Legal implications of using Littlewoods vouchers... - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Legal implications of using Littlewoods vouchers...

Benjimoron Avatar
9y, 1m agoPosted 9 years, 1 month ago
**ducky says: this thread wasn't started by Benjimoron, it is the continuation of discussion moved from another thread.**

No offence but I don't think Paul would want to get too involved with this. It sorta gives the site a bad name doesn't it? Tons of people abusing a voucher then taking the company to court etc! I haven't had anything through yet and I hope that I won't. I would be willing to argue it over the phone etc with them but I'm not going to go to small claims court over it, waste of time for me personally for £25, rather just work a couple of extra hours.
Other Links From Littlewoods:
Benjimoron Avatar
9y, 1m agoPosted 9 years, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(394) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Benjimoron
No offence but I don't think Paul would want to get too involved with this. It sorta gives the site a bad name doesn't it? Tons of people abusing a voucher then taking the company to court etc! I haven't had anything through yet and I hope that I won't. I would be willing to argue it over the phone etc with them but I'm not going to go to small claims court over it, waste of time for me personally for £25, rather just work a couple of extra hours.


It's all principal really. OK, so maybe the users weren't eligible to use the voucher? But Littlewoods should have made checks before dispatching goods, not two or three months down the line. We really can't let corporations screw people over, even if it's only 25 quid.

The BBC article says 3,000 orders. That's not £25. That's £75,000 and that kind of figure matters.

Also, may I refer you to this post by Admin. He's not getting involved, but will help out if need be.
#2
duckmagicuk2
It's all principal really. OK, so maybe the users weren't eligible to use the voucher? But Littlewoods should have made checks before dispatching goods, not two or three months down the line. We really can't let corporations screw people over, even if it's only 25 quid.

The BBC article says 3,000 orders. That's not £25. That's £75,000 and that kind of figure matters.

Also, may I refer you to this post by Admin. He's not getting involved, but will help out if need be.



I agree,

I'm not saying we shouldn't have used them, I used them myself. I just think if we use the hukd name whilst fighting it then we risk making ourselves look bad because what we did was wrong in the first place. I totally agree that what Littlewoods are doing is wrong, however none of this would've happened if we hadn't broken the t&c's and used a code not issued to ourselves?

I know it's a large total but for each person it would only be a couple of hours work. I wouldn't want them to get away with it but in the end it's alot of time and risk involved if we fight it, remember that none of it would've happened if we hadn't used someone else's code. Who posted it in the first place anyway???

Not sure how a court would view the fact that we used a code that wasn't issued to ourselves? BIG RISK!!!
#3
Benjimoron
Not sure how a court would view the fact that we used a code that wasn't issued to ourselves? BIG RISK!!!


But Littlewoods, in the eyes of consumer law, surely accepted that the code was valid when they took the money and dispatched the goods? I doubt they can write anything into their T&Cs that goes *against* standard consumer protection?
[admin]#4
That's right Ducky, the principle of the dispute is not that we used codes that we weren't entitled to, it's the fact that (as described in Littlewoods Ts & Cs) when we had our goods delivered, we were then in contract with Littlewoods. We have to stick to our side of the contract, so therefore why shoudn't littlewoods? And the fact that they wait for 12 weeks to demand money back so that orders can't be returned- I for one wouldn't have bought the item I used the voucher against and I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat...
banned#5
if littlewoods only wanted to release discount codes for a few customers they should have made them account specific, they knew that sites such as this existed and released the codes to generate more sales, i think time is a factor in whether the codes were accepted by littlewoods 3 months is a long time and imo that surely means they were accepted. Since they demand more payment the contract has been broken and the consumer can therefore refuse to pay the extra payment and return the goods.
1 Like #6
I agree with you all, I hate them for doing this.

HOWEVER what if a judge just says to you: "None of this would have happened if you didn't break the rules in the first place."

Then it would be your fault and Littlewoods would be seen (by the judge and the eyes of the public) to be protecting themselves from a group of people who were trying to rip Littlewoods off?
#7
I wish you all luck by the way but just think it's very risky in terms of the judge could blame you for it (then it becomes costly) and time consuming in that once I've spent two hours fighting it I could've just earned that money working and had far less stress. I've spent half hour arguing it here already and I'm not even involved!
#8
Benjimoron
I agree with you all, I hate them for doing this.

HOWEVER what if a judge just says to you: "None of this would have happened if you didn't break the rules in the first place."

Then it would be your fault and Littlewoods would be seen (by the judge and the eyes of the public) to be protecting themselves from a group of people who were trying to rip Littlewoods off?


I guess that's what they'd need firm legal advice on. ;-)
#9
Benjimoron
I agree with you all, I hate them for doing this.

HOWEVER what if a judge just says to you: "None of this would have happened if you didn't break the rules in the first place."

