Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Sale of goods act BRIGHTHOUSE - just a quickie...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6058 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

Question:

 

Would a "reasonable" person expect a Phillips Whirlpool Frost Free Fridge/Freezer to last longer than 26 months?

 

Hi folks

 

Can anyone point me in the direction of specific legislation concerning "durability" of goods in respect of the Sale of Goods act?

 

I am trying to help someone with a Brighthouse problem (as usual!!!)

 

The fridge/freezer is subject to a three year HIRE PURCHASE agreement (with around 7 months still to run), is NOT covered by Brighthouse's EXTORTIONATE optional service cover, has been used correctly (ie - been used as a fridge and not as a rally car!) and has now broken down... well, not completely broken down... it just keeps frosting up until the doors won't shut... (supposed to be "frost free" by the way...) :)

 

Brighthouse have REFUSED to assist with any kind of repair - giving their usual response of "you should have taken out optional service cover", and insist that since the manufacter's 12 month warranty is no longer in force they have no responsibilty.

 

Now then, I KNOW that this is not the case - particulary seeing as this is a HIRE PURCHASE agreement as opposed to a credit or cash sale agreement. I know that a customer cannot be expected to continue HIRING (with a option to purchase) a faulty product - possibly a DANGEROUSLY faulty product...

 

So, if there's anyone out there in CAG world who can assist with yet ANOTHER case of Brighthouse insisting consumer law doesn't apply to them, please help.

 

I've trawled the web today looking for specifics on "durability" - can't seem to find what I need. I'm sure someone posted a guide once - a guide that gives examples of how long a "reasonable" person would expect different products to last... TVs, cookers, fridges, etc...

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I replaced my 18 years old Hotpoint fridge two years ago. Only realised when I was destroying the instruction book.

 

The freezer I purchases at the same time is still going strong and as they are fitted you can't even see any dating.

 

Below is a response from Consumer Direct that relates to an item that failed after 11.5 months but only found the receipt at 13 months.

 

Under the SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) all goods supplied by a trader to a consumer must be of a satisfactory quality, fit for their purpose, and as described. If this is not the case, then you may have the right to reject the goods in question and ask for a refund. The law states that you only have a short time in which to reject goods for a full refund, and once 'acceptance' is deemed to have taken place, your rights will be limited in the first instance to claiming a repair, or possibly a replacement or a partial refund.

 

These rights last for up to 6 years, depending on how long it is reasonable to expect the goods in question to last. Bearing in mind the length of time you have had the (Electrical Item), you may be expected to contribute towards the costs of any repairs.

 

 

Seperate to your above 'statutory rights' are any rights granted under the guarantee. Whether the guarantee may have been considered valid can be debated either way - the trader may argue that by not returning the Electrical Item within the guarantee period, and with a valid receipt, you did not fulfil the requirements of the guarantee. You would have to check the terms & conditions of the guarantee to confirm what information it requires from you.

 

 

At this stage, you should send the trader a recorded delivery letter, outlining everything to date, and making 'time of the essence' to resolve the matter within a set period of time (i.e. 14 days). Make it very clear what you are claiming from the trader, and that you are aware of your statutory rights. It is also worth retaining copies of everything sent, for your records

 

The highlights are to disguise the actual item.

 

Personally I would expect a Fridge/Freezer be fault free for at least five years.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DW190

 

That's very helpful.

 

Not enough people understand that manufacturers' warranties and the Sale of Goods act are NOT the same thing. In some ways, the regulation 12 month manufacturers' warranty, although very useful, has done more harm than good...

 

Here's a few words of wisdom from Alan Wilson, a senior law lecturer at the University of East London and barrister who specialises in consumer law..

 

 

"...Manufacturers' guarantees, or warranties as they are sometimes called, were introduced to enhance companies' reputations for supplying quality goods. They are provided free of charge at the point of sale and come with a promise to repair or replace goods if they go wrong in the first 12 months.

 

But manufacturer's guarantees do not replace your basic shopping rights outlined in the Sale of Goods Act, which allow you to claim against the retailer if you buy faulty goods. In fact, the manufacturer is legally obliged to draw your attention to the legal rights under the act.

