Shopper from Cornwall told to return items to China for refund
Ms Griffiths, who believed she was ordering from a firm based in the UK, said she was told her items were being shipped from China when they failed to arrive within five days.When the items arrived three weeks later, she said the items were "not khaki but cream", while the material was "flimsy" and the "fit was wrong".She said she asked to return the items, but was told she could keep them and have anything from between 10%-40% refund.The experience left her feeling "conned", she said.
Kat Cereda, from Which?, said more shoppers were being misled by websites that appear to be UK-based."They sell items that generally disappoint and are extremely hard to get a refund from," she said.Ms Griffiths used charge back through her bank and received a full refund.Mova London said it considered the case to be closed "as the matter has already been addressed through the appropriate channels and resolved via the customer's bank".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘He's a great negotiator and diplomat': Starmer praised as UK outshines EU in Trump trade talks
As Donald Trump signed a new trade deal with the EU, many Independent readers were less focused on Brussels – and more surprised by how well the UK had done in comparison. With Keir Starmer securing lower tariffs and a visibly warmer reception from the US president, some asked: how did Britain get a better deal than the EU? Commenters were quick to praise Starmer's calm, measured style. One reader described him as a 'great negotiator and diplomat' with a 'forensic' grasp of detail, while another said Trump 'genuinely likes him' and respects that he 'stands up for himself' rather than fawning. In contrast, Europe's performance was seen as lacklustre, with the bloc 'unable to mount an effective response'. The EU-US deal itself drew criticism for being weak and symbolic, accused of rewarding Trump's coercive tactics and reframing tariffs as legitimate economic tools. Several readers lamented that the UK's apparent success would be used to claim a 'Brexit benefit' – while others were content to see the EU embarrassed. Here's what you had to say: A great negotiator and diplomat There's a lot of criticism of Starmer, and some is justified. While he might not be the greatest leader Labour we have had, there's no doubt he's a great negotiator and diplomat. What also helps him is that he has a strong sense of fairness, decency, and dignity. Then there's his obvious legal background, which you see in his forensic thoroughness when debating issues. Can you imagine Kemi Badenoch and that useless lot negotiating with Trump... he'd have a field day. DHC How do you feel about the UK's trade deal compared to Europe's? Share your thoughts in the comments and join the conversation below. Trump is half Scottish Trump is half Scottish and he seems to have a little more respect for his mother's native country. We also don't manufacture anything, and we have long given up the future capacity to be a producing nation. We are customers; Europe, on the other hand, is a competitor. 227detius A weak EU capitulating to Trump The deal has been widely criticised on the European side, viewed by some as a weak EU capitulating to Trump's demands, unable to mount an effective response. While that perception is difficult to counter, the reality is much more complex and nuanced. It's worth noting that the deal isn't a fully fleshed-out trade agreement but, for the time being, one of the many symbolic political deals Trump has announced in recent months. Yet it's not meaningless. It pauses what could have escalated into a full-scale transatlantic trade war and defuses a major source of volatility and anxiety. That said, the real challenge lies ahead – hammering out the details. Without legally binding documents, the door remains open to misinterpretation. We've seen this play out recently with the US-Japan agreement, hastily concluded a few days ago, and already sparking differing interpretations. The same could easily happen with the EU-US deal. The deal is being widely perceived as a big political win for Trump and a defeat for the EU, negatively affecting its image both domestically and worldwide. Unfortunately, this interpretation ultimately praises and legitimises an approach based on aggression and coercion, rewarding tactics that undermine trust and cooperation. Sadly, tariffs – long discredited as a blunt and damaging economic tool – are now being recast as effective policy instruments, which the EU should also wield. It's astonishing how, in only a few months, Trump has managed to frame such a confrontational strategy and unsound economic policies as a success – even with Europe. It's simply self-defeating. But whatever the "final outcome", the misery of this GileadUS administration will continue to affect the lives of billions of people! LeeisBlue I ignore all the Faragist, Corbynite vitriol Starmer really has done well in his dealings not only with Trump but also the EU and his Gaza stance. Additionally, his policies are really changing and improving our lives – e.g. the NHS is performing much better (my wife has benefitted from this). Frankly, I ignore all the Faragist, Corbynite vitriolic attacks on Starmer and co and research for myself