The Rutlands experience

[Steve]

I placed an order for a morticer from Rutlands on Feb 9th. After 4 broken delivery promises, it's now March 17th and still no morticer in sight.
Has anyone had similar experiences with Rutlands, or is this unusual?
Steve

 

[Aragorn]

That's really poor! I've ordered a few times from Rutlands and I've always had very prompt delivery - large items and small.
What discount will you arrange with them... Oh hang on, they've already taken your money :?

A

 

[Steve]

Verily - Aragorn son of Arathorn!

I thought I'd ask - although I'm mightily urinated off with them, I realise it might not be their usual practice. Good to hear you've been happy - I'll keep the faith!

Are we saddoes or what? It's half one in the morning and I thought to meself 'I'll just have a quick look on the forum...' - that was an hour ago!

Steve, brother of Bill

 

[Chris Knight]

As has been pointed out several times in the past - you will find this is not unusual for Rutlands - nor is the fact that they will have taken your money already even though they have despatched the goods!

 

[Anonymous]

I have ordered 4 times from Rutlands:
Delta Thicknesser
PC router
Leigh D4
Blades for thicknesser

Each time they arrived within a couple of days. This was over a period of 2 years or so

Am I the exception :?:

Tony

 

[Anonymous]

I have had mixed experiences with Rutlands.

A couple of orders have been ok, one time they sent me the wrong stuff, took a couple of weeks and 4 phone calls to sort it out.

A bit apathetic @ times I found

Its my last port of call now or unless the item is significantly cheaper or unique to them.

TBF, any supplier who I have ordered from @ least 3 times, there have been some type of problem

Seems par for the course

DRUM BANGING TIME

Of course a 'Woody Which' could well put a rocket up these peoples profit margins.

Would be wonderful to see a survey about our tool suppliers in the UK.

 

[Alf]

Ah Rutlands...

Two orders from them; first one was small and there was no trouble. Second one was enormous (as regards value) and they were totally useless. They took their cut as the "middle man" but they did nothing to earn it, leaving all arrangements to us. Result: unhappiness. You could argue a 50% success rate isn't do bad, but with all the reports I hear of them consistently debiting credit cards when they know they haven't got the item, I will go out of my way to find somewhere else in preference to be honest. Too bad, 'cos they have some things no one else seems to.

Steve, which mortiser did you order? Could be someone knows of somewhere else selling it at equal, or maybe even less cost, and with a better record :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[Charley]

I've used Rutlands many times in the past and don't think I've ever had a problem but I have heard lots of storys from people who have

 

[Steve]

Mmm.. mixed response!
I've ordered the 5/8" Fox jobby which looks like a pretty good buy:
http://www.rutlands.co.uk/cgi-bin/psProdDet.cgi/F14651||@cMorticers@b|0|user|1,0,0,1|6|
I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the Fox range - it really does look good, well priced and just about everything I've read so far is very positive. Only time will tell I 'spose. I'll let you all know how this little morticer shapes up - if I ever get it!

One of the things I like about the Rutlands site is that they offer us the ability to review items, and they don't appear to edit them - some people have really slated some items.
However, the practice of debiting your card whether or not they have your gear in stock is a bit naughty IMHO.
I use the Stiles and Bates site a lot, and they not only provide stock levels on the site for all to see, they also don't debit your card until the despatch goes out. If something's going on back order, you know it when you buy and you also know you're not paying until it's in. A much fairer system, methinks.

Good thought Alf - but as I've already paid and waited this long, I might as well hang on.

I think Bilzee's idea of a 'Woody Which' is a great! Mind you - this forum is getting so comprehensive we might not need one!

Steve

 

[Alf]

Steve,

I suppose that's what they rely on :?

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

Had to register to post on this forum...anyway, why did I? My understanding of e-commerce and the law is that debiting your credit card before dispatch of the item ordered is illegal under the consumer credit act. Suggest you do some research on it, and then start quoting it to them in phone calls to see how quickly they change their stance.

 

[Steve]

Hi Espedair - and welcome aboard!

It's perfectly legal to debit the card as long as the buyer is made aware that the card will actually be debited at the time of the order, and that by pressing 'order' (or 'buy now' or whatever) the card will be debited.
Rutlands do in fact make that abundantly clear.

Legs to stand on?
None have I.

Steve!

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Espedair - welcome to the group.

Hi Steve

It's perfectly legal to debit the card as long as the buyer is made aware that the card will actually be debited at the time of the order, and that by pressing 'order' (or 'buy now' or whatever) the card will be debited. Rutlands do in fact make that abundantly clear.

