Break the Trade Descriptions act
And cover it up!
Please note, the answers given to the ‘virtual interview’ questions in this exposé/article, are (by and large) in the ‘Public Domain’. See the TRUTH’s editorial page (the link to which can be found on the main contents page) for more.
As someone who worked in customer service for over 10 years, during which time I managed three shops, the last one in London’s Knightsbridge, before retraining for IT in 2002, I, as should everyone else who works in retail, had to know the trade descriptions act.
Unfortunately, either amazon does not know it or amazon simply chooses to ignore it; as if it does not apply to them.
Well, let me, on behalf of on-line shoppers everywhere, put amazon right on that. The trade descriptions act; in particular, the area of it this exposé relates to, applies to both amazon and everyone else who sells goods, including amazon’s ‘market place’ sellers as they are known.
For the record, faulty goods are refundable for the obvious of reasons. You may also have come across notices in shop widows where faulty items are called back. If it’s a non food item the product should and will be discontinued from sale. Not so, however, in amazon’s case, as they continue to sell goods they know to be defective.
Furthermore, not only will they, amazon, admit it, but amazon will also admit that they sometimes cover up the fact that the item sent out is not what the customer ordered.
When Argos receive a product that is different in design or colour to the one in their current catalogue, published every six months, they point it out in both their in-store catalogues, including the electronic ones and may inform the customer of the change when they come to place their order.
Amazon, on the other hand, uses a website, just like this and Argos’s in-store catalogue. That means, amazon could, where a product is different to the one currently displayed on their website, one that is under their total control and not that of the market place seller, change the product. Unfortunately, that simple of tasks, unlike publishing the cover of books and e-books on their site, is too hard a task; yeah, sure!
Amazon. Take a good hard look at these two items. Notice anything different about them?
amazon: ‘They are completely different. The one on the right clearly does not have the half moon shape slit to hold the fold over flap in place.’
For the record, the one on the right has?
amazon: ‘Two sticky strips that you press together, thereby sealing the CD/DVD sleeve completely.’
I see. Would it, therefore, be true to say, it is very much a self-sealable envelope, one that doesn’t need to be licked?
amazon: ‘Very true, indeed.’
What do most people do when they open such an envelope?
amazon: ‘tear or cut it open with a knife to get at what is inside.’
Right, and so anyone who placed a CD or DVD in such an envelope and then sealed it, would have to do what you just said: ‘tear or cut it open with a knife to get at what is inside’.
amazon: ‘Pretty much so.’
In that case, not only is the one on the right clearly not what was advertised, but it is unusable for its intended purpose, freely able to open and close the flap at will, repeatedly and securely?
amazon: ‘You are right, it is none of those three; able to be opened and closed at will, repeatedly and securely.’
When that fact was brought to your attention by a review of the product, one that pointed out the change in the advertised item, what did you, amazon, do?
amazon: ‘We, amazon, refused to post the review.’
Right, so, in effect, you covered up the fact that you were knowingly advertising something that was faulty?
amazon: ‘Yes. We, amazon, having been notified that the product was faulty, continued to sell a faulty product and, furthermore, covered it up.’
Of course, that isn’t an isolated incident, is it?
amazon: ‘No. We, amazon, continue to advertise items on our site, electrical related goods, that we, amazon, know to be faulty.’
How does that come about?
amazon: ‘From customer reviews; old customer reviews.’
For example?
amazon: ‘A USB splitter sold from the “Electronics & Photo” department of our site.’
Describe the USB splitter?
amazon: ‘I can do better than describe it with this photo of the very USB in question. One that, despite amazon knowing that only one of the outputs work, thereby making it little more than a 16”/40cms USB extension, amazon continues to offer the faulty item for sale and has done so since 7 December 2018, which was when the review was posted on amazon.’
By all accounts, you, amazon, wash your hands of any responsibility with regards to used goods being faulty, incomplete, as this review, posted on your site, confirms:
amazon: ‘Yes. Disc 1, as with most multi disc PC games, is the master disc. Clearly, the person who sold it, retained, kept the master disc, making the sale fraudulent.’
In all honesty, the only reason it has 1 star, is?
amazon: ‘That is the minimum a reviewer can set in order to submit a review.’
I dare say there are other items for sale on amazon, items that are either different to the one advertised, as in the case of the CD/DVD pockets or the faulty USB splitter and the missing master disc of Caesar IV. Either way, amazon clearly has no interest in the ‘Trade Descriptions Act’ in such circumstances, nor, more importantly, respect of and for their customers, customers who, with the covid19 pandemic, are turning to on-line shopping for items they would normally purchase from high street shops that remain closed under the Government’s lockdown safety ruling.
There is, however, one other subject worth mentioning, and it is this:
You, amazon, approve of copyright theft?
amazon: ‘Yes. We amazon, approve of copyright theft.’
And you, amazon, also covered that up as well?
amazon: ‘Yes. We, amazon covered it up.’
To find out how and what it relates to, read the following exposé:
‘How amazon exposes children to porn’.
For the record, adverts are covered by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). While they may not be able to do anything about the adverts on amazon, I’m pretty sure that the UK trading standards people should hopefully follow up, look into and investigate the TRUTH’s exposé of:
How amazon repeatedly break the trade descriptions act.
Footnote: Having published this 26 years update of the original printed TRUTH from and since 1994 to the internet, the TRUTH intends to contact, by e-mail, one or more of those named in this article. Specifically, the ASA and Trading Standards.
Contact us: the.irrefutable.truth2020@gmail.com