Latest news with #consumer rights
Daily Mail
16 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Report: United Airlines increases ticket prices for solo travelers
United Airlines has quietly resumed charging single passengers more than those traveling in pairs or groups. The controversial policy, dubbed the 'single tax' by its critics, was exposed by a consumer rights website earlier this year. An investigation by Thrifty Traveler found that United, Delta and American were all charging solo fliers higher fares for the same route than those who booked two tickets or more together. The data also showed that American Airlines applies the 'single tax' far more aggressively, charging solo travelers more on 57 percent of its routes. Critics say the system unfairly punishes passengers who travel alone, especially those flying midweek for work, while group travelers often enjoy lower per-ticket fares. Meanwhile, United has faced a string of controversies in recent months — from slashing flights to selling customer data. The legacy airline announced earlier this summer that it would cut four in every 100 domestic flights this year — blaming Americans not wanting to travel as much. The cuts are centered on late night and early morning flights following a drop in demand for off-peak travel. The reductions came as United rolled out a new business class experience , offering perks such as Ossetra caviar, Laurent‑Perrier Cuvée Rosé Champagne, plasma face masks and designer hoodie pajamas for premium passengers. In April, a 90‑second air traffic control blackout at United's Newark hub caused weeks of delays and forced the airline to to cut 35 daily flights . Adding to the backlash, an investigation revealed United was among the airlines that had sold sensitive passenger data to the federal government. United, Delta and American collectively own a data broker - the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC) - that collects their passenger's flight record information including their names, full flight itineraries and financial details. This broker then sold passenger data on to Customs and Border Protection in a contract that asked the agency not to reveal where the data had come from. The CBP, part of the Department of Homeland Security, claims the data is necessary to help authorities track people of interest. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also purchased the data, the publication reported. 'The big airlines — through a shady data broker that they own called ARC — are selling the government bulk access to Americans' sensitive information, revealing where they fly and the credit card they used,' Democrat Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
How to make a customer complaint: The consumer rights you have, and the ones you don't
The vast majority of the queries Pricewatch receives from readers reflect entirely legitimate grievances but every now and then we hear a story and have to side with the company because they have done nothing wrong. It is instead the consumer who is wrong about the rights they think they have. There is no point, for instance, expecting an airline to refund you the cost of a non-refundable flight because you broke your toe and decided not to travel or demanding that a shop sell you a 72-inch liquid glass telly for a tenner because that is what the sticker price on the shelf said. If you bought a shirt but want to return in because you have buyer's remorse you can't expect them to give you your money back – although they might – and if your phone breaks after 18 month because you dropped it in the toilet don't be surprised if the phone shop wants to send it off for assessment before giving you any redress. READ MORE This is all by way of saying that knowing the rights you don't have can be as important as knowing the ones you do have, not least because being forearmed can save you time and effort and stop you fighting losing battles on shop floors as your sense of indignation rises in line with your blood pressure. 1. We have said it before and will say it again, if the shelf price is cheaper than the price at the till, you do not have the right to buy the product at the lower price. And why is that? Well, the price on the shelf is not an enforceable contract. It is what is known in law as an 'invitation to treat'. Effectively by putting the price tag on a product, the shop is inviting you to give them that money and until you do just that there is no deal done. And if the shop spots the pricing error before you pay them, then they can refuse to sell the product to you at the lower price. And even if you have actually bought the product an order can still be cancelled if an error is uncovered before it is dispatched or you get to use it. So if you bought a first-class ticket to Australia for €10 when the regular price is €10,000 and the airline sends you the booking reference and deducts your credit card the tenner, it can still cancel the ticket and refund you the money if it cops the mistake before you fly because the contract is null and void as it was based on erroneous information. In essence, you cannot profit from someone's genuine error. If, on the other hand you can show that the pricing 'error' was intentional and designed to lure you through the doors, you might have a case, but generally speaking the law sides with the retailer or service provider. In essence, you can not profit from someone's genuine error. Photograph: iStock 2. The best of shops have decent returns policies, ones that allow you to exchange goods within a set time frame if you have changed your mind. Sometimes they will give you an alternative product of the same value or a credit note or sometimes – although less commonly – they will give you your cash back. It is worth remembering that shops have no legal obligation to do this and if they are offering you some class of exchange in circumstances such as this, take what is on the table and don't demand more. – you might well end up with nothing. The law differs when you shop online; in that realm you can exchange a product for whatever reason and are legally entitled to a full cash refund. [ The Irish Times view on consumer rights in Ireland: transparency in pricing vital Opens in new window ] 3. You do need proof of purchase when seeking an exchange. It doesn't matter if the product has the original labels attached or is a product branded with the store's credentials, a shop will most likely not entertain you if you don't have a receipt. This is not because they are unreasonable – it is because if they're going to give you money back or a credit note they will want to be sure you spent the money with them in the first place. Mind you, if you are returning something because it is flawed you do not need a store receipt, only proof of purchase. That can take many forms, including credit card receipts. 4 And speaking of flaws, if one materialises within six months of a product being bought, it can be presumed to have existed at the time of purchase. That means you are not legally obliged to provide proof of the defect. After that point the burden of proof switches and you can be asked to prove any fault did not arise as a result of misuse. A shop also has the right to send a product off to be assessed by a manufacturer before they offer a refund so don't waste your time demanding instant redress – a shop assistant with absolutely no expertise in the area cannot really be expected to determine why a flaw has materialised. But that does go two ways. Just as they can't be expected to give you your money back straight away because your telly is on the blink, they can't refuse you redress on the basis that the problem was caused by you just by looking at it for 30 seconds on the shop floor. 5. As well as having the right to a refund, a replacement or a repair when a product is flawed, consumers also have the right to agree a price reduction on faulty goods and they will be entitled to withhold payment for goods partially paid for if they are not satisfied with the quality of the item received. [ No dress and no refund: A reader's saga ordering clothes online from an 'Irish' firm that used stock images for staff photos Opens in new window ] 6. Consumer law in Ireland prohibits the use of certain terms and conditions which are 'automatically regarded as unfair when put in a contract'. Any condition that allows a trader to unilaterally change the terms of a contract, or any provision that would indemnify a trader from harm caused by a product or service is not allowed. Businesses also have to set out clearly a description of the goods or services being provided, the total price and the cost of delivery before entering into a contract with a consumer. 7. When it comes to sales there are some – fairly new – rules in place that are worth knowing about. When a retailer has a sale, they will have to clearly display the previous price and that will have to be the lowest price the product was priced at over the last 30 days before going into sale. In times past, a retailer could increase the price just before it went on sale or used the recommended retail price from 12 months previously when boasting about a discount. 8. And staying with sales for a minute, it is always worth remembering, they do not exist for our benefit – retailers have sales to shift stock they were unable to sell at full price. So the last thing they want when they have finally managed to sell you that unfortunately patterned cardigan – even at a heavy discount – is to see you wandering back in to the store days later with the cardigan under your arm in search of a refund or a credit note. That means that they can change their – non-statutory – policies when it comes to returns during sales periods. So don't be surprised if you sometimes see signs that warn there is 'strictly no returns on sale items' or some such. Retailers can change their – non-statutory – policies when it comes to returns during sales periods. Photograph: iStock It is worth noting that such a blanket warning, while understandable maybe, might also be against the law. When you buy something – and it doesn't matter if you pay full price or get it at a 90 per cent discount – it has to be of an acceptable standard, fit for purpose and as advertised. If it does not comply with any of these three rules, you are entitled to get the product repaired or replaced, or to get a refund. No matter what the sign says. The only exception is when the sign adds the postscript: 'This does not affect your statutory rights.' If that phrase appears on the sign, the retailer is in the clear and you have no right to go looking for a refund or an exchange unless there is something wrong with the product, in which case you are still protected by the law. 9. If you leave a treasured dress into a dry cleaners and it comes back in ribbons, you do have some comeback. This is despite the sign that you will sometimes see warning you that clothes are left at your own risk. Such signs do not have any legal basis and by putting up a sign, a business does not absolve itself of all responsibility if things go wrong. They are legally obliged to carry out the service you are paying them for with reasonable skill, care and diligence. If a dry-cleaner destroys the nice frock you wore only once because the bloke manning the machine went out for a smoke and left it lying in harsh chemicals for too long, they have to make things right – either