 

Consumers are generally better off pursuing Sale of Goods Act rights against the retailer, as these are stronger than those contained in a manufacturer's guarantee and last for up to six years from the date of purchase. The goods you buy must be reasonably durable and of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose.

 

Big-ticket electrical appliances such as iPods, washing machines and dishwashers should be expected to last for several years. You should be able to claim compensation from the retailer if they break down within that period as long as they have been used normally. Your rights do not come to an end after 12 months simply because the manufacturer's guarantee has expired..."

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the company have offered an optional service cover, they obviously believe the product will last this long (otherwise they wouldn't offer such a facility for this period of time. This is business and not a charity, you wouldn't set out to lose money now would you).

 

You should also not be expected to buy a new fridge/freezer every 2 years especially with the make and cost of it.

 

If companys want to offer you something to trick you into paying more money for the same rights, I don't see why you can't use the same thing to prove that they expect the item to last this long. Its why I will generally cap electronic products at 3 years, as its easy to prove a retailer expects it to last this long.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the company have offered an optional service cover, they obviously believe the product will last this long (otherwise they wouldn't offer such a facility for this period of time. This is business and not a charity, you wouldn't set out to lose money now would you).

 

You should also not be expected to buy a new fridge/freezer every 2 years especially with the make and cost of it.

 

If companys want to offer you something to trick you into paying more money for the same rights, I don't see why you can't use the same thing to prove that they expect the item to last this long. Its why I will generally cap electronic products at 3 years, as its easy to prove a retailer expects it to last this long.

 

Whenever I get offered extended warranties my quetion to them is why would I need a warranty dont you expect it to last so long? the answer is usually oh yes its just that we have to offer it. Their own words then become your guarantee.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. You're both absolutely right. Thanks again.

 

So.....

 

...What should we recommend?

 

In the first instance, I have advised that the agreement be placed "in dispute" and no further payments be made in respect of it. (This is particularly important, I believe, especially given Brighthouse's well known bully-boy repossession policy... (Mind you, the customer is well aware of her rights regarding Hire Purchase, and understands NO repossession can be made without a court order as she has paid well over a third of the instalments.)

 

(for anyone not "in-the-know" with Brighthouse, I would recommend a quick read through of these couple of threads...)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53098-steven4064-brighthouse.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-stores/106348-brighthouse-urgent-advice-needed.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/89225-brighthouse-problems-advice-please.html

 

Thing is, folks, I do need just a little bit of help with this one. I could do with your advice on the best way to proceed.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the finance is Hire Purchase then it's not the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that applies here it is the 'Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973'.

 

I think a fridge freezer should last 6+ years (the price you paid for it is a reflection of the value as well) maybe I'm wrong that's just my guess.

 

With Hire Purchase you are right they cannot take it back without a court order if you have paid 1/3 in England. After you paid half you should be able to hand it back.

 

Never stop the payments even if it's faulty sort it out with the trader first of all. If you stop payments they will have an excuse to hold you as being in breach of contract and it might affect your credit at a later date!

 

Unfortunatley with hire purchase the burden of proof is with the consumer to prove the goods are not durable.

 

Once proved it them becomes the obligation of the retailer to repair/replace/or reimburse compensation to value of repair/replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the finance is Hire Purchase then it's not the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that applies here it is the 'Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973'.

 

I think a fridge freezer should last 6+ years (the price you paid for it is a reflection of the value as well) maybe I'm wrong that's just my guess.

 

With Hire Purchase you are right they cannot take it back without a court order if you have paid 1/3 in England. After you paid half you should be able to hand it back.

 

Never stop the payments even if it's faulty sort it out with the trader first of all. If you stop payments they will have an excuse to hold you as being in breach of contract and it might affect your credit at a later date!

 

Unfortunatley with hire purchase the burden of proof is with the consumer to prove the goods are not durable.

 

Once proved it them becomes the obligation of the retailer to repair/replace/or reimburse compensation to value of repair/replacement.

