that in this thread the people
who almost certainly do work for Chain Reaction prefer to **** me off
rather than explain their policy.

 

[Nick]

"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>>>> No I wouldn't have returned the pair that didn't fit. The time and
>>>> effort invloved isn't worth it for £40.
>>>>
>>>> If Chainreaction had delivered my total order I would have been
>>>> happy paying double for the one pair of shoes that fitted. I would
>>>> not have returned the pair that didn't. I would have thought my
>>>> behaviour was pretty normal?
>>>
>>> It's extraordinary behaviour because someone to whom £40 means so
>>> little would usually spend more than £40 on one pair of cycling
>>> shoes (since £80+ shoes are better). But you have the right be to
>>> extraordinary! Just don't be surprised that your story is being
>>> suspected because it is so extraordinary.
>>>
>>
>> Not that etxraordinary. Internet shopping seems designed for people
>> who don't have the time to go to the shops. I have'nt shopped at
>> tescos recently but I always used to have to pay a £5 for delivery.
>> If I bought SD60 sandals from the local shop they would cost £60. Not
>> having to spend an hour going to the shop and only paying £20 quid
>> extra for both sizes seemed ideal. No fitting mistakes, I could be
>> sure I had the best fit.
>>
>> If you know of a better pair of walkable, cycling shoes for hot
>> sweaty, wide feet I'm all ears.
>
> Fair enough. I didn't know they were *sandals*.
>
> I'd have to be extraordinarily warm to ride a bike in sandals but that's
> another debate entirely
>

In many circumstances I find sandals warmer than shoes. I think it is
something to do with blood supply.

 

[Nick]

"The Cheese Machine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Joe Lee wrote:

>> The only thing you've demonstrated is your obsessive personality & sheer
>> vindictiveness. No purpose has been served by your post other than an
>> attempt to inflate your own ego.
>>
>>
>>
> I suspect there is more than a grain of truth there. A major factor
> affecting the level of customer services received is... the attitude of
> the customer. Most CS staff will go a long way to help a reasonable,
> polite customer... but the self-important Arrogant **** will more often
> get the short shrift.
>
> [To the OP - you sound like somebody I know... are you a financial advisor
> by any chance?]
>
>

So you work for Chain Reaction. Rather than **** me off why not explain your
policy regarding partial orders and why it isn't in your terms and
conditions.

By the way are you the poster "Ginger ******" who used to spam the group
with stories about how **** Wiggle were and how we should all shop at Chain
Reaction.

 

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:17:41 +0100, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
<snip>
>
>> I can appreciate your point of view, and I understand why you'd prefer
>> that they had contacted you, but when someone says "My time is too
>> valuable" then they are opening the can of worms that you've just
>> witnessed.
>>
>
>The issue was that Chain Reaction are operating a dishonest policy, this was
>not a mistake.

Do you have any evidence for that suggestion?

The only such evidence, I believe, would be if you *know* it happens
most times that they only have part of an order available.

And there is no realistic reason why they would say they do contact
people and then *deliberately* not do so. How does this annoying of
customers benefit them?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A single fact can spoil a good argument.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[davek]

Wally wrote:
> It's a standard term. Anyone who doesn't know what it means is at liberty to
> look it up.

It is most certainly not a "standard" term - it's not in everyday use
by most people - and there are perfectly good plain English
alternatives. But I guess they don't make you sound so clever.

> Specifically, where does it say that they'll make an arbitrary
> decision as to whether the bits you've ordered are 'divisible', such that
> shipping the half order is sufficiently okay for them to have no need to
> contact the customer first?

Oh, come off it, it's hardly as if they have sent him one odd shoe
instead of a pair.

> There are far
> more obscene things in this world than deciding that you'd rather do
> something else than spend an hour or so of your non-work life scoring the
> return of your lost 40 quid less postage.

Yes, far more important to spend an hour or so of your valuable time
contributing to witless usenet arguments.

> The only knowledge that is needed is what the terms and conditions of the
> transaction state, and whether or not those T&C were adhered to.

Whether or not the T&C were adhered to is by no means as clear cut as
you seem to think it is.

>The rest is
> little more than a bunch of blowhards engaging in a loudest fart competiton.

On this, at least, I couldn't agree with you more.

d.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Nick wrote:

> Chainreaction could easily make the policy of partial delivery clear
> in their terms and conditions. Instead they choose to state that I
> would be informed the item was out off stock and given a choice to
> cancel the order. My guess would be that this is decision take on
> purpose to maximise sales and profits.

It seems most likely to me that what they mean by "order" is the order for
the one item that is out of stock, not the whole order -- an honest
oversight in wording rather than anything else.

