Complaint Review: Fabelas Ltd - Birmingham Select State/Province

I purchased a wig for an upcoming dress-up party through this website and as the event was a week away I opted to pay an extra charge for a priority delivery service in order to be sure I would receive the item in time for the event. I did not.

I emailed the organisation the day of the event to ask for confirmation that I would receive a refund for the item when it did arrive. I sought this clarification as their terms and conditions stated that they do not accept refunds for wigs. I was asking for an exception to made to this seeing that they had failed to provide the item within the advertised time-frame and I offered to leave the external packaging intact as evidence it had not been used. I received no response to this email.

The item eventually arrived 3 days after it should have and 2 days too late for the party. From the packaging, I was horrified to note that this item had been sent by standard Royal Mail first class post. In the UK, this is the second cheapest postal option available. I paid 6.95 for a "Priority delivery" service and based on the cost and description, made the assumption that a courier service would be used. I regularly purchase goods online and if I pay 5 or more for delivery, it is always made through a door-to-door courier service. If I had known on that the item was being despatched by first class post, I would never have purchased it throught this organisation. Firstly, because that is an exhorbitant amount to charge for standard postage, a courier service costs around 4 for items under 2kg. Secondly, the Royal Mail has been experiencing repeated strike action by its staff and I knew their service would be unreliable and would be unlikely to arrive in time.

I sent a second email via the webform provided on the website for contacting their customer services. In that email I expressed my displeasure at learning that their "Priority delivery" service was simply Royal Mail first class and that I would contact Consumer Direct (a local agency for protecting consumer rights) should they not clarify their delivery services. I received no response.

The following day, I called their customer service number. The call was eventually taken by a gentleman who introduced himself as Raj. He tried to have me call back at a later time when their returns people would be available. I pointed out that I had made two attempts to receive contact from customer services already with no response and would like to speak to a manager. Raj said he was one of the managers and would attempt to "break into the system" on my behalf. I explained my situation regarding the actual item and added that I thought the descriptions of their delivery charges were misleading and needed to be clarified for future customers. He laughed and said "Yeah, customers think that the costs go towards delivery charges" and did not appear to appreciate my point that customers think that because its a valid assumption to make considering the information provided and the charge for the service. Our conversation continued and he did, at that stage agree to refund me the cost of the item and the cost of the delivery charge. Which is what he is actually legally obliged to do. I again tried to make my point about customers being mislead about delivery charges and he again ignored the point.

Eventually, as he was about to end the call, I made the statement that I would approach Consumer Direct about what I believd was misleading information if it wasn't changed. He responded with "Are you threatening me, in that case, I won't refund you. I've helped you to the nth degree and now you're threatening me?" He then put the phone down. My issue with this transaction is that I was not helped to the nth degree, I had to make repeated attempts to get any service at all and when I did, it was given with reluctance.

I also do strongly believe that the information about their delivery services is misleading and believe it would be considered so under UK law. It is clear to me from what Raj said about other customers comments relating to delivery charges that I am not the only one to be mislead.

My suspicion is that the excessive nature of these charges is well-known to this organisation and is an important revenue stream for them. If they made it clear what service they were actually delivering they know that online customers would not pay that amount for that service. In essence, they are deliberately and knowingly ripping off their customers. They also know that since the amounts are relatively small for the individual customer, they will not pursue the matter.

I have subsequently submitted a formal letter of complaint. To which I have received no response.