Before replying to this I have to hold my hand up to being an interested party that dislikes, nay has a bitter deadly hatred, for the Rutlands way of debiting your card as soon as they take an order. It might be legal, but ethically it stinks.

They do not actually have to debit your account. To ensure that they will get paid, which I assume is the purpose, they can process the order value as a "cleared item". What happens is that you have a CC limit of say, 5,000 and nothing on the card and you then order an item for 1,000 it is marked on your card for seven days and at any time in the seven days they can process the card for 1,000 and they are guaranteed their payment. The "cleared item" is my term for the process, I don't know what the CC companies call it.

If that process was used the only difference would be that Rutlands did not have use of the money for the period when they hadn't supplied the goods.


Cheers
Neil

 

[Anonymous]

If that process was used the only difference would be that Rutlands did not have use of the money for the period when they hadn't supplied the goods.

.....and presumably you would not have either.

The fairest way IMO is that web-based suppliers keep stock level status updated so if something was out of stock you were pre-warned @ time of order.

The choice then would be yours

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Bill

The fairest way IMO is that web-based suppliers keep stock level status updated so if something was out of stock you were pre-warned @ time of order. The choice then would be yours

There is obviously merit in your idea but it also involves much more work and additional expense for suppliers. (I know because the systems we supply work that way). Even where this procedure is used you are still reliant on the company having good warehousing systems so that a product does not go missing.

I suspect that the majority of problems arise where they do not keep stock of an item and are then reliant on an importer to supply goods. They probably rely on the importer to directly supply their customer, particularly if it is a larger item such as a P/T or tablesaw.

Cheers
Neil

 

[Steve]

Couldn't agree more.
We all know the vagaries of manufacturers and suppliers, and I think most people are prepared to cut a bit of slack as long as they are told what's what. Again - I'll plug Stiles and Bates who not only put stock levels on the site (eg in stock, temporarily out of stock etc) but also don't charge your card until the day they send it.
If S&B can do it - they can ALL do it!

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Couldn't find the act I was refering to yesterday, about not being able to debit the card until dispatch - I know there was a lot of talk about this subject on the uk DIY news group a while back.

One thing that you may like to consider, if you're fed up of waiting, is the following:

The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
Performance
19. - (1) Unless the parties agree otherwise, the supplier shall perform the contract within a maximum of 30 days beginning with the day after the day the consumer sent his order to the supplier.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (7) and ( 8 ), where the supplier is unable to perform the contract because the goods or services ordered are not available, within the period for performance referred to in paragraph (1) or such other period as the parties agree ("the period for performance"), he shall -

(a) inform the consumer; and

(b) reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom it was made.

(3) The reference in paragraph (2)(b) to any sum paid on behalf of the consumer includes any sum paid by a creditor who is not the same person as the supplier under a personal credit agreement with the consumer.

(4) The supplier shall make the reimbursement referred to in paragraph (2)(b) as soon as possible and in any event within a period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the period for performance expired.

(5) A contract which has not been performed within the period for performance shall be treated as if it had not been made, save for any rights or remedies which the consumer has under it as a result of the non-performance.

(6) Where any security has been provided in relation to the contract, the security (so far as it is so provided) shall, where the supplier is unable to perform the contract within the period for performance, be treated as never having had any effect and any property lodged with the supplier solely for the purposes of the security as so provided shall be returned by him forthwith.

(7) Where the supplier is unable to supply the goods or services ordered by the consumer, the supplier may perform the contract for the purposes of these Regulations by providing substitute goods or services (as the case may be) of equivalent quality and price provided that -

(a) this possibility was provided for in the contract;

(b) prior to the conclusion of the contract the supplier gave the consumer the information required by regulation 7(1)(b) and (c) in the manner required by regulation 7(2).

The whole statute can be seen at:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

So, you could get your money back - depends on how much you want the morticer!

(sorry for the long post!)

 

[Anonymous]

There is obviously merit in your idea but it also involves much more work and additional expense for suppliers. (I know because the systems we supply work that way). Even where this procedure is used you are still reliant on the company having good warehousing systems so that a product does not go missing.

Neil, considering the frustration that can be caused by the acceptance of orders and the debiting of cards when the item is out of stock any firm worth their salt should make entirely clear just what their procedures are in those regards, not just @ checkout either but in plain view on the products page.

Its not rocket science, but good business practice or is this another 2nd class practice thing that we poor ole brits have to swallow?

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Bill

I think it's just an example of the poor customer service that you can receive from Rutlands.

Cheers
Neil

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's just an example of the poor customer service that you can receive from Rutlands.

Neil...if it was just rutlands it wouldn't be a problem, except for rutlands