Yes they should now clarify the policy but that's no reason to try and
screw them for a few quid now, especially because they are basically "good
guys" who generally provide excellent service. And no I do not work for
them. I have just been a customer and have read many reports from other
satisfied customers, and have experience of many dealers whose service is
no-where near as goods as CR's. It is not in your long-term interest to
punish CR.

> I would also guess that
> despite what others say there are many of us who are not willing to
> make the time to return unwanted goods

Few cyclists would not bother to return an unwanted £40 item, you /are/ an
extraordinary customer.

For example, the "job" could be combined with a recreational bike ride to
the post office whenever it is next convenient for you. That is one hell
of an easy way to make £35. Or you could use a courier service that
collects--you'd still be up on the deal.

~PB

 

[The Cheese Machine]

Nick wrote:


>> [To the OP - you sound like somebody I know... are you a financial
>> advisor by any chance?]
>>
>>
>>
> So you work for Chain Reaction.

How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion?? No I don't work for Chain
Reaction, or any other retailer for that matter.

> Rather than **** me off why not explain your policy regarding partial
> orders and why it isn't in your terms and conditions.
>
>
You are travelling even further down the wrong road. I have not "slagged
you off", merely expressed an opinion that there was a large grain of
truth in what the PP wrote. Partly because of your posts, partly because
of experience (as a consumer manufacturer rather than a retailer).

> By the way are you the poster "Ginger ******" who used to spam the group
> with stories about how **** Wiggle were and how we should all shop at
> Chain Reaction.

You are now making assumptions based on your own incorrect assumptions!
No. I do not work in a cycle-related industry at all. I do actually use
Wiggle quite a bit & have not had cause to be dissatisfied as yet. I have
never used Chain Reaction, and I notice you avoided my question.

I hope your reasoning when dealing with CR is a little more sound.

(P.S. - considering how valuable your time is, what monetary value would
you put on this thread?)

 

[Nick]

"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>> Chainreaction could easily make the policy of partial delivery clear
>> in their terms and conditions. Instead they choose to state that I
>> would be informed the item was out off stock and given a choice to
>> cancel the order. My guess would be that this is decision take on
>> purpose to maximise sales and profits.
>
> It seems most likely to me that what they mean by "order" is the order for
> the one item that is out of stock, not the whole order -- an honest
> oversight in wording rather than anything else.
>

But elsewhere, in the web order confirmation they use "order" to mean the
total order both items, both pairs of shoes. To be correct they should have
said cancel the item. You can argue this is sloppiness rather than
deliberate but the end effect is my interpretation was reasonable. I asked
them to take responsibility and they refused. It was not until they refused
a refund that I started to suspect it was deliberate rather than a mistake.

Don't forget also that there is also no mention at all of partial delivery.
I had assumed that leagally this had to be stated, I'm still not sure if
this is true or not. Chain Reatction are "Europes largest online retailer",
partial delivery is a topic I would reasonably have excepted them to
consider at some length.

So two mistakes. They also promised to send a confirmation email of the
order which I didn't recieve. They claimed to have sent it, now given I have
never had any other problems with my email I am also suspicious of this
claim.


>
> Yes they should now clarify the policy but that's no reason to try and
> screw them for a few quid now, especially because they are basically "good
> guys" who generally provide excellent service. And no I do not work for
> them. I have just been a customer and have read many reports from other
> satisfied customers, and have experience of many dealers whose service is
> no-where near as goods as CR's. It is not in your long-term interest to
> punish CR.
>

I'm not punishing them, what do you think I have said about them that is so
terrible. I'm just making clear what they actually do. I actually bought the
sandals because of a recomendation from this group. It only seems fair to
post the bad with the good. If more people took the trouble highlight bad
service I'm sure companies would make more effort to fix their problems. If
you aren't worried about the issues that concern me fair enough.


>> I would also guess that
>> despite what others say there are many of us who are not willing to
>> make the time to return unwanted goods
>
> Few cyclists would not bother to return an unwanted £40 item, you /are/ an
> extraordinary customer.
>

I know you like e-bay, etc, I don't, and while I'm sure a lot of people are
like you I'm also convinced a lot of people are like me. I don't think I'm
extraordinary.

I know a lot of people who don't return stuff. I remember one of the main
high street electrical stores used to have a policy of putting goods
returned as faulty back on display. For such a policy to work it assumes a
lot of people don't return **** let alone stuff they just don't want.

> For example, the "job" could be combined with a recreational bike ride to
> the post office whenever it is next convenient for you. That is one hell
> of an easy way to make £35. Or you could use a courier service that
> collects--you'd still be up on the deal.
>

No I would have to buy wrapping paper etc, etc. Then given that my personal
experience tells me not to trust Chain Reaction I have to consider the
probability that the wouldn't admit recieving the sandals, remember my
personal experience makes me not trust them.

