Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Three sells faulty phone, refuses to exchange


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5024 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

On 23rd December, I bought a Sony Ericsson W660i from a local Three shop. It turned out to be faulty - the charger didn't work, and when under pressure the Three shop gave me a working charger (they insisted they didn't have to) I didn't seem to be able to do anything with the phone while it was charging - I switched it on several times and got nothing but a "Charging" message.

 

Worst of all, inside my home, I can't use it: although the bars say it is receiving a full signal, the phone screen says "Emerg. calls only". (For obvious reasons, I haven't checked to see if it really *is* emergency calls only.)

 

I rang their helpline (on my old mobile, and then on my landline) and got a very helpful guy who ran some troubleshooting checks for me and said it looked like that I had was a faulty phone.

 

I took it back to the shop on 31st December, and they claimed they didn't have to replace it even though what I was asking for was a like-for-like exchange within the 14-day cooling off period. They offered to send it away to be repaired after New Year, which would mean I'd get it back just after the 14-day cooling off period is over (unless you allow for the non-working days of Christmas and Hogmanay - I'm in Scotland).

 

The helpline guy called me back as promised today, listened to what I had to say, and went into bland "no comment" mode, which didn't surprise me: I had started quoting the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

My questions are:

 

Surely it's still the law that if a company sells faulty goods they have to replace it or refund within 30 days?

 

Surely it's still the law that I have 14 days to change my mind about a mobile phone supplier, and one of the valid reasons for rejecting a contract is that I can't get a signal at home?

 

I presented those options to the Three helpline - that if they wouldn't replace the faulty phone, I could certainly still cancel the whole contract, and he claimed promptly that I couldn't. (The shop's attitude has been that I'm stuck - the phone is faulty, too bad, I should send it off for repair.)

 

I haven't yet ever been able to use this phone at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there J (I couldn`t spell your full username, LOL).

 

I`m having a similar chew with 3 regarding a friends phone.

 

His phone is only 4 months old and the charger fried the phone when he charged it up. 3 have the WORST Customer Service on the planet. They should be shot for taking the **** out of people.

 

My thread in here if you interested? -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/122098-3-mobile-damaged-phone.html

 

Although we haven`t got the problem sorted yet, a good contact on CAG, who is in his 3rd year as a Law Student is going to knock me up a Letter Before Action, which will threaten Court Action is they don`t play ball.

 

At present, he is helping a lot of other people in trouble, as he is a Site Helper, but will do my letter as soon as he can.

 

If you don`t sort out your own problem your welcome to check in on my thread to see what happens, and borrow the letter to edit for your own needs. Not sure when though.

 

So, in the mean time, just keep fighting.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's still the law that if a company sells faulty goods they have to replace it or refund within 30 days?

 

Surely it's still the law that I have 14 days to change my mind about a mobile phone supplier, and one of the valid reasons for rejecting a contract is that I can't get a signal at home?

 

Actually, no, these are the additional rights offered by some suppliers.

 

What the law says is this: that you must be given a 'reasonable' length of time to examine the goods and check they are satisfactory. If they are not, and you are quick, you are entitled to reject them and have a full refund.

 

What is a "reasonable" time is not defined, but just over 1 week (including days where shops were closed as well!) should very much come under that definition IMO.

 

I would go back to the shop with phone stating that you are rejecting the goods as faulty, as is your right under SOGA 1979 and stating that you want an exchange or a refund. I would also key in the number for your local Consumer Direct in current phone, and if they insist on denying you your statutory rights, phone CD there and then, from the shop. :razz:

 

I always carry with me a copy of the TS leaflet on SOGA, the one for Scotland can be found here, it's worth printing a copy and taking it with you too.

 

Let us know how you get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear 3,

 

In 23rd December, I signed a contract with you for 18 months mobile phone service: as part of that contract, you supplied me with a Sony Ericsson W660i Black. This transaction took place at the Three shop at 74/75 Princes St, Edinburgh, EH2 2DF.

 

On 27th December, I took the phone back to the shop, as I had been unable to fit a SIM card. The shop fitted the SIM card. I took it home and attempted to charge the battery. The charger did not work. I returned to the shop the next day. The shop manager claimed that as the charger was not covered by warranty, 3 were not required to replace it: however, I did get a new charger that day - the one which the shop had been using to charge the W660i phones.

 

When the phone was plugged in and the battery was charging, the phone would do nothing but display a "charging" message: I tried several times, switching it on and off, and was unable to get any other response. When the battery was fully charged, the phone would not connect to the network.

 

I rang your helpline (on my old mobile, and then on my landline) and got a very helpful guy (Ethan) who ran some troubleshooting checks for me and said it looked like that I had was a faulty phone.

 

I took it back to the shop on 31st December, and they claimed they didn't have to replace it even though what I was asking for was a like-for-like exchange within the 14-day cooling off period. They offered to send it away to be repaired after the New Year holidays (1st and 2nd January in Scotland).

