Item: Whitetime Dental Expert
Rating: 1

stillery's review of Whitetime Dental Expert

“DO NOT FALL FOR THIS”

★☆☆☆☆

written by stillery on 01/09/2014

I have had the same experience as many people on here.
When I noticed I had £99.99 taken from my account I blocked them from accessing my account, but the bank won't refund.
Here is their number. It's on their website. Do not take no for an answer 0207 442 5903. It's a London number. The low-life at the end of this number sounds american. . I have called only to be told I should email them instead. Well at least we have a number. Looking for someone who can translate the Orange packaging (Polish). If we collect this info and get the co-operation of our banks I hope we can track them down.

write a review

1992Rafferty's Response to stillery's Review

Written on: 02/09/2014

Took this from the financial ombudsman web site.

Finally, in some of the cases that we see, the consumer argues that they did not give their consent for the total amount that the retailer charged to the card. Irrespective of whether there could be a claim under section 75 or the chance of a successful chargeback, the consumer may have grounds for recovering the payment from their card issuer. Case 78/05 provides an example of a consumer who was partly successful with a complaint of this type.

case 78/5

Mr A had sold his flat in Yorkshire and was moving to take up a new job in kent. As he did not have much furniture, he decided to hire a self-drive van and carry out the move himself.

After researching various van-hire companies on the internet, he contacted D Ltd - which advertised itself on its website as "the one-way hire specialist". He arranged for a van to be delivered to him in Yorkshire on a specific date - and to be collected from him in Kent three days later. He said he gave D Ltd his debit card details over the phone to pay for the hire, which he was told would cost a total of £179.99.

The move and the van-hire went ahead as planned, but two weeks later Mr A discovered that D Ltd had taken a payment of £628.81 from his account. When D Ltd insisted that this payment was correct, Mr A complained to his bank.

He said he had given D Ltd his debit card details in good faith. However, a much larger sum than agreed had been taken from his account. Initially, the bank credited his account with the disputed payment. However, it later re-debited this sum, saying that D Ltd had provided confirmation that he did indeed owe £628.81.

Mr A complained that the bank had acted incorrectly. He said it should re-credit his account with the entire amount paid to D Ltd. When it refused, Mr A came to us.

complaint upheld in part
D Ltd had provided an invoice in response to the bank's request for details of the costs Mr A had incurred. We asked to see this invoice, and noted that it was based on a two-way hire and was dated some two weeks after Mr A's account had been debited. We were therefore not convinced that it was an accurate representation of what had been agreed with Mr A on the phone.

We also noted that D Ltd had told the bank that it never provided one-way van hires. This did not accord with what it said on its website.

After looking at all the available evidence, we were satisfied that Mr A authorised the use of his card details to pay the cost of the one-way hire, plus fuel. We were not satisfied that he had agreed to pay a total of £628.81. Equally, we could not see that D Ltd would have agreed to his paying a total of only £179.99, as this sum did not include the cost of any fuel.

We did not agree with Mr A that, in view of the inconvenience he had been caused, he should not have to pay anything at all. We calculated that the total cost of his one-way van-hire, plus fuel, was £275.10 and we saw no reason why he should not pay that amount.

So we said the bank should refund him £353.71 - the difference between the amount we thought he owed and the amount that was debited from his account. We said the bank should pay interest on the £353.71 for the time he had been without it - and that it should also pay him £50 for the inconvenience he had been caused.