Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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.
  • 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

Amazon Seller faulty goods non-refund


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2077 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

Hello,

 

I purchased two baby pushchairs on Amazon from two separate retailers last March 2017.

 

Both prams developed faults after 6 months, which was documented in emails to the manufacturer Cosatto, who told me each time how I could make the repairs myself.

 

I didn´t make the repairs as, after subsequent faults appearing, I went back to the retailers on Amazon (Babyland Fife Ltd and Online4Baby, who say after 4 months they are no longer liable for the warranty or a refund, and that I have to take it up with the manufacturer.

 

The man. (Cosatto) say explicitly, that they have nothing to do with it, it´s a transaction between me and the seller.

 

I have been going round in circles about this between the retailer and Amazon since May 23rd.

 

Finally, Amazon said they could do nothing as the products are older than 120 days. What is the best thing to do please?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the retailers problem under cra no ifs or buts

Warranty means nothing

 

Does not remove or overwrite your statutory rights under cra

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

No you cant demand anything

 

Under cra you have to get a report done on faults outside of 6mts

I will surmise that the info you have from the manu is good enough to meet that

 

So send that with a request under cra for them the retailer to repaire the items FOC .

 

They have one go

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

Oh I see.

I don´t want the items repaired.

I don´t want these items any longer in my possession,

they're so badly made that repairing them won´t stop them from falling apart again in another area.

 

I would like a full refund as have had enough of both products and wouldn't´ trust a new one from that same manufacturer.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should give them an opportunity to repair. You can be certain that they will either refuse or they won't reply. I suggest that you given the opportunity to repair in a letter before claim. Given 14 days for a refund or a repair to be carried out within seven days and if not you will sue

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no real odds as purchased in the uk

But if they have to be returned i wouldn't expect them to cough to get them to them

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

Not if you are not in the uk

Cost you more to travel to court than the products

 

Think youve got to be realistic here

If you and the products are unlikely to be back in the uk in the comings months

Then your best bet might be to resit your notions and get on with the repairs yourself as they originally advised you

 

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

Yes I see. Only the repairs are many, on both products, so this would cost more to repair and keep repairing and buy replacement parts for child safety equipment that shouldn´t be tampered with - than sending both products back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your call then

You shouldnt have buy any parts mind IMHO

Why not offer an olive branch..

 

They send you the parts FOC to you

You fit them?

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

  • 1 month later...

I have a question

- both prams are with the manufacturer and they are saying that pram01 shows no faults, even though, everyone that has had to use it, has complained there is a suspension problem as pram dips down to the left when you push. Manufacturer says they can´t find anything wrong.

 

Pram02 is repairable and therefore not deemed as having a fault.

 

What happens when the customer (me) is so fed up with the products from this manufacturer, they don´t want them returned for fear of future breakages and problems, as has so far been the case?

 

Also, do I have statutory rights in this case, for returning the products finally and not having to accept a repair?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

consummate refund with regard to the time you've own each one.

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

there will be some reduction because you've owned/used them.

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

Hello again,

I am once again being stalled by the manufacturer.

They are in possession of both prams02 and 03 and are saying that neither are faulty and therefore want to return them to me, repaired, and not to the sellers.

 

I can only request a refund if the manufacturer agrees that there is a manufacturing fault and issues this confirmation to the two separate sellers.

As they are refusing to do this, what can I do?

 

I have summarised the list of faults and registered email complaints I´ve had with the manufacturer since 2017,

but they just ignore this:

 

On the 10th July 2017, I emailed manufacturer (which is where the 4 year product warranties are held) with photographs, as the front, right side of the chassis fell off first pram as I was pushing 9 month old child down the street. Man. told me to bin that pram and they sent a new one. OK.

 

On the 11th September 2017 I emailed Cosatto about a problem we were having with the suspension on the left hand side of pram02

 

Between this date and July 2018 collection of pram02 and pram03 by the manufacturer, I was bounced around between Cosatto, Amazon and the Amazon sellers.

 

On the 16th and 19th of March 2018 respectively, I had to email again as neither of our children fit into the foot bags provided with the strollers 02+03, the zips split or wouldnt close as too small, even though, at 1 and 2 years old they should have done according to manufacturer´s product specs.

I also notified that both children were sliding off their seats, regardless of how tightly they were belted in, or whether or not the footrest was raised or lowered.

 

This conversation continued until the 4th May 2018, when the seat function on pram03 stopped working completely and wouldnt stay up.

 

On the 28.06.2018, Cosatto assured me on the telephone, that after both prams had been collected, they would assess the faults and then tell the retailers (Babyland Fife and Online4baby), that the products were faulty.

 

This is now no longer the case, so I don´t know what to do. I´ve had to get a new pram as don´t have one at all now, and I don´t want any Cosatto prams back again ever.

 

Can Pram02+03 not be deemed faulty because they don´t perform the function they are being sold to do and therefore are not fit for their purpose?

If the products are made to "industry standard" and then don´t fit for some people, is that just tough or is that an argument for the product not doing its job?

And does the list of complaints about the products not constitute the products being of poor quality, which also falls under the fit for purpose/satisfactory quality category?

 

Ugh.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only request a refund if the manufacturer agrees that there is a manufacturing fault and issues this confirmation to the two separate sellers.

As they are refusing to do this, what can I do?

 

Load of cobbrers!!

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

cant see anything about that under CRA..

 

how did you pay amazon for all these ?

 

cant you just say stuff it and do a chargeback on each purchase via visa?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...