Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post #415 you said you were unable to sell it yourself. Earlier I believe you said there had been expressions of interest, but only if the buyer could acquire the freehold title. I wonder if the situation with the existing freeholders is such that the property is really unattractive, in ways possibly not obvious to someone who also has an interest in and acts for the freeholders.
    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

New Faulty T.V - Very say no!! - **CEO says YES - New t.v +15% off+£45 GOGW**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2302 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 have purchased an LG tv from Very and it is faulty.

I ordered the tv on the 29th October and it was delivered from the manufacturer on the 11th November.

 

It started being faulty a week or so later by the sound going off and then a few days later the screen went blue, no picture but had sound.

 

I rang Very on the 5th December who said it was outside the 4 weeks window to send it back because they count the warranty start date as the order date (29th Oct) not the delivery date (7thNov) and I had to ring the manufacture LG to sort it out which I did and they picked it up on the 13th December.

 

Today 19th December LG have phoned me to say thet it is the screen that is faulty and they are waiting for a price of the part.

Then I receiced a phone call from an LG engineer saying that it is the mother board that is faulty and he also is waiting for a price.

 

This T.V is less than 3 weeks old with 2 major faults and I cannot return it or ask for a replacement because Very are saying the order date is the start of the warranty.

 

I am going to email Very tonight to state all these facts and that I am extremely upset and annoyed but I would like to know if there is anything I can add to strenthen my case in insisting on a new TV as I am not happy about keeping the original one as it would be a refurbished tv with a new tv price tag.

 

Regards

Alamand

Edited by Andyorch
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of gobbledegook.....Read here....

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?440-The-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

Which section am I needing? Some sections say that if its been returned for repairing, you cannot ask for a replacement. I asked for a replacement but they said no and I had to return it to LG.

Regards

Alamand

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have reported it faulty within 30 days

you are entitled to completely reject the whole deal

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

This is the problem, Very are saying the start day is the order date( 29/10 )and not the delivery date(11/11 ), so when reported it was longer than 30 days from order date even though I was only in the possession of the tv for 3 weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems they misled there.

sometimes it may seem/be 'easier' to deal direct with a manufacturer, but technically a retailer/distributor etc has a legal responsibilty to deal with such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no your claim is against the retailer

 

sadly very [part of the shop direct group]

ALWAYS state goto the manu

which is not correct

and they know it too

 

complain to the CEO via email

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

Thanks Ford

Its dificult with mail order, their Cust Services are abroad and they just follow their sheets, would never buy anything like that normally but the offer was a lot cheaper than Currys etc, turns out not that good a deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when items are ordered over the phone or through the post the retailer usually has 28 days to deliver the goods and then you have time to "inspect" them.

this used to be 14 days and you could return them withloout having to say why.

 

Now as the item has been with you longer than that and is faulty

then the next section of the Consumer rghts Act comes into play and that gives you 30 days to retrun for a full cash refund if the goods are unsatisfactory.

 

well, a broken telly certainly is that

so Very are talking bull when they say the warranty starts when you order it,

they know this but dont want the fuss of actually handling the goods themselves becaue they didnt own it in the first place,

just dropshipped it from LG's warehouse.

 

You need to make it clear that you cannot accept the dissembling of their CS arm and expect them to behave in a manner that fulfils the requiremets of consumer law and either refund or replace the telly forthwith (you dont have to accept a repair and certainly not wait any time for one).

 

You might want to tell LG that you arent having it fixed and will be buying a different brand as theirs are clearly problematical and difficult to service

and they should tell Very to decide what they want to do with their item as it isnt your problem!

Link to post
Share on other sites

too right great post!

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

Thanks guys

 

I've emailed Very a couple of times

on each occasion they email back to ring customer services

each time they say they cannot do anything until LG send them an invoice with the cost of repair.

 

I have sent them an email that I will no longer ring cust.serv.

that all correspondence must be by email or letter

that I am not accepting a repaired t.v

that I want a new t.v or refund.

 

I have stated their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act and that they are the retailer and not LG.

 

I received an email saying that it needed to be passed higher for them to investigate,

will let everyone know the outcome when it is sorted.

 

One thing I have learned is, do not buy anything electrical from Very.

Regards Alamand

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shop Direct Group

(Empire Stores, Great Universal, isme, Kays, Littlewoods, Very catalogue, very.co.uk, very.com, Very Network, Marshall Ward, Woolworths, Nationwide Debt Recovery, Shopdirect, KAndCo, K&Co)

 

Mr Matt Dixon

Director

Shop Direct

First Floor

Skyways House

Speke Road

Speke

Liverpool

L70 1AB

 

 

Company Number: 04730752

 

Email: [email protected]

 

 

(ceoemail: https://www.ceoemail.com/)

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Guys

I emailed Matt Dixon regarding the t.v explaining I wasn't happy and I would like a new one and not a repaired one.

 

I stated their obligations under Consumer Law and that they were the retailer and so should be dealing with the matter and not put the onus on the customer to sort it out.

 

I received a reply with the usual apologies etc. but they did agree to a replacement t.v plus 15% off the price and a £45 good will gesture.

 

Thank you Stu for the email address,

its just a shame that Very's cust.services are so shocking.

 

I do not think I will be ordering big electrical items from Very again,

I think high st stores are more easier to deal with personally.

 

Thank you guys for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey well done everyone.

 

threat title updated as resolved.

 

 

 

please consider a small donation to keep CAG alive

 

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 more than welcome and well done to you and everyone that assisted

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...