Windsor Mint Princess Diana memorabilia lands OAP with court threat

“It shouldn't matter whether you're 19 or 90 - if you didn't order the goods and if the seller hasn't provided free return postage they should pick up the tab. I work in a school where we still get 'inspection' copies of software sent us on a regular basis, despite me returning items stating 'goods not ordered'. I now have quite a collection in the corner of my office. They know where to come if they really want to collect it!”

“This happened to a relative of mine. Same company. It took endless letters and phonecalls and a great deal of distress before it was resolved.
These companies obviously work on the theory that eventually, most people can't face these ongoing battles and just pay them off to get rid of the situation”

“From what I remember, Windsor Mint, along with a number of other companies, place a paragraph on their order forms stating that when you purchase from them, they will send you other things in the future, but if you don't wish them to send anything in the future, you have to tick the box. Unfortunately, from what I remember, the text for that is not just small print, it is tiny print which is virtually impossible to read unless you have 20-20 vision, so many people end up receiving stuff they didn't order and don't want, but they will pay up because they think they must do by law.

In actual fact, tiny print clauses cannot be enforced, and can actually be illegal, or at the very least, constitute unfair terms and conditions. The font type and size must be easily readable and in clear view, and if it isn't, then whatever it states cannot be enforced.

You have no obligation to return the goods to the trader or allow the trader to collect the goods. However, it would be reasonable for you to contact the trader to explain what has happened and give them a chance to collect the goods from you. The trader cannot force you to post the items back, if they want them back and you agree they can have them, the trader must arrange for them to be collected at your convenience.”

“Black and White to me..
I would mention the below in a letter to said company and solicitors and then also mention that you will not accept any further threats without retaliation on your behalf.

Demands and threats regarding payment.

(1)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another person with a view to his acquiring them [F1for the purposes of his trade or business], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding [F2level 4 on the standard scale].
(2)A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business and with a view to obtaining any payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent as aforesaid—
(a)threatens to bring any legal proceedings; or
(b)places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaulters or debtors or threatens to do so; or
(c)invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so,shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F2level 5 on the standard scale].”

“I had a similar experience with 'Windsor Mint' over gold coins depicting Prince Charles playing polo.After eight letters from me,the matter has been finally resolved.
Robert Back.”

“a previous example was Brittania Music club, they would send a CD on a free trial basis for a certain time, I cancelled my subscription but they continued to send them, I had a years worth of CDs unopened, Brittania told me to at my expense return them, I refused they sent me threatening letters which led me going to CAB, and because of this act I the CDs where mine legally as a free gift, now being made aware of the act years later I was able to write to sky (earlier post). Sky tv passed on my debt to debt collectors, I wrote to them with proof of letters I had send and quoting in the unsolicited goods act, after they investigated they confirmed that the debt was illegal and that they wouldn't persue the matter, a year later another debt company got involved, again I sent them the proof and the letter from the previous company, they also confirmed the debt was unenforcable.”

“Don't know about the legal position, but if a company send me something I'd not ordered I'd probably return the goods to them marking the package "Freepost"!”

“I find the company's statement " We have frozen the account so nothing further will happen" a bit worrying.
They have not written off the alleged debt, merely frozen it. Will this show on his credit rating as an unsatisfied debt? Will they be able to eventually claim of his estate?
Perhaps a bit more pressure from The Citizen is called for!”

“Trading Standards are rubbish.
When the Two Rivers grass cutting fiasco started all those years ago I complained to Trading Standards citing the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. Their response was that it was a civil matter (?). The fact that Two Rivers had sent out demands for money without ever proving in court that they had any legal right to fell on deaf ears.
Well as time went on it was proven that Two Rivers had sent out the demands on an assumption, and that no contract existed between the parties. Therefore the charges WERE for unsolicited services.
Trading Standards response not to even consider the legalities of the issue must call into question their usefulness. Especially as there are plenty of media orientated watchdogs on the internet, radio and TV who do a much better job and get better results.”

“I had a look on the Windsor Mint website and it seems that if you order something it more or less says that they will send you some more every month, although you can discuss it with an operator and they can adjust the length of time. He had previously ordered something from there and I know he's had the unsolicited things for over two years but I wonder how long after the first order that this lot came? I just wonder if there was small print on the first order that said that by ordering they had agreed to receive further items and he hadn't noticed it. People could return things within about three weeks so they didn't HAVE to buy the items

I know how easy it is to get sucked into these things as my mother got caught with a book club many years ago as well as a "free" pair of stockings that turned out to be an introduction to an expensive pair every month. I think people are getting wiser to these things but can still get caught out if they don't read the small print before ordering anything. It would have been different if the items had turned up out of the blue, without him having contacted the firm before but there might be a bit more to it than first thought.”