Anyway it was their mistake. Why don't they organise the courier I did offer
to return the Sandals, I just asked that they organise the courier.

 

[Nick]

"The Cheese Machine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>
>>> [To the OP - you sound like somebody I know... are you a financial
>>> advisor by any chance?]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So you work for Chain Reaction.
>
> How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion?? No I don't work for Chain
> Reaction, or any other retailer for that matter.

Im sorry Cheese my mistake. It's sust you sound like you work in customer
support and I did ask that the sandals were deliverd to a bank.

I'm not a fanancial advisor, I'm a programmer, but a good insult if
intended. I really do hate them. Chain Reaction just **** me off slightly
;o)

> (P.S. - considering how valuable your time is, what monetary value would
> you put on this thread?)

As I said elsewhere posting is for fun, like chewing the cud in the pub.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick wrote:
>
> I'm not punishing them, what do you think I have said about them that is so
> terrible. I'm just making clear what they actually do. I actually bought the
> sandals because of a recomendation from this group. It only seems fair to
> post the bad with the good. If more people took the trouble highlight bad
> service I'm sure companies would make more effort to fix their problems. If
> you aren't worried about the issues that concern me fair enough.
>

a) you're not getting much sympathy here
b) its not resolving your issue
c) your complaint is irrelevant to most of us because we would never
order two pairs to buy one as you have done so the situation will never
arise with us.
d) you have plenty of money to waste so why not use it to do something
that helps. I am sure someone here local to you will collect them and
return them to CRC for you for £20 so you will be £20 up and they will
be £15 up or you could get some lawyers onto suing CRC for breach of
contract and costs.

Continuing to whinge here is not achieving anything other than making
you feel better complaining about a company with which most of us have
had very good experiences handling a situation most of us will never
have to encounter in an area of contract law that is unclear.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Pete Biggs]

Nick wrote:

> I'm not punishing them, what do you think I have said about them that
> is so terrible.

Stating the facts here is fine. It's trying to get them to pay the return
postage on a non-faulty item (merely because of sloppy policy wording) is
the "punishment", I think. But I'll agree to disagree on this point.

/snip
>> For example, the "job" could be combined with a recreational bike
>> ride to the post office whenever it is next convenient for you.
>> That is one hell of an easy way to make £35. Or you could use a
>> courier service that collects--you'd still be up on the deal.
>>
>
> No I would have to buy wrapping paper etc, etc. Then given that my
> personal experience tells me not to trust Chain Reaction I have to
> consider the probability that the wouldn't admit recieving the
> sandals, remember my personal experience makes me not trust them.

Any old material can be used for wrapping and you'd have proof of postage
or Recorded Delivery for a few pence extra. You'd only potentially be
loosing an unwanted item anyway. You don't want to return the goods
because you think you shouldn't have to, ok, the other reasons are excuses
because it's dead easy and cheap to return goods.

> Anyway it was their mistake. Why don't they organise the courier I
> did offer to return the Sandals, I just asked that they organise the
> courier.

And pay the courier.

~PB

 

[Peter Headland]

You ordered two pairs in order to find out which size was best for you.
I take it that the size which arrived does not fit, so you now know
exactly what size you need. Now go and buy those from someone else and
you will end up where you wanted to be. You were happy enough to end up
with a wrong-size pair at the outset of all of this, so you should
still be happy to end up with them via an alternative path.

You may say it will cost you more to buy the second pair from someone
else than CR would have charged you. Well, since they clearly didn't
have any stock of the size you wanted anyhow, you were always going to
have to spend the extra to get them, so that argument doesn't hold up
either.

--
Peter Headland

 

[Nick]

"Peter Headland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You ordered two pairs in order to find out which size was best for you.
> I take it that the size which arrived does not fit, so you now know
> exactly what size you need. Now go and buy those from someone else and
> you will end up where you wanted to be. You were happy enough to end up
> with a wrong-size pair at the outset of all of this, so you should
> still be happy to end up with them via an alternative path.
>
> You may say it will cost you more to buy the second pair from someone
> else than CR would have charged you. Well, since they clearly didn't
> have any stock of the size you wanted anyhow, you were always going to
> have to spend the extra to get them, so that argument doesn't hold up
> either.
>

My trust in internet suppliers has been severely dented. It appears that
most Internet customers here accept an interactive process where they return
(and bear the cost of postage + time taken) of orders messed up by the
supplier. I had hoped that the law would help me, firstly by default that a
supplier should deliver a total order as agreed (unless specified otherwise)
and then that the supplier would be bound by their own terms and conditions.

Given that my requirements do appear to be out of step with the views
expressed here I have reached the conclusion that it was a false economy for
me to attempt buying this stuff off the web and that I should shop at a
local bike shop.