what's ACTUALLY happening. All this Reform/Farage/Corbyn propaganda is a distraction, largely irrelevant. voxtrot UK sacrificed bioethanol sector The UK's largest trade partner, by far, in goods is the EU. Don't think EU's higher tariffs from the USA have no effect on the UK. The UK also sacrificed the bioethanol sector, and allowed US beef into the UK, to the detriment of home agriculture, to get those reduced tariffs. I know there is some desperation in some quarters to try and claim some form of #BrexitBenefit, and hope the utter disaster and failure that it is gets forgotten. wolfie Nothing to do with Starmer It's got nothing to do with Starmer. The UK got a better deal with the US than the EU despite Starmer, not because of him. The UK is an independent, sovereign nation again and no longer anchored to the failing, anti-democratic EU political union thanks to Brexit, and we're one of the US's closest allies. Our bond with the US will grow even stronger once the current shambles of a Labour government – that appears to be doing its best to suppress free speech – is booted out at the next election. Kingswood Diversifying the EU's trading partners Yes, but every trading country/bloc has the opportunity of improving their prospects by diversifying their trading portfolio. Perhaps this is what Ms von der Leyen had in mind when making a deal with Trump – i.e. to force the EU to diversify its trading partners. In the longer term, that might be the best solution. Hungubwe Trump swallowed the carrot of a state visit All to do with the vanity of Trump. The state visit was the ultimate carrot that Starmer dangled, and Trump swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. He likes the sense of self-importance which this state visit will bestow on him, and all the pomp and ceremony. Beyond this, it shows that as long as you pander to him, he's happy to tolerate most things. Charles's views on the climate and compassion for migrants would normally have him called a radical lefty by Trump, and likewise, Starmer would also get short shrift, but because they are praising Trump, he's lapping it up – for now. The only constant has been the unapologetic support for Netanyahu, and ultimately it will come to a head when the ethnic cleansing plan is put in place. At that point, the world will have to decide to confront Trump directly or capitulate under fear of tariffs, leaving NATO, etc. I fear the capitulation. Truthonly With Trump you always follow the money The UK has a trade surplus with the USA of about £2 billion. The EU's trade surplus is about £200 billion. That's the difference – it's nothing to do with love of the UK or a Scottish mother or the tactics of the UK government. With Trump, you always follow the money. He does hate the EU's society because it is so much better than the US, so he feels compelled to drag it down to his level. He also knows he can play the UK like a banjo, whereas he fears the EU. We all know he will change his mind at any minute. AnonyMousse Starmer has done well on international issues Starmer has done well on international issues. The problem is that his focus on those things has left his inexperienced underlings to preside over domestic affairs. We have to remind ourselves who they replaced though. Compared to 14 years of Tory corruption and chaos, they are paragons of efficiency. Inkling
The Sun
10 minutes ago
- The Sun
Sheffield Wednesday players release unprecedented statement with crisis club in turmoil and wages nowhere to be seen
SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY'S players have released a statement expressing their 'extreme concern' at the club's financial position. The club withdrew from its friendly against Burnley after players went unpaid. The statement read: 'As has been well publicised, players, coaching and club staff groups at the club have all been impacted by delayed and overdue payment of salaries. 'This has been a worrying time for us as players but, whilst we are often the ones in the spotlight, we are not the only ones involved. "We stand together in support with all our colleagues employed by the club who have been affected. 'Players and staff are now feeling real, practical impacts in their professional and personal lives and we are extremely concerned at the lack of clarity regarding what is happening and when this will be resolved. 'The decision taken by the players to withdraw from the planned friendly with Burnley was not taken lightly or without consideration. "We are fully aware of the added concern this will have caused supporters but trust there is a real understanding of the difficult position we have been put in. 'We want to reassure fans that there has not been, and will not be, any 'downing of tools' by any of us on the training ground, and we are all working as hard as we can and supporting each other, the manager and staff. 'However, we, like you, want our focus to be fully on what happens on the pitch and the new season ahead. "This is proving to be really challenging and we have made it clear to the club that we want this situation to be addressed as soon as possible so decisions taken like the one not to play at Burnley are avoided in the future. "We can then all move forward together as a club. "The Players.' THIS IS A DEVELOPING STORY..
