Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • 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

I bought a Google Chromecast Ultra a week ago from Argos. Can I return this retail product?


King Mustard
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2532 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

I bought a Google Chromecast Ultra a week ago from Argos.

 

It turns out it is incompatible with my AV receiver due to HDCP (copy write) restrictions.

 

Argos' receipt only mentions being able to return it (within 30 days of purchase) in its unused, original condition.

 

I wasn't aware due to the incompatibility without using it.

 

Can I still legally return this product?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not fit for purpose so yes.

Problem with software is that it is considered a work of art and therefore compatibility issues dont necessarily make it a defective product by not being fit for purpose.

 

 

More recent consumer law has made it harder for sellers to argue against refunding and undoubtedly Argos will have no way of testing so you may get a refund without any trouble or you may get a brick wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your main argument would probably be that Argos themselves don't appear to advertise that a HDCP compatible TV is required (At least there's no mention of HDCP on their website) so you had no way of knowing this requirement before purchase and could only find out once opening and testing the product.

 

Technically it is your responsibility to check if the product is compatible before purchasing, but you can only go by the information that they supply you with. All their website says you need is a HDMI connection and WiFi, no mention of the HDMI connection being HDCP compliant.

 

If I were you I'd go to the Argos website product listing for the Chromecast Ultra and grab some screenshots of the whole page. This way you've got proof incase you need to take things further and they update the page in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are within 14 days

 

 

you don't need any excuse to return it and get a full refund

 

 

CRA is your friend.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are within 14 days

 

you don't need any excuse to return it and get a full refund

 

CRA is your friend.

 

dx

 

Wouldn't that only apply if it was purchased via the website rather than in-store and the product isn't faulty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that only apply if it was purchased via the website rather than in-store and the product isn't faulty?

 

No. The CRA 2015 now allows this and as far as I can tell, you actually have 30 days to return and get a full refund

 

https://www.theretailombudsman.org.uk/new-legislation-comes-into-effect-under-the-consumer-rights-act-cra-2015/

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The CRA 2015 now allows this and as far as I can tell, you actually have 30 days to return and get a full refund

 

https://www.theretailombudsman.org.uk/new-legislation-comes-into-effect-under-the-consumer-rights-act-cra-2015/

 

I'm guessing this only applies in this case because Argos failed to provide the information that a HDCP compatible HDMI port is required.

If that info had been provided then I'm guessing there would be no case for a return/refund of a store bought product with no faults that had been opened? As the product itself would then meet all fit for purpose regulations and it would be on the purchaser for not checking any compatibility requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For online sales, the requirements have been improved from 14 days to 30 days but more importantly, in store sales now have the same rights of return. You can return for any reason or no reason within the first 30 days. That is my interpretation and I don't think I am wrong but of course, this is open to debate

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

For online sales, the requirements have been improved from 14 days to 30 days but more importantly, in store sales now have the same rights of return. You can return for any reason or no reason within the first 30 days. That is my interpretation and I don't think I am wrong but of course, this is open to debate

 

My reading of that link is that the 30 days only applies to in store sales where goods do not meet the purpose they were bought for, but I don't think a retailer could be held responsible for a customer not checking compatibility, provided all of the correct information was made available at the point of sale by the retailer themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...