Then it would be your fault and Littlewoods would be seen (by the judge and the eyes of the public) to be protecting themselves from a group of people who were trying to rip Littlewoods off?


I appreciate what you are saying, but it is a moot point. Yes, we used codes we shouldn't have done BUT Littlewoods dispatched the orders and therefore validated the codes and created a legally binding contract under the DSR...
#10
not_the_messiah
I appreciate what you are saying, but it is a moot point. Yes, we used codes we shouldn't have done BUT Littlewoods dispatched the orders and therefore validated the codes and created a legally binding contract under the DSR...



BUT they've now realised that you fraudulently used a code that wasn't issued to you, what do you say to that?
#11
hothothot
the thing is how does it take 3 months to figure out that too many people are using these codes? any reasonable company would stop these codes from working asap.



Doesn't stop the fact that you broke the rules first and caused all this. None of this would have happened if you hadn't used the code! Can't see what your defence is going to be to that?
#12
Were both to blame, littlewoods and the people that used the code.

1. Littlewoods shouldent have dispatched the goods then 3 months later demand the money back.

2. We shouldent have used those codes that we wernt legal for us to use.
#13
Benjimoron
BUT they've now realised that you fraudulently used a code that wasn't issued to you, what do you say to that?

I don't want to get into this again, but it doesn't matter what the hell happened before the goods were dispatched. The contract was formed once the goods were dispatched - there is no getting out of this.

In addition, if they were 100% in the right, why have some peoples vouchers (inc mine) been reinstated then?
banned#14
however using the code only breaks the T&Cs of LW and i dont think it actually breaks any laws, whereas i am certain LW have broken a statute (BTW i didnt use the code)
#15
Littlewoods wouldent have asked so many people for the money back if they dident know what they was getting into.

Obviously they have thought about it, and if anyone takes them to court, i think they will probably win, because we shouldent have used the code. If they thought they wernt going to win, then they wouldent ask so many people for money back.

Would they?

-- Edit

Ok, that was my last post on this thread.
#16
They've only had to claim this money back because we knowingly broke the rules first! I'm not trying to fight you, you'll have plently of that to do in court. I'm just preparing you for some of the questions you'll be asked.

I don't think they've broken any law because they are just trying to recover their losses because we fraudunlenty used a code!
#17
Judges don't make the law, the ordinary rules of contract law apply here. The codes where legally validated against the names and addresses of the customer, the contracts were completed. Had LW sent an email declining the use of the voucher giving the opportunity to cancel, that would be a different matter. As it is LW would have great difficulty arguing a defence in court.
#18
Admin
I think it may be best to split discussion into a separate thread and have this thread only for those who agree on their course of action.

Let a lawyer give advice once there is a body of people and a clear joint story.


Excellent idea...
#19
Admin
I think it may be best to split discussion into a separate thread and have this thread only for those who agree on their course of action.

Let a lawyer give advice once there is a body of people and a clear joint story.



Ok boss!

I'll let it rest there, just my last comment to say that I took a chance on that code knowing that I shouldn't have used it and I might end up paying the extra £25, some you win some you lose. That one I will probably lose but there's no point risking time and money over it.

Time to move on to another deal.
#20
Benjimoron
Ok boss!

I'll let it rest there, just my last comment to say that I took a chance on that code knowing that I shouldn't have used it and I might end up paying the extra £25, some you win some you lose. That one I will probably lose but there's no point risking time and money over it.

Time to move on to another deal.

I agree with your way of looking at things in this thread matey:thumbsup: I would suggest another thread for people to argue the legal aspects in but there are FAR too may LXD arguments going on already:giggle:

Good luck to those that try, but I don't forsee a happy outcome.
banned#21
however most cases never actaually go to court, so LW could just end up repaying everyones money, if i were LW i would avoid going to court because once the media get hold of this it will create a poor image of LW. Also £25 for each customer that used the code is small change for LW.
#22
Littlewoods haven't got a GOOD image to ruin in the first place, lets be honest :lol:

From LXD's perspective...

Roll over and get nothing (but still have the bad publicity this has already generated), or get a bit more bad publicity and £75k. I know what i'd do in LXD's position, seeing as i've nowt to lose ;-)
banned#23
Shengis
Littlewoods haven't got a GOOD image to ruin in the first place, lets be honest :lol:

From LXD's perspective...

Roll over and get nothing (but still have the bad publicity this has already generated), or get a bit more bad publicity and £75k. I know what i'd do in LXD's position, seeing as i've nowt to lose ;-)

LW could perhaps even be fined though :thumbsup:
#24
Looks like I've started this thread now! Don't remember doing that! Cool thread name BTW, makes me sound intelectual!

Thanks for the support shengis, nice to see someone agrees.

Look at it this way then, if you stole a credit card and bought some stuff with it. Then 3 months later the company realised and came after you looking for their money would you pay it or take them to court?

