Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Prolix

  1. And pay a deposit of at least £100 on your credit card
  2. Give him a letter stating that you are rejecting the car under S14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as the car is not of satisfactory quality in that it is not free from minor defects. List the defects, demand a full refund and let him know where the car can be collected from (you are not obliged to return faulty goods under SOGA). But this bit is crucial - stop using the car!. Make sure you put this in writing and hand deliver it (or recorded delivery). You have not lost the right to reject after such a short time, and also not because he has done some repairs.Next time pay at least £100 on your credit card - even if you have the cash. That way the credit card company would be liable too.
  3. It wouldn't necessarily follow that because you've accepted a repair (well, replacement parts) that you have no right to further redress. In fact, the new Consumer Rights Bill will clarify this very point i think. Your real problem though is the length of time. You say it's never been right and you want a refund. I would suggest you could ask for a refund, but you would only be entitled to the value of a 2 year old oven and hob - £50?
  4. Not all small claims actions have to be about money. You can raise an action "ad factum praestandum" as it is in Scotland, that will require the doing of something - like returning your goods. I'm sure there'll be a similar action available in the english courts if that's where you are. I don't think the Police would entertain a theft complaint - they'll say it's a civil matter.
  5. So, you think that although there was an expiry date, the consequences of not using the voucher before this date were not made clear. Surely the only consequence is that, once the date has passed, the voucher is invalid. I think that would be implicit by the mere fact there was an expiry date on it and wouldn't require further clarification. I don't think this would be an unfair term under the UTCCRs.I would seriously doubt whether you could successfully challenge on this basis. You mention the concept of good faith, so regard must be had to the matters in Sch 2 of the Regs and one of the matters under consideration is "the extent to which the seller or supplier dealt fairly and equitably with the consumer". If everything is made clear - the expiry date - I reckon that could be seen as being fair. No?
  6. How long after you bought it did you make the seller aware there was a problem? It could have a bearing on any available remedy
  7. I'm not sure how far the garage could avoid their responsibilities with a simple sign. Say for example the car wash was seriously faulty and and they knew about it and did nothing? Consumers would reasonably be expected to assume the car wash is fit for its provided purpose. What if someone got injured? I think the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would apply if there was such an exclusion clause.
  8. Depends on the fault really. If it's a minor defect then you will not have the right to reject (SOGA says goods should be of satisfactory quality and be free from minor defects), but you can reject for more serious faults. You don't have to give them the opportunity to fix it first because the primary remedy under SOGA is to reject. There are two parallel sets of remedies (1) to reject and claim damages and (2) to allow repair, replacement partial refund, refund. And it's up to you which route you wish to take.
  9. It's actually 6 months. Theres a reverse burden of proof on the seller to demonstrate, within the first 6 months from sale, that the goods conformed to the contract at the time of sale.Consumers have 6 years (5 in Scotland) in which to bring a claim under SOGA, but that certainly doesn't mean that all remedies would be available after such a time. Any remedy would take account of any use of the goods etc. My advice though is to first take the refund (that way you have most of your money back) and pursue for the remaining costs in the small claims court if necessary.
  10. I know this is an old thread, but it's maybe worth mentioning that in cases of disputes over the quality of an item on an HP agreement SOGA and the SOGSA don't apply. What is relevant is the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 and the remedies for a breach of contract are to (a) claim damages or (b) if the breach is a material one, reject the goods.
  11. I wouldn't give him anything. It's his mistake. He's the professional and should be more circumspect
  12. I'd speak to Barclays. They are definitely responsible in some way. It depends on the type of credit agreement you have as to where in the Consumer Credit Act their obligations lie, but start the ball rolling by letting them know about the problems
  13. So he did! could have saved myself some typing there.
  14. Look up jus quaesitum tertio for rights of 3rd parties in a contract. Which term did you think was unfair?
  15. You should report it to your local Petroleum Officer who probably works for Trading Standards. He/she could go and check the records at the site and see what the level in the tank was and when deliveries occurred etc. You never know, there may have been other complaints.
  16. If you stopped using the toaster after you had rejected it then I can't see why you shouldn't be able to reject it and receive a full refund. Was the toaster new? If not, then although second-hand goods are covered by SOGA, your expectations of the quality should be lowered somewhat. Maybe this is explains the reduction in value offered in the refund? My advice would be to take the offer though, because it will be a long fight in court and you will need an independent report. And, if i've read it all correctly, you don't still have the toaster so it will be impossible for anyone to report on what it was like 4 months ago - unless they saw it then. Anything could have happened to it in the interim.
  17. Only if you paid by credit card. If a debit card was made a request for a chargeback could be made, and likely be successful, but this wouldn't be under S75 I'm afraid and should be done ASAP. There are time limits for debit card chargebacks.
  18. It's not true that the private sellers are not caught by SOGA. S13 - Description - covers all contracts where there is a sale by description, so private sellers can misdescribe goods. They are not bound by S14 - Quality - because it specifically refers to goods being sold in the course of a business. Regardless, this guy hasn't a leg to stand on. Who knows what he was up to with the car in the period after sale and before contacting the seller. He could have been rallying it!
  19. Even if you win in the SCC it doesn't mean you will automatically get the money. Try and reach a settlement.
  20. 1) - You are correct. But if he doesn't you can pursue for any storage costs or alternatively the cost of returning it to him yourself.2) - The legal owner and registered keeper can be 2 different people. Only the registered keeper is liable for tax etc. 3) - Yes 48B is to do with repair or replacement under the new remedies (brought in in 2002) and isn't strictly connected to 36. 48B says that any repair or replacement shouldn't cause significant inconvenience to the buyer.
  21. Agreed. Ask for the £99 and have it repaired yourself.
  22. Maybe a bit late this post......A consumer's primary remedy under SOGA is to reject the goods and claim damages. This has always been there and until around 2002 this was the only remedy. This remedy of rejection was added to by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations and consumers could now ask for a repair, replacement, partial rejection (some money off) and it was up to the trader to pick the most economically viable solution (consumers couldn't force a replacement if a repair was more cost effective for example). This new set of remedies run seperately from the the primary one of rejection and using one set wouldn't preclude you from using the other. You could explore a repair or replacement and if that wasn't successful you could then reject (assuming certian conditions were met around acceptance of the goods - I'll not go into that here).
  23. We're probably getting into hypothetical territory now and all I was really trying to point out was that posting a definitive statement that DSRs apply in this or some other case may not, in fact, be true. The law is open to interpretation and DSR is not as clear cut as people think. afcwben - in his/her last post has understood - a business could claim DSR doesn't apply because they have no ’organised distance sales or service provision scheme’ (thanks Conniff) and normally only sell face to face (it would be taken on a case by case basis I suppose and may not be successful). Selling by distance means once or twice wouldn't necessarily mean you are a "distance seller". In the same way that buying cars and doing them up in your spare time wouldn't necessarily mean you are a car dealer - it's a question of degree and ultimately for the courts to decide.
  24. Well I wouldn't say pointless exactly, but the clue to the applicability is in the title: The Distance Selling Regs. In order to be caught by them you would have to normally sell by distance means. Traders selling normally face to face could be exempt and what I've been trying to say is that you can't just assume DSR applies because there was a distance sale. That's the law for you...
  • Create New...