Hi ericsbrother, thanks for replying. Can I do a chargeback then on the credit card I paid with?

Hi, it's a long time since I was last on the forum, so firstly, hello to everyone, and secondly, I wonder if anyone can help with a query I have. We purchased some software online, FL Studio, from a well known online retailer. The software was practically impossible to install (it was for my daughter) and wouldn't download from the website either. In the end, my husband who works in IT had to locate missing files etc, from an external source, it took over two hours just to get it to install, since then it has been prone to problems with glitches in the software, loss of sound, that type of thing, and my daughter is very unimpressed with it. We have contacted the company and explained that we consider the software to have inherent faults and explained that it intermittently does not work properly. If you google FL, even just the installation, it comes up with pages of info on this topic, so it is a well known problem. We do have a compatible op system etc by the way. The company has refused a refund, directed us to a dedicated website/forum, to solve any problem and that is it. We have only had the software for around a week, do we have any legal comeback on this? I explained that yes, the software has been opened, but how could we possibly know it is flawed otherwise. Many thanks. Regards, Magda

Thanks dx, that's what I have told them, but they say if I return it to them, they will post it back to me and charge me for the postage!

Hi dx, well, it was purchased through my Isme catalogue, so went onto the outstanding balance, but I have made regular payments, so would think so. I think it is down to Isme to deal with the problem, not to refer me to their supplier, they, after all, are the retailer and whether they have the technical knowledge or not, they should be dealing with me direct, not through a third party. If I returned the item, as I want to, they obviously could then contact their supplier and decide whether to replace the item or credit the amount to my account. If I had purchased the item from any other retailer, I would take it back to the shop, but in this case, Isme don't seem to want to know.

Hi, many thanks BankFodder for your reply. I will maybe give the supplier a call and see what they say, just out of curio, and then get back to Isme. If I don't get any joy then from Isme, I may have to go down the route you suggest, so many thanks for the info. John Lewis it is, next time.. ..sounds like they offer a good service, which is more than you can say for a lot of them.

Hi all, I purchased a hoover (a Vax) less than six months ago from ISME catalogue. The hoover was hardly used until recently (I had still been using my old hoover, but had purchased the Vax one as it was a good price and my old one, although stil fine, was showing signs of age. I recently have been using the new, Vax hoover, but it very quickly stopped picking up, and had not been particularly good anyway. My husband has cleaned the filters and so forth, but it still is not picking up adequately and is really not a great hoover. Also, the pipe section of the hoover keeps falling apart and I have to keep pushing it back in. I have contacted Isme and explained that the hoover is not working as it should and I wish to return it. However, they say I must contact their supplier (the manufacturer) and ascertain the cause of the problem before they can accept it back, if at all. I have said that under the Sale of Goods Act the hoover is not fit for purpose and my contract, in effect, is with Isme. However, they argue that is not the case. They say they lack the technical knowledge to deal with the matter direct and if I return the hoover to them, they will return it back to me, and add the postage cost to my account. Are they correct in what they say? Many thanks, Magda

Hi, I have a question relating to TUPE and wonder if anyone can help. My husband worked as a contractor for a large IT company through a third party: the company who had been awarded the contract to supply staff to the IT Company. He was paid by the third party company, not the IT company for whom he indirectly worked. Some of the employees who worked through the third party company (the "Agency") were permanent employees, but the majority worked as contractors, as in my husband's case. A few years down the line, the IT company put the contract out to tender again. The contract was awarded to a different company (Agency, for want of a better word) who would now be supplying staff to the IT company, as the previous third party company had now, of course, lost the contract. The new Agency Tuped over the existing members of staff who were the permanent employees (though it's important to remember that these permanent employees did not, at any time, work dirctly for the IT Company (the customer) - they worked indirectly through the previous Agency (contract holder who supplieid the staff). My husband, and some of his colleagues, whilst doing exactly the same job as the permanent members of staff, were offered the opportunity to also keep their jobs (so in other words, the exact same role that they had previously been carrying out) but at a vastly reduced rate - around £12,000 p.a. less. They are now also permanent employees of the "Agency." The staff being tuped, of course, remained on their old salaries and I believe have also been receiving regular pay increases since. Previously, although some members of staff working for the agency had been permanent and some contractors, they were on the same rate of pay, as they were all doing exactly the same job. However, several years down the line, my husband and a few of his colleagues are still on the same low wage and the tuped employees are sitting next to them, doing identical jobs (this isn't a case where anyone could justify that the roles differ slightly etc - they are the exact same roles, and they do the exact same job, with the exact job title, earning at least £12-15,000 a year more, possibly more now, due to the pay rises it is believed they have received). Also, my husband is better qualified than the members of staff earning the higher amounts- both in terms of his educational background and also due to training he has since carried out at the request of the employer, which the TUPEd members of staff have no interest in doing, even though the employer would like all staff to achieve the additional qualifications. However, despite achieving these qualifications at the employers request, there has been no payrise, no incentive at all. Obviously, this is a very unfair situation, where two people doing the exact same job can have such a vast difference between their earnings. My husband has not received any pay increases (even in line with inflation) and therefore each new year is running at a loss. He has applied for a lot of jobs elsewhere, but there just isn't anything much around and his other colleagues, also on the lower wage have obviously found this to be the case also. We find it very difficult to manage on my husband's salary and I can't see how this isn't discriminatory, when one employee and another (it is at least three years since the higher earners were TUPED) are earning completely different amounts for identical jobs. Was Tupe even relevant in this case, as the permanent employees worked for an agency who lost the contract. The contract was awarded to a new agency, but would they, in this sitation, be required to tupe over employees from the previous agency, who merely supplied staff to the "customer" - the IT company. Do we have any legal comeback with regards to this? Many thanks, Magda

