Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
**UPDATED** Why you should use your statutory rights....
DETAILS NOW POSTED BELOW
I will post the details tomorrow, but I will give you all a justification for following the advice that I (and many others) give as opposed to that which certain other people/persons give. It will not be a personal thing, merely a comparison of one train of thought against the other on a factual, not personal, basis.
Apologies if you have read this before my posting the actual info, but I hope you do come back and read what this tomorrow onwards (well, it's not tomorrow now - or at least it wasn't yeterday...I think...).
It's not exactly a thriller, but here goes (be a good idea to get a cup of tea and some biccies before going any further).....
When you enter into a contractual agreement (buying / hiring etc good and services) you and the seller are bound not only by the contractual terms between you, but also those enforced by Parliament. These are in the form of legislation such as Sale of Goods Act, Supply of Goods and services regs etc. They imply terms into a contract, and these terms cannot be excluded, over-ridden or taken away - you can't even agree to waiver them (write something like "I agree that Sale of Goods Act will not apply" it into a contract and it will simply ineffective).
These terms are there for a very good reason. The consumer is at a disadvantage when it comes to buying goods, and to address this imbalance the legislation mentioned above (as well as other legislation) has been enacted.
There are also terms that the seller has. These could be, for example, a right to return unused goods within a certain time for a refund if you don't like the product you have purchased. Such terms are additional to your statutory rights - remember that those cannot be taken away from you.
The effect is that your statutory rights are more "powerful" than the contractual rights you have agreed to (the store's return policy for example), and this is one reason why you should use this as opposed to using a warranty (be aware though that a warranty may cover something thta SOGA does not protect you for). If there is a dispute (faulty goods shall be used as an example), you do not have to argue that you have a contract stating that goods should be of satisfactory quality - that is already implied by legislation. If you were to argue some contractual term, it is for you to prove as such.
Also, using legislative rights forces the store to consider the law, and not act as though they are doing you a favour by providing some remedy out of the goodness of their own hearts (replacing / refunding / repairing). I have taken a faulty mobile phone back to a store, and the put the reason for return as "refund under 14 day store policy). NO! It is because the law was not complied with - that is a whole lot different and highlights the point at the start of this paragraph.
If you have a dispute with a retailer, you should also report it to Consumer Direct. As much as I dislike that service, it does have one very useful function - it collects data on complaints that Trading Standards can use. Before consumer direct, it was difficult for TSOs to get an idea of where problem areas existed. Now, with a national database, such information can be gathered and used. and what can it be used for?
The Enterprise Act. This Act is very good as it is there to disrupt unfair trading, and action can be taken against a retailer who is consistently failing to adhere to the law, or persisitently carrying out bad practice. If people report problems to Consumer Direct, then TSOs can see where such practices are carried out, and if it is on a regular basis then they can take action.
The effect of this is quite significant. Whereas before, if action was taken against a retailer, it was in the civil courts by the buyer, and was done on an individual basis. Possibly, a prosecution may be brought against the seller depending on the problem, but this would be to the individual complaint. Now, where there are lots of relatively small complaints against a retailer, action can be taken as a whole and the penalties are quite severe.
Reporting something to Consumer Direct wil not only provide some advice for you on action to take, but it will also force retailers to consider that they are not above the law, and cannot get away with providing, in common parlance, a crap service or sell duff goods. Knowing that people will complain if they don't get what they pay for, and knowing that all such complaints will be recorded and used against them will force them to act in a more responsible manner.
If however, you follow a certain someone's advice, then these matters will not come to the attention of enforcement authorities. They will not act as they will not see the problem occuring. Phoning head office, or using some warranty is basically rewarding the retailer for not providing what they should have provided in teh first place. Also, your contract is with the seller, and it is for them to provide the remedy. By not insisting on your legal rights, you are again rewarding the seller for poor performance and also telling them that they are allowed to fob you off.
Once a company realises that they cannot fob people off, then they will start to provide a better service. The fact that a staff member (referred to as some dopy person inflicted with acne by certain people) may not be fully trained in consumer affairs is neither here nor there. That is a problem for the retailer. If that person is not trained, then they should get someone who is, and again, companies will start providing better training so that problems are sorted out there and then rather than you having to take further action, which leads me onto the point of court.
Going to court, as I have always said, is a last resort and should only be used once all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. Parliament has set up a framework for this to be followed. It is called the English legal system, and as you have a contract, you are in it as is the store. By using this framework, no only are you taking reasonable action, you are also utilising the very powers that, if used often enough, will lead to the outcomes I have explained before. Bypassing these, such as phoning head office or using a warranty (those methods advocated by certain person(s)), again provides a reward for poor service and ill not lead to overall improvement.
The best form of protection you can have is knowledge. Before buying anything, mak sure you know what it is you want and that it is suitable. Get things in writing and NEVER sign there and then - a reputable retailer will always allow you to consider whether to use them or not.
If things do go wrong, remain calm, polite but firm. Let the seller know exactly what the problem is and that you are not happy with their otherwise excellent service (wryly).
Remember that their sorting it is not open for negotiation - they sold it to you and they are responsible for providing a remedy. If an in-store complaint does not work, then contact Consumer Direct (reasons stated above) and write to the company (by recorded delivery). If that yields no response, write to them again giving 14 days to reply. If that fails, then write a final letter stating you will take action if no response is received within 7 days. if there is still no response, then contact Consumer Direct to update them and ask if a TSO can contact you for assistance (some authorities do provide court assistance, whilst others can offer more advice).
So it is down to you. By following advice to the contrary, you may get your problem sorted, but you can bet your cotton socks that it will hapen again and again - not just to you but to everyone. Or you can make a stand, enforce your rights and make companies behave and do what they are supposed to do in the first place.
This is a quiz isn't it? It's a very hard quiz and the correct answer must be worth at least 100 points.
Trading Standards wants your help
Dubious website businesses Conterfeit alcohol and cigarettes Illegal sales of alcohol, tobacco, knives & fireworks to children Cowboy builders or tradesmen Car clockers Counterfeiters Aggressive selling
Never phone or accept phonecalls from debt collection companies.
If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed.
_________________________ ________________ _________________________ ___________________
Personally, if the store offered me a refund, i would not care if they did so under contractual warranty or statutory provision, i would take it (obviously, if the b****d around, they would get a quick dose of the law ).
Practical law... don't you love it
i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.
The only problem I see is that principles of English law - which I fully support - have now been eroded and -are either ignored or swept under the carpet by charlatans ranging from wheel clampers, through dodgy solicitors/DCAs etc. to Her Majesty's Government itself.
Personally, I would like to see the subject debated by such as the Oxford Union.
To start a debate, may I propose that English Law has now been surrendered to Brussels and thoroughly emasculated thereby?
quite agree, but it is a separate, and much bigger, problem. I personally would rather the Royal Perogative was surrendered by Parliament, The Lords re-instated, EU withdrawn from and those muppets in the Commons be told exactly what they are there for, who put them there and that Her Maj is in charge, not them.
People, I think, would rather have an absolute monarchy that worked well than a bunch of lying, corrupt hippocrites.
**UPDATED** Why you should use your statutory rights....
Reply With Quote
).