 

Thanks 118 (didn't you used to be 192?) ;)

 

Now that's got me thinking... A quick "google" of "Hire Purchase, Supply of Goods act" came up with...

 

Unsatisfactory goods

 

If hire-purchase goods are misdescribed or faulty, you have a direct cause of action against the hire-purchase company to the same extent as if the company had actually sold you the goods (Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973). Consequently, you may be entitled to reject the goods and/or claim compensation from the hire-purchase company.

 

If you wish to reject the goods you must notify the hire-purchase company (and/or the dealer/shop with whom you negotiated the deal) immediately you discover the problem.

 

The easiest way for you to recover compensation from the hire-purchase company is to withhold an appropriate sum from the repayments (in the case of faulty goods, this will be the cost of repair).

 

All very interesting, but as Brighthouse supply goods on a Hire Purchase/Conditional Sale agreement, I always thought the "good old" Sale of Goods act applied - as, ultimately, the customer is HIRING a product with the intention/option to PURCHASE at the end of it...

 

Oh, and as for the credit score thing... the reason most people shop at Brighthouse is because they can't get credit anywhere else... so that would be the last of their problems! ;)

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol okay lefty thanks never realised that was why people shopped at brighthouse! Have to remember that.

 

No im new here never been a 192

 

Hire Purchase = Supply of goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973

Conditional Finance = Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

 

Always import to double check exactly what type of finance.

 

The implied terms of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 are the same as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) but the remedies are different.

 

Usually you can only claim for compensation (damages in Scotland) to the value or repair or replacement! I say usually but no harm in trying to push for replacement or refund!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No im new here never been a 192

 

 

LOL right back at ya! That was just my lame attempt at a little humour... 118 (new directory enquiries) 192 (original directory enquiries.... Oh well... ;)

 

Seriously, thanks for the input. I am now having to admit I am somewhat confused regarding SALE of Goods act, SUPPLY of Goods act, HIRE PURCHASE and CONDITIONAL SALE....

 

but...

 

...BUT, I think the underling point is, as you have agreed, a fridge freezer should last longer than 26 months and, somewhere within the two acts, the law is on the side of the consumer?

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Oh well, after a few weeks waiting for the store manager to "come up with a solution" (ha ha) this letter will be winding its way to Caversham Finance via RECORDED DELIVERY tomorrow...

 

(Anyone fancy giving it a quick check over? Maybe suggest any changes?)

 

 

 

Caversham Finance Ltd (Trading as BRIGHTHOUSE)

Chiltern House

Marsack Street

Caversham

Reading

RG4 5AP

 

DATE

 

(Recorded Delivery)

 

 

Ref : W/POOL 60cm F/FREE F/F SI WH7720SIL

 

(Original agreement number – XXXXXXXXXX – with “optional” service cover)

(Updated agreement number – XXXXXXXXXX – with “optional” service cover removed)

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

The above item was purchased new under a HIRE PURCHASE agreement with CAVERSHAM FINANCE (trading as BRIGHTHOUSE) on 5th February 2005. The agreement was for 156 weeks. The cash price of the item (at the time of sale) was £457.30. (APR of 29.9% made a total cost (not including service cover) of £658.32.) The item was purchased from the Northfield, Birmingham branch, and the agreement still has 19 weeks to run.

 

In January 2006 the agreement was updated to reflect removal of “optional” service cover.

 

On 27th August 2007 we notified Brighthouse (Northfield) that the item had ceased to function and requested a repair. (The item constantly “freezes” up resulting in giant blocks of ice in the freezer section – very odd for a “frost free” freezer! This fault occurs constantly, regardless of any temperature settings made.) The item has always been used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, so we can only assume this is a fault in design or manufacture. We also believe this fault to be potentially dangerous and have stopped using the item.

 

Brighthouse (Northfield) refused to offer a repair, stating that as the fridge/freezer was out of the initial manufacturer’s warranty and, as no “optional” service cover exists on the agreement, any repair would have to be paid for by us. This was unacceptable and, after waiting more than two weeks for the store manager to “find a solution” (which, it would seem, was simply to leave the company) we decided to refer the matter to your customer services at head office instead. After telephoning no less than 5 times over a period of 2 days (and each time being assured a regional manager would call us back) no return call was forthcoming. This is, quite simply, appalling service and hardly the way to treat long-standing customers for over ten years.