Anyway, hopefully, this will all be completely sorted soon, but GE money are really the most difficult company out, they know what they are doing and deliberately try to avoid doing what they have been told. One of the managers at GE even said that if they removed the entry it would seem as though there had never been any relationship between us, and so, they just can't do it. How ridiculous is that! Awwww sad !!!!!! brings a tear to the eye Yes, It was a wonderful relationship (Not!) while it lasted, but ah well, just a distant memory now - they really must learn to move on.... Well done Magda Thanks Andy, been a long haul, but seeing some light now... Andy

Just an update. As mentioned before, I complained to the ICO last year re: Lloyds Tsb and also GE Money. Lloyds TSB had placed a default on my credit file in 2010, six years after the event, and GE Money were reporting that we were six payments in arrears each month, even though the account had been registered as a default in 2004, so should have automatically dropped off after six years. They had purchased it back from Link and thought it was ok to start reporting on it again. Well, the ICO found in our favour on both complaints and he recommended that both entries be removed from the credit reference agencies, he said that GE were in breach of the DPA and also Lloyds. He said that when someone defaults on an account and is only able to make token payments, the default should be placed on that persons credit file there and then, regardless of whether they are making the token payments or not. It is not acceptable some years down the line to place a default then, as using the fairness test, the person who didn't pay at all is obviously in a better position than the person who did. I have to say, Lloyds have been a lot more helpful than GE Money, although having said that, Lloyds refused to remove the default when I initially wrote to them, stating that they were correct. Lloyds removed the default pretty quickly once they had received a letter from the ICO, but GE Money continued to report us as six payments in arrears and were coming up with all sorts of excuses, such as they had decided to close the account and write the balance off (which I hadn't asked them to do, makes not difference to me either way). I said that didn't prevent them informing the CRAs of their 'error' but they said they couldn't update the files until the account was officially shut down. The latest is that after informing them I would issue a court claim, they have updated the entry to show it is up to date, which, whilst an improvement on the 6 payments in arrears, is still not correct, and not what the ICO advised them to do, i.e, to remove the entry completely. I have now gone back to the ICO and he is going to offer further assistance in getting this sorted. I have found the ICO to be really helpful, or at least the person who dealt with my complaints anyway. He has been really fair about everything, I thought he would automatically take the side of the banks, but he didn't, so was pleasantly surprised. Anyway, hopefully, this will all be completely sorted soon, but GE money are really the most difficult company out, they know what they are doing and deliberately try to avoid doing what they have been told. One of the managers at GE even said that if they removed the entry it would seem as though there had never been any relationship between us, and so, they just can't do it. How ridiculous is that! Hope anyone else having similar problems is getting on ok. regards, Magda

Hi Caro, many thanks. My defence relied on several points, but was mainly to do with the fact that the claimant was in default of s78, which is why they wanted to adjourn, to try to come up with yet more paperwork. There were other issues as well, but obviously each case is different. I have defended a few claims myself with help from the forum which has been invaluable at times, but for the last two, I used Watsons, who fortunately were able to take my case. I would recommend that anyone tries to get help on a CFA basis if they can, but obviously it depends on how much merit their case has. There are some great people on the forums as well and that has made a huge difference to people being able to defend these cases if they can't get a solicitor, which I know isn't always possible of course. I don't know where I would have been at times without the information I managed to find out on here. regards, Magda

Hi mandm, nice to hear from you - haven't been on the forum so much in a while for one reason or another - hope you are well! I was very fortunate to have such a good outcome! Hope all of your own battles have now gone away and life is a bit quieter for you... Magda

Give them a chance donkey, sure they'll be in touch very soon........

That's the trouble with a lot of these cases, some of it is down to the judge you get on the day, isn't it, which if you are a LIP as donkey just mentioned, it can be difficult to argue against an experienced barrister and HFO do instruct pretty good barristers I believe. That was one thing I was really pleased about, that I would have had a great barrister in my corner - makes a huge difference. The OFT are aware of all of the issues regarding this case, I made sure of that some time ago. Hopefully Hfo won't be around too much longer.

Well, according to M&S they know them as Roxburghe, so that's what they call them, but they said it was actually sold to HFO Capital - although the agreement between M&S and HFO, of course, was entered into between HFO Cayman and M&S, but HFO claim it was then sold to HFO Ireland - usual HFO tactics to muddy the waters as much as they can.

Hi BA, No, M&S claimed it was sold to HFO Capital Ltd in the letter they sent to me. They gave HFO's name, but TR's address - and the date of the assignment was a day out, which although not much of a difference, is still wrong. Mind you, Watsons weren't really focusing on the assignment issue too much anyway as there were other, better arguments in my case that could be used.