Obviously going to the local bike shop I can try on both pairs of shoes on
and only need to buy one, the downside obviously is that it takes time. But
this is now time I have to take so the information that one pair doesn't fit
is pretty much worthless.

I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need many
separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for me in the
past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend orders where
some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even this is safe.

 

[Nick]

"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm not punishing them, what do you think I have said about them that
>> is so terrible.
>
> Stating the facts here is fine. It's trying to get them to pay the return
> postage on a non-faulty item (merely because of sloppy policy wording) is
> the "punishment", I think. But I'll agree to disagree on this point.
>
I'm not sure what we are disagreing on? Yep "punishment" is fair enough, if
they have no incentive to write clear terms and conditions why bother? They
haven't lost anything, in fact they got a sale they wouldn't have go had
they been clearer.

> /snip
>>> For example, the "job" could be combined with a recreational bike
>>> ride to the post office whenever it is next convenient for you.
>>> That is one hell of an easy way to make £35. Or you could use a
>>> courier service that collects--you'd still be up on the deal.
>>>
>>
>> No I would have to buy wrapping paper etc, etc. Then given that my
>> personal experience tells me not to trust Chain Reaction I have to
>> consider the probability that the wouldn't admit recieving the
>> sandals, remember my personal experience makes me not trust them.
>
> Any old material can be used for wrapping and you'd have proof of postage
> or Recorded Delivery for a few pence extra. You'd only potentially be
> loosing an unwanted item anyway. You don't want to return the goods
> because you think you shouldn't have to, ok, the other reasons are excuses
> because it's dead easy and cheap to return goods.
>

I really do hate returning stuff. I have a slighty faulty 19 inch LCD that I
really should replace under warranty. If I return anything this would always
have been first in the list and they do pay for and organise the courier.

>> Anyway it was their mistake. Why don't they organise the courier I
>> did offer to return the Sandals, I just asked that they organise the
>> courier.
>
> And pay the courier.
>

Yes if they had stuck to their terms and conditions there would have been no
need for a courier. Paying return should be an incentive for them to make an
effort that a customer really wants what they are about to send.

> ~PB
>
>

 

[Nick]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>>

I did reply to you earlier in the thread. Pretty much dealing with all these
points.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick wrote:
>
> My trust in internet suppliers has been severely dented. It appears that
> most Internet customers here accept an interactive process where they return
> (and bear the cost of postage + time taken) of orders messed up by the
> supplier. I had hoped that the law would help me, firstly by default that a
> supplier should deliver a total order as agreed (unless specified otherwise)
> and then that the supplier would be bound by their own terms and conditions.
>
> Given that my requirements do appear to be out of step with the views
> expressed here I have reached the conclusion that it was a false economy for
> me to attempt buying this stuff off the web and that I should shop at a
> local bike shop.
>
> Obviously going to the local bike shop I can try on both pairs of shoes on
> and only need to buy one, the downside obviously is that it takes time. But
> this is now time I have to take so the information that one pair doesn't fit
> is pretty much worthless.
>
> I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need many
> separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for me in the
> past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend orders where
> some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even this is safe.
>

Oh, for heaven's sake!

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Al C-F]

Nick wrote:

>
> My trust in internet suppliers has been severely dented. It appears that
> most Internet customers here accept an interactive process where they return
> (and bear the cost of postage + time taken) of orders messed up by the
> supplier.

I can't see how your supplier messed up. You might reasonably have
expected sale items to be in short supply.


I had hoped that the law would help me, firstly by default that a
> supplier should deliver a total order as agreed (unless specified otherwise)
> and then that the supplier would be bound by their own terms and conditions.

I believe the appropriate term here is 'quantum meruit'.
>
> Given that my requirements do appear to be out of step with the views
> expressed here I have reached the conclusion that it was a false economy for
> me to attempt buying this stuff off the web and that I should shop at a
> local bike shop.

There is always an element of risk with distance transactions - you seem
to have accepted that when you bought two pairs of shoes.
>
> Obviously going to the local bike shop I can try on both pairs of shoes on
> and only need to buy one, the downside obviously is that it takes time. But
> this is now time I have to take so the information that one pair doesn't fit
> is pretty much worthless.

You are better informed. You will spend less time in the shop and waste
less of the shop's time.
>
> I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need many
> separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for me in the
> past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend orders where
> some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even this is safe.
>
>
It's not if you use Microdirect. Even if you specify exactly what you
want, they can still manage to dispatch the wrong product, not return
your postage, and not return the surcharge they make for credit card
transactions. They are utterly incompetent.

 

[Clive George]

"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need many
> separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for me in
> the past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend orders
> where some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even this is
> safe.

Provided you're not deliberately buying the wrong thing, then you'll be
fine - if you get a part order, you can always fill it in from elsewhere.

clive