[jackthelad]

A heads up for anyone considering doing business with these guys...

Big Brands Online

The story so far;

Purchased a gas oven. No conformation or contact of any kind. Deposit funds to their account. No confirmation contact of any kind. Followup a week later and account says tx cancelled. Try to contact them through their phone no luck. Try their live message system and after a fairly long while and several reminders the principle <removed> calls back. Item is out of stock and no longer available. Doesn't offer refund but quite a few excuses and blames staff for problems. Offers to replace the order with another brand and will get back to me. Two weeks later still no contact. Leave messages with someone in the office for her to ring me. No reply/response after 48 hrs. So now I'm chasing a refund. I expect this to take some time. Oh and the out of stock item that is no longer available from the supplier is still listed as available. I'm guessing I'm not the only one chasing a refund.

Edited by LinuxUser, 18 March 2014 - 09:14 AM.
Personal information.

[LinuxUser]

Welcome to PriceSpy!

• It is against the rules to disclose any personal information, and that includes names.
• Based on the About page on their website, I think you're almost definitely wrong that she is the owner. It is however very possible that she is one of several owners, and is almost definitely in a very high-up position.

[Unregistered43663]

Not offering a refund but offering to replace it with a similar product is a bait and switch. From my understanding that's breaching the fair trade act.

[LinuxUser]

Depends. If the replacement is of lesser quality or they're asking you to pay more for it, then probably. If it is a common practice to offer a more expensive or lower quality replacement, then definitely. But if it is a product of equal or better quality and they're not asking you to pay the extra, it probably isn't.

And if they're continuing to advertise a product as available when it is not then that is also bait advertising.

[jackthelad]

UPDATE:

Big Brands office (also known as Homekit) got back to me yesterday after stirring them up through their contact page and live chat feature. Anyway a new office assistant called to 'help' resolve my issues. I indicated I had replaced the oven from an alternative supplier and simply wanted a refund - provided my details and left it that for the time being. I'll check at the end of the week to see if the refund has been lodged.

@Super-Mod. KC is a principle of the business, is their public image and trades on her public persona. Her name is not a confidentiality issue.

Disclosure of someone's personal data, or invasion of privacy, is strictly forbidden. Examples could include, but are not limited to, personal names, private addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, private email addresses, registration numbers of vehicles, ethnicity, health status, political and religious beliefs, sexual orientation, personal finance, occupation, law violations, criminal convictions or arrests, etc.

The forum rule with this regard is open to interpretation (over zealous mods?). The individual has a public image and is the front person for the business so it is therefore reasonable to disclose who the people are we are exchanging information with when they are material to the discussion. Mentioning someones name when it exists in the public domain is not revealing personal or confidential information.

This would have to be one of the most poorly worded T & C clauses I've ever seen.

[Scrypt]

@Super-Mod. KC is a principle of the business, is their public image and trades on her public persona. Her name is not a confidentiality issue.

Disclosure of someone's personal data, or invasion of privacy, is strictly forbidden. Examples could include, but are not limited to, personal names, private addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, private email addresses, registration numbers of vehicles, ethnicity, health status, political and religious beliefs, sexual orientation, personal finance, occupation, law violations, criminal convictions or arrests, etc.

The forum rule with this regard is open to interpretation (over zealous mods?). The individual has a public image and is the front person for the business so it is therefore reasonable to disclose who the people are we are exchanging information with when they are material to the discussion. Mentioning someones name when it exists in the public domain is not revealing personal or confidential information.

This would have to be one of the most poorly worded T & C clauses I've ever seen.

Then again, most T&C clauses are poorly worded. When dealing with businesses, we don't disclose any employees' personal information here, regardless of how much of a public image he/she has. I, and most of this community, both don't know and don't care who the owner/s of that store are, we only care that you are having a problem with this store, and are here to assist you where needed. If their names are on the website, keep them there, we'll find them if we need them.

 

Regardless, I hope everything goes to plan in the end. You gave them a chance to at least make amends for their mistakes.

[LinuxUser]

Actually, the only name I could find on their website was her first name. And it adds nothing to a discussion about the store.