financially or by repairing the garment, if that is possible. Similarly, if they break loose buttons or tear something, you have a right to redress (if that is not the wrong word). You do not, however, automatically have the right to get the full price of the garment back and some class of sliding scale might be deployed. So a black Vera Wang cocktail dress that is a week old might entitle you to more money back than one that is five years old. Incidentally, the reasonable skill, care and diligence rule can also be applied to hairdressers, so if they make a pig's ear of your head you might have some comeback, although not – and we can't stress this enough – if you asked them to cut your long flowing locks into a boyish bob and then had second thoughts after the fact. By parking in a car park, you are entering into a private contract with the owner. Photograph: iStock 10. If you park your car in a car park and return to find it has been broken into or badly damaged by another car which has fled the scene, you might think you will be able to make some kind of claim against the car park owner. You won't. Generally speaking, car parks will display signs that warn that cars are parked at the owner's risk and while you might think that such a sign has no legal basis because, after all, you are parking in a supervised car park and paying them to look after your car, it means the owner is covered and you are on your own. There are no regulations governing car parks. By parking in a car park, you are entering into a private contract with the owner, and you agree to their conditions. If they have a sign up that tells you that all cars are parked at the owners' risk, then whatever happens to your car is none of their concern. 11. And staying with cars, if you buy one – new or second hand – from a dealer, then you have considerable consumer protections should things go wrong. However, and at the risk of stating the obvious, if you buy a car privately you have almost no comeback should the car break down 50 metres away from where the deal was done. That is one of the reasons cars bought privately tend to be cheaper than ones bought from dealers. It is also why you should make sure that if you are buying a car privately you check its history and get it looked over thoroughly by a mechanic you trust before you hand over any cash. [ Dangerous car database needed to protect second-hand buyers, State's consumer body says Opens in new window ] 12. If you leave a jacket or coat into a cloakroom in a nightclub or hotel and return to find it gone, you don't have much by way of comeback. You might think you have rights in this respect – after all, what is the point of a cloakroom if it can't keep your coat safe? – but if a cloakroom has a warning about items being left at the owner's risk then under the law they have told you unambiguously about the terms and conditions of the contract, and you have accepted them. They have said they are not providing security for your jacket, only somewhere to put it, so if anything happens to it, it's your lookout. In the absence of the sign, you could argue that it is their responsibility, as they have not warned you otherwise, but there is no guarantee that such a line would work 13. Can a shop make you pay for something if you – or more likely, maybe, your fiercely curious and slightly clumsy child – break it in the store? The answer is not as simple as a 'if you break it you buy it' type sign might suggest. If you break something in a shop and it is a genuine accident, they are going to struggle to make you pay for it. Even if they do manage to convince you to pay for it, under absolutely no circumstances can they demand you pay for the item before you leave the shop. Nor can they demand that you pay the full retail price. If a shop can prove you were negligent in handling the goods, then the law may compel you to make restitution, but this would be capped by the court at the replacement cost and not the retail cost.
Zawya
7 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
Oman: 300 non-compliant businesses caught in e-payment inspection drive in Seeb
Muscat – As part of ongoing efforts to uphold market regulations and safeguard consumer rights, the Inspection Department at the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Investment Promotion carried out a large-scale inspection campaign in the Mabelah Industrial Area in the wilayat of Seeb. The campaign focused on ensuring compliance with mandatory electronic payment service requirements, in line with national directives to modernise commercial transactions and improve consumer convenience. Authorities confirmed the seizure of 300 commercial establishments found to be non-compliant, primarily for failing to provide electronic point-of-sale (POS) systems. Legal action has been initiated against the violators in accordance with applicable regulations. The Inspection Department reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening regulatory oversight and urged all businesses to comply with the e-payment mandate, which enhances transparency, reduces cash handling, and supports the sultanate's move toward a more digitally integrated economy. Regular inspection campaigns will continue across various governorates to ensure full adherence and protect consumer interests. © Apex Press and Publishing Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
RNZ News
21-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Supermarket pricing errors cost NZers millions a year
