It is a mistake to expect to own what you can't afford to pay for. Kids at their first year of school ought to be able to understand as much that, but it seems that an ever increasing part of the world at large have yet to get the hang of it.

If you reckon that an arrest is the softer option, take them up on that. This is all eventually a question of supply and demand. Were every person accused of an offence to insist on the right to a day in court, RLP would be out of business.

You don't actually have to get the goods back, period. The consumer shall not be under any duty to deliver the goods except at his own premises ... etcetera.

It is their offer to repair that you reject, because it takes too long. For as long as you continue to argue about the settee, the point is missed.

There must be more to this than meets the eye, so I wonder why, more than what.

Really? It is reckoned that you are something like twice as likely to die in a fire, without a smoke alarm, so that is about as credible as the rest of the complaints about Travelodge, to the effect that a victim is randomly selected, out of the blue and all the evidence is false, a conspiracy to defraud, or else it must have been the staff who smoked. If you reckon that it is possible to prove the allegation, a suspicion of fraud is a matter for the police. They are paid to investigate. In the mean time, I expect that their insurance policy requires that smoke alarms are fitted to all the rooms or it may well be a statutory duty. Maybe somebody who knows the trade could help us with that. P.S. That would at least convince them and everybody else that you are guilty, with something to hide. The time and place for an innocent person to object is as soon as the accusation arrives. Call the police and insist that the case is tried before a magistrate, to see that justice is done.

That is stupid. The testimony of the staff is admissible evidence, not hearsay, and could well be enough to win the day if the stakes are raised, with the word of the customer against the word of the management. The better bet would be to show some circumstantial evidence to convince them that you never smoke, and support the work they do to rid us of those who do. Smokers are dangerously deluded, anti social **** at the best of times.

I fail to see the need to transfer money from one of your own accounts to another of your own accounts, in order to pay a deposit. Are you the lender as well as the mortgagee? I would rather have expected to transfer a deposit to the account of a lender. What is the value of the transfer? The only thing that occurs to me, to try to make sense of this is that a bank may be that much keener to receive a large sum of money than it would be to part with one, especially if there is something unusual, not quite right about it. With a payment made online there may be a suspicion of fraud. I am not saying that this is likely, just that a complaint about a BACS payment is a weird event, difficult to believe otherwise. BACS is famous for the fact that millions of payments are made, every day, with nothing to complain about. The financial industry that keeps the country afloat would not be possible otherwise. P.S. It should always be remembered that you are not the owner of the money in your bank account. The bank owns the money, the same as you would own the money lent as a mortgage.

Was this a UK to UK transaction? Some of the member states of the European Union have a longer cancellation period.

Yes, so long as the consumer is properly informed. Regulation 7 provides a list of requirements. When a seller fails to provide a geographical address. for example, the cancellation period extends to an extra three months.

You can claim all the costs, in so far as it may be possible to prove that the item failed to conform to contract when it was originally delivered. It is a question of "the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances", so the success of a claim is not a foregone conclusion. The fact that goods were reconditioned, a "massive saving" is of course a relevant circumstance.

Remind the lady that when a repair or replacement is impossible "within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer", the right exists to rescind the contract. This is a statutory right, provided by section 48C of the Sale of Goods Act, so is not affected by their terms and conditions.

Remind the lady that when a repair or replacement is impossible "within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer", the right exists to rescind the contract. [SOGA s.48C]

My next step would to apologise for being so absent minded. I may leave a kettle out of sight, for a minute or two but if I forget to go back to keep an eye on it I not have the cheek to expect a claim to succeed against the manufacturer, or the supplier. It is never 100 percent certain that an electric kettle will switch itself off because it depends on the lid being tightly closed when the thing is switched on. The spring on the lid of our kettle keeps it open, not shut, once the lid is released. The fact that "about 10 minutes later the kettle lid was open" suggests that the lid was not pushed down, tight enough to start with, and the fact that it would not stay down is not a surprise because a kettle left on for too long is eventually going to damage itself by overheating. You are lucky to get away with steam damage. The greater risk would be that the kitchen catches fire. Somebody may turn up to tell you that you claim is against the supplier, not the manufacturer but with a safety issue the producer is liable, any person who held himself out to be the producer, or the importer. [Consumer Protection Act 1987]

Trading Standards is an enforcement agency, not a legal advice service. If you ask for legal advice they will probably refer you to Consumer Direct who will refer you to a solicitor or a legal advice agency: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/GettingLegalAdvice/Gettinglegaladviceandlegalaid/DG_195416 It is not just about the consumer protection legislation; to dispute a breach of contract there is also the need to understand the law of contract.

A contract is an agreement, verbal or written. If your expectation was rather for somebody to read you mind, I would not be so sure of the enforceability of that. Silence denotes consent, and to trust a person is to share the responsibility for whatever the consequence turns out to be.

This was already dealt with. Mindful that all of this is hearsay, if you were not the one in possession when it failed, a zip could break because of accidental damage which a supplier is not responsible for, so it falls to the consumer to prove that there was a breach of contract when the goods were delivered. The advice from sparechange is correct and helpful. If all you intend to do is solicit advice in order to ignore what you would rather not be told, do it yourself, if you think you know best. It is not going to get your money back, to pick a fight on a forum.

I browsed Autotrader's terms and conditions, http://www.autotrader.co.uk/common/mytrader/terms-and-conditions.jsp expecting to find this, or words to the same effect: etcetera. There is, eventually, only so much that one can afford to completely ignore and expect to get away with it.

and http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft913.pdf I disagree, that Amazon is worse than eBay. P,S. What sort of an item was it? The Regulations except contracts for the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer. re. It took me no more than a few minutes to discover several geographical addresses, for different purposes, here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=1040616

If you claim is winnable it should be easy enough to find a "no win no fee" personal injury specialist to take an interest but this is not the best place to look. If they don't want to know, I would trust their judgement. They see a lot more of this sort of thing than I do.

We'd already been through that. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them and the "Buyer’s right of examining the goods" exists "Unless otherwise agreed". I have no faith in the merit of the claim. It is one thing to accuse the seller of misleading, a charge that may well succeed, quite another to play the fool, notwithstanding a piece of paper, signed to the opposite effect, to say that you were "fully aware". There is no particular right to volunteer to be a victim of crime. A judge could find that you should have known better than to sign the disclaimer; you were the author of your own misfortune and that would be that. It is also possible to win the claim but not be awarded the costs, for the same reason. It is also possible that a district judge could reserve his judgement, pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, which is to say that the priority should be to prosecute the offence, with the result of the prosecution to be declared as evidence to support a civil action, if need be.

I have no idea what a "honeymoon fund" would be, so as soon as I get to that it begins to feel like a chore, to work it all out.

I would call it wrong to expect a forum like this to form an opinion without the opportunity to hear from the other side On an issue that appears to be entirely a question of fact, it could do more harm than good to subscribe to a story that may or may not be the whole truth and nothing but.

The right exists to enforce a contract, so there may be the chance to claim that an offer to discount is a unilateral contract, which would mean that a person who uses the service normally provided is entitled to the reduction so long as a certain condition is fulfilled. The agreement to use the service would then be construed as a consideration, in return for the special offer. However, "special service" (rather than "special offer") suggests that the service was another, not the one you agreed to pay for. It depends on terms of the offer and the contract you actually agree to.

Who owns the car?