DickSmith - Should I bring them to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

Lmadster09 on 20/10/2015 - 18:49

Hi all

As some of you may be aware, DickSmith online behaviour can be seen as being interesting.

Nearly a month ago, they recently had a 30% ebay storewide sale. However, at the sale, a number of products have not been available during the promotion.

I have brought this up with NSW fair trade regarding bait advertising and they have came back to me that DickSmith legal team has gotten back to them and deny that they conducted bait advertising.

NSW fair trade is aware of a number of complaints from consumers regarding some of DickSmiths behaviour.

However, at this stage they cannot assist me and the only available avenue is NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

So my questions for Ozbargainers are:
1) Whether to go to the tribunal? Its not really about the money anymore. The effort and cost to go to a tribunal will be more than the benefit of the 30% discount of the product I wanted.

2) Assist me by providing evidence of DickSmith - either conducting bait advertising or hiking the price before a sale.

General Discussion

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan
Dick Smith / Kogan
Marketplace

Comments

  • serpserpserp on 20/10/2015 - 18:57
    +6

    Dick Smith can choose what they want to discount or not. They don't have to discount items at a loss just because their is a sale. Many stores (think Myer etc.) advertise store wide sales and have exclusions.

    • Axelstrife on 20/10/2015 - 19:02
      -5

      so to you it's fine when they have a 30% off ebay sale and all of a sudden things in your cart are "no longer available"?

      • serpserpserp on 20/10/2015 - 19:32

        Did you load up your cart with items before the sale kicked in? You know they might have had low stock on items and someone else might have beaten you to buying it.

        • Axelstrife on 20/10/2015 - 19:34

          forgot to mention they where removed from ebay BEFORE the sale started.

        • serpserpserp on 20/10/2015 - 20:38

          @holden93:

          Say you are a business that makes 2% margin on an item (think something like an iPhone) and don't want to lose money on that item because of a 30% off sale, what do you do? You remove that item from being on sale BEFORE the promotion starts.

          ** Sorry got the info about it being an EBAY sale vs DSE specific sale wrong. But what is stated above still applies.**

        • Axelstrife on 20/10/2015 - 20:50
          +3

          @serpserpserp: Maybe dick should go a few days without haveing a sale. trhey have one after another after another after another.

        • serpserpserp on 20/10/2015 - 20:59

          @holden93:

          They should! Don't disagree there! They devalue their brand by doing what they do. But it must work for them.

    • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 20:06

      You are right. As long as they advertised they have exclusions.

      Probably a few other scenarios for you to consider.

      A retail store that advertises storewide 50% off.

      But then when you go in and there are only five stocks with 50% off.

      Or

      You go in and find out half the stores stocks are missing.

      Or

      You go in and find it is not 50% off but up to 50% off.

      However, if the store had advertised as storewide 50% off with excluded items then that is a different story.

      https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/misleading-claims-advertis…

      Maybe best to read ACCC to know a bit more of your rights. Specifically read -

      Bait advertising

      Bait advertising takes place when an advertisement promotes certain (usually ‘sale’ prices) on products that are not available or available only in very limited quantities. It is not misleading if the business is upfront in a highly visible, clear and specific manner about the particular product ‘on sale’ being in short supply or on sale for a limited time.

      • serpserpserp on 20/10/2015 - 20:57

        I think you need to ask yourself for a electronics retailer that follows a the usual market standard "Just In Time" stock management methodology. What the "reasonable" amount for stock of an item is? I've read the previous threads about people getting in a tizzy because they couldn't get their $1000 smart phone at 30% off or a similar priced TV. But perhaps DSE only stocks 5 at a time? Maybe their is a shortage on the product? Maybe it is an end of line product? This isn't specialized store like the Apple store/Sony store where you expect them to hold a large quantity of stock for a sale (and by large I mean maybe like 15-20 TVs for instance).
        Some history on the ACCC: A lot of the advertising claims section is geared towards Supermarkets. So yes, if Woolworths is going to advertise a 50% sale on cans of tomatoes and then only put up 5 cans in every store, given they probably sell hundreds of cans a week and given the number of people that come through the store AND the amount of advertising that would do on a sale like that, yes that is bait advertising. But a place like DSE EBay store might not even sell one a Galaxy Note 4 a week, it is a bit rich to expect them to have ample supply for 100s of people looking for the deal of the year on a phone.

        • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 21:41

          Based on your comments, I am assuming that you havent used click and collect from dicksmith retail stores when buying from ebay dicksmith store.

          Because if you would have, then you are arguing that there are no samsung s6, s6 edge s6 edge plus, note 5 phones in all of dicksmith stores.

        • serpserpserp on 21/10/2015 - 10:44
          +1

          @madster09:

          When you walk into a DSE do you see them with ample phone stock?

          EDIT: And lets make it clear, Click & Collect is a delivery option given to you by DSE. But no where did the sale advertising say it was 30% of all stock at DSE stores. It was 30% off what was on the DSE EBay store. Thus with any online store, you can pick and choose what stock you are going to have available to the public at any time.

  • spackbace on 20/10/2015 - 19:17
    +1

    Woah, vendetta much?! It's no different to running a sale and having 'exclusions apply' or some such, so it's not a 'store-wide' sale.