 

The helpline guy (Ethan) called me back as promised on 2nd January, listened to what I had to say, and went into bland "no comment" mode, which didn't surprise me: I had started quoting the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

I am cancelling my contract with 3, and here are my reasons:

 

1. Three has advertised a 14-day cooling off period: I am still within that period, even without allowing for 4 non-working days.

 

- When I pointed this out to the shop manager, she claimed that 3 no longer offered the 14-day cooling-off period, and had not since 7th December. However, the 14-day cooling-off period was mentioned on the publicly posted terms and conditions that I read while waiting to buy the phone - on a piece of paper tacked to the wall beside the desk at which I sat. The current T&C were given to me in the sealed box containing the phone, which was not unsealed in the shop.

 

2. I have owned this phone now for 14 days: during that time, due to various issues, problems, faulty equipment, etc, I have not been able to use it to call anyone or for anyone to call me. I have made no use of the 3 network. I have attempted to return the phone twice during the past 14 days and been denied.

 

3. The phone as sold is faulty. Both the 3 helpline and a member of staff in the 3 shop, when I described how it was reacting when on a charger or when I tried to call a number from it, agreed that it was not working correctly. I am, according to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and considerable other legislation and regulation since, entitled to get a replacement or a full refund. I originally asked for a replacement; a member of staff refused on this on 31st December, claiming the manager's authority, and the shop manager refused this directly on 3rd January. I am therefore returning the phone for a refund - or rather, with a cancellation of the network contract, since the phone was supplied free for use with the 3 network.

 

I am deeply unhappy with the shop manager's behaviour throughout this, which has cost me considerable time. I work freelance as a computer consultant and technical writer, and time is money for me. I enclose an invoice for the hours logged.

 

I am concerned at the insistence by the Princes Street 3 shop manager that 3's company policy is to require customers who have been sold faulty phones and equipment to send them away for repair, not to allow them a like-for-like replacement. If this is a true description of 3's company policy, it means that 3 is in violation of the contract between seller and buyer, controlled by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). If this is not a true description of 3's company policy, the shop manager is lying to customers. Neither is a good state of affairs. I would appreciate a clear response from 3 what their company policy is, and what action they will take if the shop manager has been wrongly describing their company policy to customers.

 

An earlier draft of this letter was handed to the manager in the 3 shop on 3rd January, when I made my second unsuccessful attempt to return the mobile phone at the shop where I had bought it. Failing to get a satisfactory response, I felt the only solution remaining to me was to post the phone with its original packaging and associated equipment back to 3's mailing address.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

[Jesurgislac]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hey,

I'm having issues with a faulty mobile. I'll keep this short as it won’t all fit in the space available.

I am a Three customer and have been for nearly 2 years. I was due an upgrade in March 2010 and I got a Nokia 6300 (I'll call this Phone 1) from the Three store (Princes St. Edinburgh) when I signed another 18 month contract.

Phone 1 had faulty skype so I got it replaced with a Sony Ericsson c903 (Phone 2) a few weeks later.

After a few weeks, Phone 2 had memory issues and got replace with another Sony Ericsson c903 (Phone 3).

Phone 3 had the same memory issues, sent away for first repair (1). Memory issues sorted but 2 weeks later another problem, locked out of phone contacts. Phone 3 sent for second repair (2).

I got phone 3 back from second repair and the same problem on the phone again. Back into the Three store to send Phone 3 away for third repair (3).

Went to collect Phone 3 today (24/7/10) to be first told they had 'lost it' but had replaced it with new Sony Ericsson c903 (Phone 4). At first I refused to take it saying I wanted a different phone, to be told by manager that it isn't their problem, I've a contract with them for airtime and it’s up to the manufacturer for the phone. Also the manager told me Sony should have pulled that phone long ago as it was faulty. What are my options now?

I'm on Phone 4 and was told today if I have another problem I've to send it away three times for repair before replacement (probable another c903).

Three supplied me with 3 faulty phones so far and have given me another phone that the manger admits is faulty, yet he says he can’t replace it with another brand even though he did in April (swapping phone 1 Nokia for phone 2 Sony Ericsson).

Please advise me on what rights I have regarding getting a new phone (not a c903) from them? and are they in breach of contract by supplying faulty goods and even admitting it!?

Thanks for reading my post,

Paraic

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a right under the 1979 Act I mentioned in my post to be supplied with working goods or with a full refund or with a working replacement.

 

I eventually got Three to admit I was in the right, by writing letters a lot - to their CEO and their PR director, plus their big multi-corporate CEO in Hong Kong (I looked up their company structure on Wikipedia). I listed all the people I was writing letters to at the end of each letter.

 

It took three months and 17 letters, but they eventually cancelled my contract with them. (I had to mail the non-working phone back to them, recorded delivery, twice, and refuse acceptance of it the third time they tried to post it to me.)

 

I can only advise you to be stubborn and to make sure Three, not you, keeps possession of the faulty phone you do not want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...