Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Feel I've been mis sold Macbook Pro


plkinsey
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3502 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

Hi,I wonder if anyone could advise me please?

 

On Thursday, I purchased a MacBook Pro from PC World.

 

I inspected the display models, and saw one I liked. It was £100 more for the retina display model, and didn't really feel it was worth paying the extra, so paid £899 for the non retina display model.

 

When I took it home, I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason, I didn't like it as much.

 

I passed by another PC world branch on Saturday, and decided to pop in.

 

The retina model, is considerably thinner than my version, and also, my version is a 2012, the retina is 2014, now I feel that I purchased the machine. based on the display model. I asked in that store if I could exchange it, and pay the extra, but was told NO as I'd used it.

 

Do you think I have grounds for exchange, as I feel, the display model was not indicitive of what I was actually buying?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

PLK

Link to post
Share on other sites

So was there a display model of the one you purchased? Or did you look at the display model for a different model and base your purchase on that without asking to see the one you were actually buying?

If you didn't actually check a display model for the one you wanted to purchase then I don't think you have much legal right to return it.

 

From the sounds of things, the display model wasn't the same as the model you were actually buying, so I'm not sure how you expect it to be indicative of something different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically,I looked at the display model, which was advertised at £899, there was no other model, but on the price sheet, it showed the upgraded model.

 

As far as I was concerned, I was buying the one on display

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm a bit confused here.

First of all, what was the model you physically looked at in the store? The Retina display model? Or the non-retina/older model?

The spec sheet attached to that. Was it the spec sheet for the retina model? Or the non-retina model?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a retina model on display, at £899, there clearly was a difference between the retina model and non retina model.

 

It wasn't made clear to the OP that there was indeed a difference or the OP made an assumption, the OP purchased the non retina model.

 

The retailer should of made it clear what the OP was buying, Sales, display, POS etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes basically, I was told the only difference was the retina display, which I could live with. I was not informed that the cheaper one (which was not displayed, just had spec sheet) was indeed an older, and thicker machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the following amended template, send it Recorded Delivery.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-to-get-a-refund-if-your-item-is-faulty-

 

Contact your Card Provider, ask to carry out a Chargeback, amend and send the following template Recorded Delivery.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-to-make-a-chargeback-claim-

 

You will need to stop using it and restore it to it's factory restate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, yes that's a bit different if they told you the only difference was the quality of the display. If the appearance/specification is different beyond that though then they should accept the return as mis-described/mis-sold.

From your original post it wasn't clear if you spoke to anyone, it read to me like you just assumed that would be the case and went ahead with the purchase without checking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...