    Oh, and given Ebay was the front for the sale, methinks you'd have to go through them first.

    Or just leave it alone and move on with your life.

    Decisions

  • [Deactivated] on 20/10/2015 - 20:06

    Sure, pay the ​$47 seeking an order for goods to be provided. Make sure you let us know what the Tribunal decide.

  • altomic on 20/10/2015 - 20:36

    There is a petition on change.org so as to put a stop to this practice.

  • PVA on 20/10/2015 - 20:41
    +1

    It isn't Bait advertising, that is they have say one cheap item to get you instore to buy and sell you a different more expensive version.
    What you are saying is the raise their prices the day before the sale to counter the sale discount.

  • mskeggs on 20/10/2015 - 20:47
    +3

    Hang on. They advertised a 30% sale starting at a certain time, and removed any products they did not want to sell at the reduced rate prior to the sale starting, yet you are aggrieved?
    If Myer had a TV on display, but put it back in the store room the day before their 'clearance' sale started would you be equally upset?
    Did they advertise those specific items would be on sale? If they said, for example, 64Gb iPhone 6 for $799 and then removed the item, that is bait advertising. But if they had iPhones for sale on Tuesday, but none on offer for the 30% off sale on Wednesday that is not bait and switch unless they specifically said 30% off iphones.

    • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 21:25
      -1

      This is a very interesting statement you are making.

      What you are suggesting is that when a retailer states that it is 30% off storewide, a reasonable person cannot expect that it is actually 30% off storewide. What a reasonable person must first think is that well that cant be true as the retailer will take a loss, so a reasonable person must then reasonably expect the retailer to not mean that it is 30% off storewide.

      If Myer says 30% off on their online store (no exclusion) and they excluded apple items by whatever means, is that ok?

      • mskeggs on 20/10/2015 - 22:06
        +1

        No, it means if you attend the premises everything is 30% off. But you don't get to go looking in the storerooms or warehouses for other stock you might like to buy at 30% off.
        If they removed the items they didn't want to sell the day before, then it is still true.
        On Boxing Day sales, the stores are full of the merchandise that has been piled out the back until sale day, and the fresh, full price stuff is either clearly marked as not on sale, or hidden away.

        I don't see any difference with an online 'sale' which says everything is 30% off, as long as the items for sale are genuinely 30% off. IF they have deleted some items from their range before the sale starts, what is the issue? As long as they haven't said that particular item is 30% off, what can you expect? Do you demand them to sell every item they have ever sold at 30% off? Of course not, products change all the time.
        I am saying it is fine (and I know the ACCC agree with me) to advertise a 'everything is 30% off" sale and remove items from sale beforehand, as long as every item for sale is a genuine 30% off.
        Finally, if they say 'no exclusions' and have stock for sale not at 30% off, then that is not ok. But as I understand it, the OP placed items in their cart at full price, hoping the discount would appear before they paid for them. But then the items were not available to buy at all. It wasn't that they would sell them at full price.

        • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 22:36

          On Boxing Day sales, the stores are full of the merchandise that has been piled out the back until sale day, and the fresh, full price stuff is either clearly marked as not on sale, or hidden away. - In that particular scenario, I dont think the stores will advertise the whole store is 30% off on an online or paper ad and then in the store, marked full price stuff as not on sale.

          I don't see any difference with an online 'sale' which says everything is 30% off, as long as the items for sale are genuinely 30% off. IF they have deleted some items from their range before the sale starts, what is the issue? As long as they haven't said that particular item is 30% off, what can you expect? Do you demand them to sell every item they have ever sold at 30% off? Of course not, products change all the time. - We are not really talking about products change - this will divert the discussion. It is more of having stock, having no stock during sale and having stock after sale - that is not product change.

          If the ACCC agrees with you then it will be quite interesting.

          Let's say you are right and an online retailer decided to attract consumers to his online store.

          He has two choice:

          1) Advertise 50% off - certain items excluded or

          2) Advertise 50% off (but hide certain items).

          Reasonably which advertisement will attract more people to the store?

        • mskeggs on 20/10/2015 - 22:53
          +2

          @madster09:
          But you keep ignoring the timing. The ACCC doesn't make a seller give discounts forever, or from one period to another.
          It is entirely reasonable to have an item for sale for two weeks, then not sell it, then sell it agin. Literally every store does this. (examples, like fast food special burgers, Tuesday cheap films, Dollar drinks at 5-6pm, holidays cheaper in winter).
          It is fine to make a time limited offer, and it is fine to choose what you sell in that time.
          To take an example from another industry so it looks more obvious: hotel rooms cost more on New Years Eve. They are the same rooms as the day before and day after, but NYE aren't a part of the sale. Or perhaps, are just not available to book during the '24 hour 50% off sale".
          Same with airfares. QANTAS will say 30% off flights to LA, but no seats are on offer at peak periods, but seats are available other times.