Consumer NZ wants the government to crackdown on what it calls a systemic problem of misleading supermarket prices. The consumer organisation said shoppers were too often being stung at the checkout and paying more than the advertised shelf price for items. New World and Pak'n Save owner, Foodstuffs said it took pricing accuracy seriously and had invested in systems and staff training to reduce errors. RNZ has approached Woolworths for comment. Consumer NZ chief Jon Duffy said pricing errors might seem small for individuals but the practice was costing New Zealanders tens of millions of dollars a year. He said the government needed to step in and a petition had been launched calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the Fair Trading Act. Consumer also wanted to see the introduction of a manadatory pricing accuracy code to hold supermarkets to account for errors and automatic compensation for shoppers who were overcharged. Duffy told Morning Report a recent Consumer survey found 62 percent of shoppers noticed pricing errors over the past year. "This isn't okay, particularly at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills," he said. "It's already illegal for businesses to mislead consumers about prices, but the current law is not forcing supermarkets to up their game." A Foodstuffs spokesperson said the company had invested heavily in better systems, daily checks, and electronic shelf labels to reduce errors. "Our policy is that if a customer is overcharged, they get a refund of that product and get to keep the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to ensure pricing is clear, accurate, and fair." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Daily Mail
19-07-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: Dad's £54,000 van has a brake fault but he can't get a refund
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. Ms S.L. writes: My father purchased a new Mercedes Vito from LSH Auto in Stockport. This is a high-spec five-seater vehicle which he and my mother bought for £54,344, intending to take the family to France this summer. Soon after purchase, it became apparent that the van has a grave fault with its automatic emergency braking system. Now LSH Auto has the van, which my father took back, and his money. Tony Hetherington replies: The van's fault is pretty frightening. It would brake suddenly and violently when there were no other vehicles near it and no objects in its path. Your father contacted LSH Auto for advice and took the van back to be checked. The same random braking then happened while one of the dealer's engineers was at the wheel. This was so dramatic he ruled it could not be taken back on public roads. LSH Auto is not some backstreet second-hand car company. It is a Mercedes-Benz dealer with a large, impressive site and its most recent accounts show a one-year turnover of £255 million. Staff contacted Mercedes-Benz in Germany and then told your father that the van had a software problem for which there was no current solution. A new system was needed and this could take six months to a year. Your father, quite reasonably, expected to get his money back, but you told me that Mercedes-Benz wanted LSH Auto to pay, while the Stockport company wanted the Germans to pay. Meanwhile, LSH Auto refused to release the van unless your father signed a legal waiver to agree that if the van caused any injury to anyone, or any damage to other vehicles or property, LSH Auto and Mercedes would not be held liable. Not surprisingly, your father refused to sign, which meant that, when you contacted me, LSH Auto had both the van and the £54,344 – and your family's Channel ferry booking looked as though it had been sunk without trace. I put all this to both LSH Auto and Mercedes. If the van had a fault so serious that it was dangerous to drive, surely this means it was not fit to be sold in the first place? A few hours later, your father received a call from the Stockport dealer, offering a full refund. I received a statement from the firm that did not go this far but did tell me that LSH Auto 'is in active discussion with the customer'. It took about a fortnight for the cash to land in your father's bank account, and for LSH Auto to give me an updated statement saying that management 'has been in active discussions with the customer and has now resolved the concerns raised'. I suspect the delay in paying may have been the time it took the dealer to agree with Mercedes exactly who would foot the bill. Tripadvisor won't take off N.W. writes: I owned a hotel in Blackpool for many years, and as part of our advertising we used the Business Advantage scheme from Tripadvisor. I sold the hotel in January and informed Tripadvisor, but it has just charged me £680 subscription to the scheme. I cannot find a way to cancel. Tony Hetherington replies: Tripadvisor describes Business Advantage as a subscription service that attracts and influences potential customers by adding various bells and whistles to the hotel's page on its website. You paid for Business Advantage with your credit card, so when the subscription was due for renewal, Tripadvisor simply charged your card. When I contacted Tripadvisor, I was told it had no record of your cancellation and it would accept a cancellation only from the hotel's email address. I explained again that you had sold the hotel so had no access to its emails. Tripadvisor's answer was to tell you to ask the new owner to take over the payments. You barely know the new owner, though. I asked Tripadvisor repeatedly whether it plans to carry on collecting payments from you for ever, but it would not answer. You have decided to write off the £680, but I suggest you warn your card issuer of this dispute, in case Tripadvisor collects more payments. And it would do no harm to have your solicitor write to Tripadvisor, making clear you are withdrawing any permission it imagines it has to take more money from you.
