Watchdog talks about Amazon closing accounts

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

And 'honey' they wouldn't give a hoot about my opinion whether I spend money with them or not. I'm not biting off my nose to spite my face. I buy from them when it suits me. And I can still complain if I want.

I hate Sky but I have a subscription, because it's that or nothing, I just lower my expectations which is what I've done with Amazon.

It's Amazon or nothing?

Oh well, I didn't realize that you literally have no option other than to buy things from Amazon. Presumably that's the law @Cinisajy was talking about before:

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Hey HarryT,
Since you are in the UK can you answer me a question.
Is there a law that says people have to buy stuff at Amazon?
@eschwartz, on the cumulative that is like saying one cigarette is only a quarter. Those quarters add up fast. So yes, she may be only buying low cost items but it still adds up. And puts money in Amazon's pocket.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Thank you. With some of what's been said I was starting to wonder. It was sounding like Amazon was the ONLY place to shop.
So in other words, people in the UK that don't like Amazon's policies are not bound by law to shop there. They are free to spend their money elsewhere.
Did I get that right?

So here we have HarryT who says there is no UK law obligating consumers to patronize Amazon. That fits with my expectations, and with US law as far as I am aware.

And you are telling me that there is such a law. Or maybe that the goods you wish to buy are not available elsewhere on the market (maybe Amazon is a monopoly after all?)...


Very interesting...
Clearly the issue is fare more drastic than I thought.


@Difflugia mentioned something about millions of Amazon customers in the same boat as you:

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I just did a Google search for "Amazon closed my account". If I only read the first page of the "about 51,300,000 results" then I would know of 10 accounts being closed or threatened.

Maybe it's time for a Class Action lawsuit?
Amazon shouldn't be allowed to get away with refusing to sell people things, if they are an undisputed monopoly...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

Anyone else taking a pot shot? I'm getting mightlily p***ed off by the holier than thou attitude on here. Or is Harry going to simply tell me to shut up and go away again?

I don't remember HarryT saying any such thing.
I do however remember him asking you whether or not you meant it when you claimed that you were going away.

It's a good question.
Not that I am upset that you are still here -- I don't feel threatened, and I doubt anyone else is either -- I just want to know whether or not you plan on being consistent, and/or if you are as consistent with your story as you are with your other claims.

...

If you don't want people taking "potshots" at you, you had no business stepping into the middle of a flame war on an internet forum.
Sorry.
You walked right into that one.

...



Only... who?
Maybe everyone, for a change.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

You didn't feature in the programme as someone whose account has been closed though. Those who did, were they as forthcoming with all their returns or did Watchdog choose to focus on a headline grabber and not bother to properly investigate? It seems like the latter.


The fact is, we don't actually know if this is the case or not. There might be more linking the accounts than them just staying at the same address.

It was such a shallow piece that it's difficult to take anything concrete from it, other than what we already know.

Yes that's a shame Watchdog didn't get all the facts, as to why accounts were closed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Yes that's a shame Watchdog didn't get all the facts, as to why accounts were closed.

The point is though that from a legal perspective it simply doesn't matter. Amazon can close your account for any reason or for no reason at all. They don't have to justify it, and you have no right of appeal. Provided it breaks no discrimination law, a company can choose to do business with you or not entirely at its whim, just as you can choose who you do business with. Legally it's completely a "non story".

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Yes that's a shame Watchdog didn't get all the facts, as to why accounts were closed.

Or they did get and thought it rather wise to not disclose lest they wanted a non-story. Unless they were trying to say that Amazon wasn't wrong to close the accounts (the ones they featured). I am not saying that there is never a account that is closed unfairly, but it is hard to find such a case and have both parties (Amazon and customer) give full disclosure.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The point is though that from a legal perspective it simply doesn't matter. Amazon can close your account for any reason or for no reason at all. They don't have to justify it, and you have no right of appeal. Provided it breaks no discrimination law, a company can choose to do business with you or not entirely at its whim, just as you can choose who you do business with. Legally it's completely a "non story".

