Why
should his be news? Any trader can be addressed in this way if they don't deliver. Am I missing something and this is novel?
A court has ordered an online trader to refund consumers to whom he failed to deliver goods or pay refunds, the UK's consumer protection regulator the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has said. Pavan Arora must payback customers who bought technology products via websites he operated, the Cardiff County Court ordered, according to …
I assume that if he was found and shown to be running an online retail business not badly, but fraudulently, then we'd be reading that story, and we aren't. But, yeah, this isn't encouraging to future customers.
I assume that "accessibility" here means having a postal address and maybe telephone number on the web site, and not a disability thing, which does also matter.
Failure to meet delivery dates or even to completely deliver might be down to imcompetence. Failure to give refunds as required by distance selling laws however is a deliberate act. As such surely that is an offcence for which he can be prosecuted?
Taking money but failing to deliver at all is surely a breach of distance selling rules. As I understood it the law requires that transaction on the buyer's credit or debit car is not carried out until the goods are ready for despatch.