Times
10 minutes ago
- Times
Can I still get car finance compensation?
Drivers who bought their car on finance could still claim back up to £950 as part of a long-running investigating into hidden commission, despite a landmark court win for lenders last week. On Friday the Supreme Court spared the car finance industry from a worst-case scenario, which could have resulted in paying out a total of £44 billion to 15 million drivers. But the ruling was swiftly followed by intervention by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the City watchdog, which yesterday announced it would consult on a redress scheme that could see lenders on the hook for a total compensation bill of between £9 billion and £18 billion. The FCA is expected to confirm the details of its consultation in October and the first compensation payouts could start next year — so what does it mean for drivers, and will you be eligible for a payout? The FCA began an investigation into historic car finance lending in January 2024, prompted by a rising number of complaints to the courts and to the Financial Ombudsman Service, a free dispute service, about hidden commissions in car finance deals. In particular the FCA was looking at discretionary commission arrangements, where the fee paid to dealers was linked to the interest rate borrowers paid, which in some cases incentivised dealers to give customers a higher rate. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said borrowers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal under the commission model. The regulator was looking at whether consumers were fully told about how to commission worked and the impact it could have on their repayments. Nikhil Rathi, the chief executive of the FCA, warned yesterday that it was 'clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules'. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. The judgment involved three cases brought by drivers who argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals. The ruling triggered a backlash from lenders and from the Treasury, which tried to intervene, arguing that a massive bill for the industry would damage the economy. On Friday the decision was largely overturned by the Supreme Court, although it did uphold one of the three cases — in favour of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales, because in his case the £1,651 commission he paid was 55 per cent of the cost of finance on his five-year loan. The court said: 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture Most of the money paid out under a redress scheme will compensate those who were charged discretionary commission — but claims that do not involve discretionary commission could also be successful. The Supreme Court ruling has given hope to drivers with deals that contained a high level of commission, such as in the Johnson case, or where the commission model caused them to pay more. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'The key development is not just the confirmation of a scheme for discretionary commission arrangements, but the explicit inclusion of non-discretionary models as well. This is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling and widens the net of lenders that will be impacted.' The FCA suggested it would look at the size of commission in absolute terms, and also relative to the overall cost of the interest, in deciding whether an agreement was unfair. The size of the payout would likely be a refund of the commission, plus compensatory interest. The FCA suggested that the majority of successful claimants would get less than £950 per finance deal. The FCA said it would decide whether any scheme would be opt-in (where drivers would have to complain to their lender) or opt-out, which would require lenders to contact customers directly if they thought they were due compensation for loans taken out since 2007. These details are expected to be confirmed towards the end of this year. Adrian Dally from the Finance & Leasing Association trade body said: 'We have concerns about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such historic information, and the evidence will be patchy at best.' Since the FCA began its investigation last year it has been clear that any redress scheme would be free to use, like the financial services ombudsman, where customers can take a complaint if the company rejects it. But consumers have been bombarded with adverts from claims management companies and no-win no-fee law firms offering to take on their cases, in return for up to 30 per cent of any payout. If you have already signed a contract with a claims management company to represent your claim, it is worth checking it for any details of an exit fee. Under FCA rules you have the right to exit an agreement with a claims company, subject to a fee. But some consumer law firms have exit fees of £150 or more. If you feel a claims firm is charging an unfair exit fee — these charges must reflect the work the firm has done — you can complain about them either to the FCA (which regulates claims management companies) or, if it is a law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