As for my interpretation of the rules, there was discussion with the admins when it was added, and it is perfectly clear from what they said that my interpretation of the rules is as they desire – which is all that matters as far as I'm concerned. And seeing you've obviously read the rules, please keep in mind the last section of the general rules.

[Word Of Madness]

While I'm in agreement that it adds nothing to the discussion, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it can't be said. They list her name on their website. The have a photo of her on their main page. They use her as a marketing point for their business. They want you to know that she's involved. Sharing her name is not disclosing her personal details, it was already disclosed by the companies marketing. Listing her address or telephone number would be, but he didn't.

Would you censor me for telling you Kevin from Fair Go has relations with Carpet Mill?
It's exactly the same scenario. It has a photo of him, and his name on their website.

What a farce.

[LinuxUser]

They list only her first name on their site (that I saw anyway).

In your example, no, that wouldn't be a problem.

But in the situation I mentioned before when the rule was introduced the person concerned was well-known as the owner (including being listed in the Companies register), and it was also well-known as to his other job. I don't entirely agree with that situation, but that is what the admins decided.

[Scrypt]

While I'm in agreement that it adds nothing to the discussion, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it can't be said. They list her name on their website. The have a photo of her on their main page. They use her as a marketing point for their business. They want you to know that she's involved. Sharing her name is not disclosing her personal details, it was already disclosed by the companies marketing. Listing her address or telephone number would be, but he didn't.

Would you censor me for telling you Kevin from Fair Go has relations with Carpet Mill?
It's exactly the same scenario. It has a photo of him, and his name on their website.

What a farce.

There's a difference between sharing a name for business reasons and a marketing campaign. And he is well-known, practically a celebrity.

[Word Of Madness]

There's a difference between sharing a name for business reasons and a marketing campaign.

While Kirsty may have more involvement in BigBrandsOnline than Kevin does with Carpet Mill, they are both irrefutably being used for marketing.

And he is well-known, practically a celebrity.

Considering Masterchef's popularity is Kirsty not also practically a celebrity (albeit a lesser one)?

[jackthelad]

Maybe we should extend the suppression of business names as well and just keep everyone in the dark.

I, and most of this community, both don't know and don't care who the owner/s of that store are, we only care that you are having a problem with this store, and are here to assist you where needed. If their names are on the website, keep them there, we'll find them if we need them.

I've been on/in a lot of forums over the years and ran a few to boot but I've never come across this level of over the top protectionist to the point of absurdity before. A business is run by people who are the root of all problems we have to contend with.

Obscuring identities only aids those responsible for poor or illegal service/behavior to get away with it without public censure. We live in a world where individuals are not held accountable for actions but rather blame is focused on the entity and punishment is borne by the shareholder.

[TomSahz]

While I understand your frustration, it is simply not up to us to make or amend the rules. LinuxUser and I have questioned this rule before and have been told how to interpret it. If you actually want to talk to someone who can make a change to the rules then contact support@pricespy.co.nz .

[jackthelad]

Rubbish. You have discretion under the rules.

"Examples could include".

[jackthelad]

One of the increasing disappointments in life as I approach 60 is the lack of backbone around today. We seem to live in a world where too many people are only to willing to bend over and grab their ankles.

[Unregistered43663]

I personally agree with you jackthelad you're quoting information publicly accessible. But the rules are clear, and if you have an issue with it, then use that backbone of yours and contact support@pricespy.co.nz

I will be sending them an email about the issue too but in the mean time the rules are there.

[jackthelad]

The mods are aware of the issue and have discretion. I can't make them use it or grow a backbone for them. I pick my fights more selectively these days. Tilting at windmills is something I have little time for these days.

[TomSahz]

Yes we have discretion but in this particular instance we have to follow the inerpretation given to us by admins. You are not the first example of enforcing this rule. It doesnt matter what we personally think. Why are you so interested in carrying on a fruitless argument when I have made it clear who you should take your concerns to? If you want to discuss the rules then contact the appropriate person. We also have little time for arguing over semantics with impolite people who are directing their frustrations in the wrong direction.

Edited by TomSahz, 19 March 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[jackthelad]

"Yes we have discretion but in this particular instance we have to follow the inerpretation given to us by admins."


