Jump to content

kp278

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About kp278

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi My phone is currently in Nokia repair centre, due to an issue with not charging. Nokia say the touchscreen needs replacing. I queried this with them and they say the screen needs to be removed in order to fix the charging issue, and because the screen has a crack in the corner, it will shatter when they remove it. Interesting theory, but can they charge me for consequential damaged caused by the repair itself? Thanks, Kristian
  2. Hi all, are you able to advise on the above? Thanks. Kris
  3. sorry for the radio silence, i sent LBA, gave them 4 weeks, waited 6, about to file a claim. can i base the particulars on my lba and keep it fairly simple, ie: I purchased a ruck sack - one ‘71531803000 Firetrap Luxe B/Pack’ - from USC retail shop on 23rd August 2018. I paid £23. The item developed a fault in January 2019. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with USC that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. As the item is not of satisfactory quality USC are in breach of con
  4. Ok, so Link will keep recording a fresh default each month until the original default date has hit six years?
  5. Ah I may not have been clear .She still owes money on the Tomlin and this is paid off monthly, and a default is recorded each month along with the reduced balance. Should a default be recorded each month even though the Tomlin is being paid off?
  6. Hi My friend has a Tomlin order that she has been paying off. There's still a while to go on it, but we noticed Link are still recording a default each month. Do we just have to suck this up for a couple of years, or are Link being naughty? Thanks, Kristian
  7. I think they were educated sufficiently on the 120 day rule, but the sticking point in the end was how it could be proven my daughter didn't damage the ruck sack herself. I got a reference number from them in case I can take it further.
  8. On the phone to Lloyds now, they are saying because it wasn't faulty when I received it they cant open a case. They've cottoned onto the 'wear & tear' aspect of it. I'm trying to push the "failed within six months the retailer has to prove it wasn't faulty" and "it wasn't visibly faulty, but it failed prematurely so it must have been faulty" angle
  9. can i put anything in the LBA about seeking any costs at this stage, for the amount of effort in trying to resolve?
  10. if this is too long, basically i sent it in, they checked it over, they agreed with the store again, they sent it back, now i'm onto letter before action - as you suspected would happen ok so i got hold of someone in customer services who asked for the bag to be sent in. their response is, predictably: I would like to confirm that I have now inspected your backpack and it is our belief that the issue is due to natural wear and tear and not an inherent manufacturing fault. I will today return your backpack to you at our cost.
  11. Latest response from customer services, maybe I'm not speaking to the right people: The store have advised you of why this is, the fault is due to wear and tear of the item and is not a manufacturing fault. The item has been used by you for over 5 months and therefore the item was not sold to you faulty and after inspection, is confirmed to not be of manufacturing fault.
×
×
  • Create New...