          I think what is bringing you unstuck is an idea that if something is for sale yesterday, and tomorrow, I should be able to buy it today - but there is no rule of regulation that says that.
          Your points about misleading advertisements are true, however, but I don't think that is what happened. I think the OP placed items in the cart at full price, that were then not available to buy during the sale. That is like you hiding an item in the dressing room, then bringing it out and saying "AHA! give me a discount!" and the store manager says, hey did you get that from out the back or something cause those items aren't part of our sale stock at the moment.

        • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 23:29

          …

        • madster09 on 20/10/2015 - 23:35

          @mskeggs:

          @mskeggs

          I think timing is an issue. But it is really not relevant in this scenario. You mentioned the ACCC doesnt make a seller give discounts. That is true.

          However, the ACCC is there to ensure that companies do not mislead in advertisements.

        • mskeggs on 20/10/2015 - 23:52
          +1

          @madster09:
          I didn't see your deleted posts.
          In this case, as far as I can see, the complaint is that items available prior to the sale weren't included in the sale.

          This is OK within ACCC/advertising/fair trading guidelines.
          There is no requirement, for example, to if you sell Rolls Royce cars at RRP one week, and the next week sell Mars bars at 50% off, for you to sell the Rolls Royce you sold last week again this week as part of your 50% off sale.

          Even if you say "all stock 50% off" because you can just say Rolls Royces were removed from stock. You might find this disagreeable, but it isn't problematic within the rules. What you cannot do is say "all stock including Rolls Royces" then remove them from stock.

          I feel I am repeating myself, so probably i don't understand the point you are making - sometimes I need to be told things a few different ways ;-) Are you saying I am mistaken and Dick Smith did advertise a specific item at 30% off, then not have stocks? That certainly is deceptive.
          I thought they advertised a percentage off what they offered on that day.

        • mskeggs on 21/10/2015 - 00:00
          +1

          @mskeggs:
          Or to say it as plainly as I can - an offer of a sale counts for items on offer when that sale is made (not before or after).
          Even if you say "next weekend we are offering 50% off" that not misleading as long as the items for sale on the weekend are actually 50% off. There is no requirement of completement to make sure every item that was for sale when you placed the add is also for sale at 50% off.
          Think fo a moment - this would break many types of advertising. Supermarket weekly specials rely on both timed offers, and not offering certain stock during special offers.

          I'm not sure how I can explain it differently, except to say, if you feel you are deserving of a special time discount outside that special time, I am not understanding your reasoning.

  • inherentchoice on 20/10/2015 - 22:46
    +3

    There's been multiple threads (even dozens) on this topic already, even where others have made complaints to Fair Trading. Pretty sure DSE knows the consumer law and even if they are pushing the boundaries I don't think they are going to blatantly defy the law.

    In reality they have had heaps of good deals, have they not?

    You would want to have some pretty damning evidence and a sound understanding of what the consumer law actually requires before even considering going to the tribunal.

    • plmko on 20/10/2015 - 22:56
      +7

      Just a case of people spitting the dummy because (for whatever bizarre reason) things didn't go their way. Come back here over boxing day sale and you'll also see people do the exact same with XYZ company because the 100+ people bought the ultra discounted TV before them and claim 'bait/switch' since apparently their super-duper knowledge of law says every retailer must stock 500+ TVs ready.

      The very fact that there was a lot of people here (like myself) who bought genuine bargains during the DSE sale is enough to say OP is 100% wrong.

    • noyesmaybeok on 20/10/2015 - 22:58

      They definitely do questionable practices, but who wants to enforce anything. They've had tons of products for say $100, then a day before a 20% sale suddenly it's now $150 - 20%. There is tons of evidence and examples. I don't care enough to look and make a list, if anyone cares there's a number of threads on OzBargain you can find (often resulting in a ton of people negatively voting anything posted in regards to DSE for a while).

      Not the scenario OP talks about though.

      • lplau on 05/01/2016 - 13:21

        Its hard to prove though without a lot of data.
        They could turn around and say "That price was for a previous special, that special has ended because there is a new special out", hence the T&C of "discounts don't stack".

        People are stingy and want to take advantage of businesses. They expect businesses to allow coupon codes and special prices / discounts to stack e.g. 50% and then another 30% on top!

        I guess its Ozb so we are always trying to get the best bargain possible, and sometimes even the deals on here are sometimes unethical / borderline unethical but people still do it.

        Nobody complains when they get away with it, but when they cannot do it or cannot get away with it, then they start chucking a hissy fit.

    • mskeggs on 20/10/2015 - 23:01
      +2

      In reality they have had heaps of good deals, have they not?

      OzB is an insatiable beast. Any deal is a hair's breadth away from a Fair Trading complaint.
      I can't complain. The people I think over complain have ended up with me getting $10 gift vouchers for 'errors'. And I think it is amusing the way people who I assume have just stuck their heads up from 14 hours writing C code get all up in arms that the human operating language isn't as tightly typed or something.
      I do wish they would give the tax payer funded avenues of complaint a rest, however.
      Every TIO complaint against my ISP costs them at least $15 or so (that figure was more than a decade ago, it could be $100 now for all I know) so I wish they would leave my ISP out of it to keep their costs low ;-)
      And, of course, we pay for Fair Trading and ACCC out of our taxes.
      Maybe more change.org petitions?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join