Are you for real? How the hell can you have discretion in one breath and then say you haven't in the next? If the rots this far up the tree there's no hope (sigh)

[TomSahz]

It means yes generally we have discretion, but there are cases where some rules need to be followed in a way that the admins have predetermined. Try to think about it from their perspective - T's & C's function to prevent a company from being sued (among other things). The company here is not from NZ so perhaps they are not as familiar with NZ law as other companies would be. Therefore it would make sense for them to take a conservative approach with issues such as privacy.

You agreed to follow the rules when you created an account. This whole discussion is really just a waste of your time and a waste of our time so I'm afraid that if you cannot move past this issue either by contacting the appropriate person or just dropping it then PriceSpy probably isn't the right place for you.

Edited by TomSahz, 19 March 2014 - 05:24 PM.

[LinuxUser]

I personally agree with you jackthelad you're quoting information publicly accessible. But the rules are clear, and if you have an issue with it, then use that backbone of yours and contact support@pricespy.co.nz

I will be sending them an email about the issue too but in the mean time the rules are there.

Publicly accessible where? I didn't see it on their website. And accessible from elsewhere doesn't necessarily count.

"Yes we have discretion but in this particular instance we have to follow the inerpretation given to us by admins."


Are you for real? How the hell can you have discretion in one breath and then say you haven't in the next? If the rots this far up the tree there's no hope (sigh)

The fact that this thread exists is perfect evidence that we have discretion about what we do... But sometimes things are said and other times things aren't – and this is one situation where things have been said – and when things are said, we have to follow them.

If you'd like, the rule could be changed to what it is on the Swedish PriceSpy: you discuss the store, but you may not discuss the people involved with the store...

[jackthelad]

And the saga continues. It's been 10 days since KC emailed me to tell me they'd call to sort it out. Well some newby office kid (poor sod) took my explicit request for a refund and bank details. To date no refund has been actioned. The gas oven in question is still listed even though it is out of production and no stock exists anywhere from anyone. I now email them every second day or so to remind them what an incompetent business they run.

I've since ordered, paid for and received from Harvey Norman a comparable replacement albeit slightly more expensive ($35) which is a small price to pay for a transaction that actually completes.

[LinuxUser]

If it is out of production and out of stock, they're falsely advertising something they can't supply. That is illegal, so I suggest you contact the Commerce Commission.

[jackthelad]

If it is out of production and out of stock, they're falsely advertising something they can't supply. That is illegal, so I suggest you contact the Commerce Commission.

I'm sure the CC will put it at the top of their To-Do-List. The reality is just about every online retailer has items listed that are not in stock. Oldest trick in the book to make your virtual shelves seem fuller than they actually are and then shift the buyer to another like item. They also do it to attract hits and sundrie traffic by listing stuff they don't have but that often closely approximates like products and services in SEO strategies.

i dropped into their site this arvo. When you hit their page a chat window opens and asks if they can help. I typed in a rather to the point comment and message re the long overdue refund. KC cam back within a few minutes and indicated it was being processed today and in my account tomorrow.

As I said to her I won't hold my breath. We shall see...

[Unregistered43663]

The reality is just about every online retailer has items listed that are not in stock. Oldest trick in the book to make your virtual shelves seem fuller than they actually are and then shift the buyer to another like item. They also do it to attract hits and sundrie traffic by listing stuff they don't have but that often closely approximates like products and services in SEO strategies.

I find most credible stores on PriceSpy avoid this, and when this does arise it is a legitimate mistake. A lot of the stores that score poorly are a different story.

[LinuxUser]

I find most credible stores on PriceSpy avoid this, and when this does arise it is a legitimate mistake. A lot of the stores that score poorly are a different story.

Absolutely this.

And as I said before, it is illegal anyway.

[MAREE2019]

And the saga continues. It's been 10 days since KC emailed me to tell me they'd call to sort it out. Well some newby office kid (poor sod) took my explicit request for a refund and bank details. To date no refund has been actioned. The gas oven in question is still listed even though it is out of production and no stock exists anywhere from anyone. I now email them every second day or so to remind them what an incompetent business they run.

I've since ordered, paid for and received from Harvey Norman a comparable replacement albeit slightly more expensive ($35) which is a small price to pay for a transaction that actually completes.