As you say at the point the contract was made they accepted payment, so you would take them to court?
#25
hothothot
LW could perhaps even be fined though :thumbsup:

Maybe so, at least on the DSR front.

Back to what Ben was saying on the fraud aspect. People always throw up the same arguement, if its fraud why don't LXD take us to court. Simple. Fraud is a CRIMINAL act and a private company can't start a criminal case, afaik only the CPS can do that and for £25 they wouldn't bother. Too busy persecuting car drivers:giggle:
banned#26
Benjimoron
Looks like I've started this thread now! Don't remember doing that! Cool thread name BTW, makes me sound intelectual!

Thanks for the support shengis, nice to see someone agrees.

Look at it this way then, if you stole a credit card and bought some stuff with it. Then 3 months later the company realised and came after you looking for their money would you pay it or take them to court?

As you say at the point the contract was made they accepted payment, so you would take them to court?

well stealing a credit card is theft and is breaking the law, whereas using a LW code that im not supposed to means Iam only breaking T&Cs of LW, btw im not against you, i see your point of view clearly but what is worse, LW breaking a legally binding contract or customers that are breaking the T&Cs of a LW?
#27
Benjimoron
Looks like I've started this thread now! Don't remember doing that! Cool thread name BTW, makes me sound intelectual!

Thanks for the support shengis, nice to see someone agrees.

Look at it this way then, if you stole a credit card and bought some stuff with it. Then 3 months later the company realised and came after you looking for their money would you pay it or take them to court?

As you say at the point the contract was made they accepted payment, so you would take them to court?


I vote this analogy the WORST EVER ANALOGY IN THE HISTORY OF BAD ANALOGIES. :thumbsup:
#28
Hothothot. What essentially IS a voucher? A note of credit maybe? ;-)
banned#29
Shengis
Hothothot. What essentially IS a voucher? A note of credit maybe? ;-)

good point, this is difficult though I dont know all the defintions of offences etc, but when people used the code did it say it was only for certain customers?
we need a lawyer here
#30
The problem is people post the voucher code. That's it. No t&c's. For all I or anybody else know, the £25 code could very well have had :

"9.2: This code is only valid if you are the spawn of satan beggoten by the mating of a wildebeest and a dog".

Doesn't seem that improbable, does it? ;-)
#31
thesaint
I vote this analogy the WORST EVER ANALOGY IN THE HISTORY OF BAD ANALOGIES. :thumbsup:



Both using an amount of money (or credit) that wasn't yours and being asked to give it back. Fair enough one is definately illegal and the other is possibly fraud. Other than that I can't see much of a difference.
banned#32
well imo LW were careless in releasing the code, they should have forseen that the code would be spread around.
#33
hothothot
well imo LW were careless in releasing the code, they should have forseen that the code would be spread around.



Whoever invented guns was careless, they should've forseen they would've killed loads of people. Doesn't mean that each person kiling someone with a gun can blame the inventor!
banned#34
what im saying is LW knew that the code would get around and therefore increase sales
banned#35
hothothot
what im saying is LW knew that the code would get around and therefore increase sales


Quite correct. They have done so to gain an unfair trading advantage.

I would imagine their competitors are not happy about losing trade through bogus tactics, nor Trading standards, nor....... the courts when it gets there!!! :whistling:
#36
Who can deny the following?

1. You used a code which was not meant for you, gaining a discount as a result.

2. Littlewoods are claiming back that discount as it was not meant for you.

3. Littlewoods are only doing this because you used a code which broke their t&c's.

4. If you hadn't used the code that wasn't meant for you then Littlewoods wouldn't have to claim their money back and we wouldn't be in this situation.
#37
I used the code and accept that it wasnt issued to me and I shouldnt have done so. The problem is that they didnt ask for the money until 3 months later, when the goods cant be returned.

I accepted a £15 credit to the account (the usual discount for new customers) and paid the extra £10. The product I ordered was something I wanted anyway, so at least I got £15 discount on it.

I wasnt prepared to argue with littlewoods over this code as I know that I was wrong to use it in the first place. The amount of stress it would have caused, plus the cost of phone calls etc isnt worth £10 (as you can have £15 discounted for new customers) in my opinion
banned#38
benjimoron i understand what your saying but LW wont let people return goods they purchased that they otherwise wouldnt have purchased without the use of the a discount code.
#39
hothothot
benjimoron i understand what your saying but LW wont let people return goods they purchased that they otherwise wouldnt have purchased without the use of the a discount code.



But you knew the code wasn't meant for you and you knew that the had every right to reclaim it?

AFAIC this is a risk you knew about and accepted when using the code.
banned#40
well maybe so, but if i had used the code i would have thought that the english legal system would have protected myself against this unfortunate mishappening.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!