 

We would respectfully remind you that manufacturer’s warranties (and, indeed, any extended warranties) are IN ADDITION to consumer’s STATUATORY RIGHTS. These rights are very clear and, in the case of a HIRE PURCHASE agreement, refer to THE SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) ACT 1973.

 

In particular:

 

1- Implied term about quality

 

(1) In section 14 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (implied terms about quality or fitness) for subsection (2) there is substituted—

“(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

 

(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

 

(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

 

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,

 

(b) appearance and finish,

 

© freedom from minor defects,

 

(d) safety, and

 

(e) durability.

 

A freely available guide (based on consumer groups and manufacturer’s websites) suggests a “good quality” fridge/freezer should have a life expectancy (durability factor) of around ten – eighteen years. It can, therefore, be deduced from these figures that a “reasonable” person would expect a “good quality” fridge/freezer to last at least seven years and would certainly not expect it to cease to function after only two and a half years. Of course, the original price and quality of the fridge/freezer should be taken into account, and at £457.30 (2005 price) this would certainly indicates an “up-market” quality product.

 

What we require:

 

Confirmation (in writing and within 14 days) that CAVERSHAM FINANCE (trading as BRIGHTHOUSE) will facilitate a satisfactory repair to the above item, or supply a replacement item of comparable age and specification in full working order. If neither solution is practical, then a realistic partial refund would be the only recourse.

 

Regretfully, if we do not hear from you within 14 days, or if you fail to respond positively to our requests, we will have no alternative than to persue the matter through the small claims court.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Many thanks!

 

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but to clarify things you should be looking at the supply of goods and services act.

 

In terms of durability, there are no hard rules - it is a matter of fact for the court to decide. The 6 years is how long you have to make a claim - a product does not necessarily have to last that long (and there is nothing to stop one expecting a product to last longer than 6 years).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Gyzmo. Always appreciated.

 

I have actually established earlier on in the thread that it is the SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) ACT 1973 as opposed to the SALE OF GOODS ACT that applies in this case. The sample letter in my previous post refers to it.

 

Clearly there ARE no hard facts concerning durability, other than what a REASONABLE PERSON would consider satisfactory. And I'm sure there is nobody (reasonable or not) who believes a fridge/freezer should be replaced every two years or so.

 

At the end of the day, the customer simply wants the fridge repaired. She is not insisting (or expecting) any kind of full refund. I don't think that is unreasonable, do you?

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies - I overlooked the hire purchase point (hence my reference to the other Act), depsite it being in nice big capital letters! As to the rest, is was merely to clarify - there are some people who think that the Limitation Act means that goods shoudl last 6 years. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here.

 

apologies again for my oversight (dissertation really getting to me!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the rest, is was merely to clarify - there are some people who think that the Limitation Act means that goods shoudl last 6 years. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here.

 

Thanks again, Gyzmo.

 

No. There is no confusion. I am aware that products are not AUTOMATICALLY expected to last 6 years. The 6 year thing is simply the length of time available to raise a claim quoting the SALE OF GOODS ACT/SUPPLY OF GOODS ACT.

 

In fact, I don't recall actually mentioning six years as a figure at all.

 

However, too few people realise that a manufacturer's 12 month warranty is IN ADDITION to your statuatory rights, and that most high end electrical/domestic appliances are certainly expected to be free from fault for considerably longer than just 12 months. Your rights don't disappear at the end of a manufacturer's 12 month warranty.

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a quick update for anyone watching...

 

Two days after receiving the written complaint (letter above) Brighthouse agreed to repair the fridge/freezer to full working order.

 

An engineer called to examine the product a couple of days ago, agreed there was a problem with the thermostat/control board (a common fault, apparantly!) and ordered parts to repair it.

 

So a result all round!

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

(I just wish these firms would acknowledge their responsibilities straight away, and not have to wait until the law is spelt out to them... Oh well... )

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...