Yes I know legally for now. There seems no recourse for the customer, going forward I would think with more customers more complaints would naturally surface with disputable returns.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The point is though that from a legal perspective it simply doesn't matter. Amazon can close your account for any reason or for no reason at all. They don't have to justify it, and you have no right of appeal. Provided it breaks no discrimination law, a company can choose to do business with you or not entirely at its whim, just as you can choose who you do business with. Legally it's completely a "non story".

I know businesses in the US have "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". The only time that leads to trouble is if they say we won't serve you because you are _______. Fill in the blank with the race or sexual orientation or religion of your choice.

I once saw a restaurant give a guy his money back because the cashier didn't refuse him. It was a child centered place and he was wearing a very offensive t-shirt for that environment.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Or they did get and thought it rather wise to not disclose lest they wanted a non-story. Unless they were trying to say that Amazon wasn't wrong to close the accounts (the ones they featured). I am not saying that there is never a account that is closed unfairly, but it is hard to find such a case and have both parties (Amazon and customer) give full disclosure.

I don't know about that, it seems more customers are wanting full disclosure , more than Amazon is willing so far to give. At least the honest customers.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

Anyone else taking a pot shot? I'm getting mightlily p***ed off by the holier than thou attitude on here.

And yet the remedy is so easy, if that were so.

Now me, I think you like the attention.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I know businesses in the US have "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". The only time that leads to trouble is if they say we won't serve you because you are _______. Fill in the blank with the race or sexual orientation or religion of your choice.

I once saw a restaurant give a guy his money back because the cashier didn't refuse him. It was a child centered place and he was wearing a very offensive t-shirt for that environment.

It was interesting on this "Watchdog" programme (which is one of those "crusading for the rights of the consumer" type programmes) that they had a consumer law expert in the item, and she wasn't able to claim that Amazon were breaking any law. None of the three people featured in the programme got their account reinstated.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It was interesting on this "Watchdog" programme (which is one of those "crusading for the rights of the consumer" type programmes) that they had a consumer law expert in the item, and she wasn't able to claim that Amazon were breaking any law. None of the three people featured in the programme got their account reinstated.

So you mean out of all the thousands of UK Amazon customers, this news program could only find 3 customers that had their accounts closed.
This doesn't seem to be such a big problem.

[HarryT]

It was actually only two guys, and then the brother of one of them, who got his account closed as a "linked account". Both of them said they'd returned multiple items.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Yes, the customer would win in that case because selling a used anything as new is fraud. That was a clear cut case.
Oh and how could one prove that a Rolex hadn't been used.

Before I opened my store 26 years ago, I used to do wholesale repairs. All of the corporate jewelry store chains send their returns to be refurbished. You would size them back to the original size, polish them and rhodium plate the white gold pieces. They would then put them back out for sale as new. They did this in the 1970's, 1980's and even in the 1990s. And I would bet money that they continue to do it to this day.
The Kmart in my town was closing and having a going out of business sale. The company shipped in unclaimed repairs that had been stored at the corporate offices, and sold them as new. I was getting the stuff in for repairs after they closed and they were obviously used and repaired.
Apache

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

Before I opened my store 26 years ago, I used to do wholesale repairs. All of the corporate jewelry store chains send their returns to be refurbished. You would size them back to the original size, polish them and rhodium plate the white gold pieces. They would then put them back out for sale as new. They did this in the 1970's, 1980's and even in the 1990s. And I would bet money that they continue to do it to this day.
The Kmart in my town was closing and having a going out of business sale. The company shipped in unclaimed repairs that had been stored at the corporate offices, and sold them as new. I was getting the stuff in for repairs after they closed and they were obviously used and repaired.
Apache

Well now I know one company scraps their gold, the gold is then sold to jewelry stores to make new jewelry.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by Wearever

No you can't be held accountable for someone else's debt, just because you live at the same address. That would be illegal in the US. Except for your minor children, until the age of 18. Brothers ,sisters , mother father, would be responsible their own debts here as adults over 18.

No, you are answering a different question.

I asked

"So you can legally be marked down for the bad debts of someone or some relative at the same address until you move and disassociate from them ?

Anyone know ?"

I mean "marked down" as in inferior credit score