Well done. Glad you got sorted.I finally got my TV back just before the bank holidays. Samsung authorised repairer quoted over £350 parts and labour (replacement of Main PCB and Front Panel PCB), but Currys still maintained they wanted to repair despite the cost. I had expected them to write it off. Still waiting for my engineers report costs back from Currys, but that will be another battle

It would be useful if the model number of the TV is mentioned in forum posts. I have a LE40B620 that is waiting repair at the moment. The Samsung authorised repairer has admitted that this model TV is known to be a sufferer of 'Capacitor Plague', although my problems look to be more severe. If the model numbers are mentioned and other members are having problems with the same model, then some trends might be established.

More commonly known as fraud

Ah well, hopefully it will go smoothly and my suspicious mind was all an unecessary diversion to the resolve. Incidently, which items did you delete on the form? out of; Warranty Void, Physical Damage and/or Out of Warranty

Totally agree with you and the law, Conniff. But, its the difference between simply enforcing your rights vs. enforcing your rights with the retailer waving an admission of physical damage in front of you and claiming they are no longer responsible. Sure, with some effort it can be shown to be invalid or mis-represented, but it still forms a bump in the road. A bit of a fore-gone conclusion now as the OP has already signed and returned the form, so no need to procrastinate. We all will just try to pick up the pieces if it goes pear shape later on.

This might be cat amongst the pigeons, but; A deposit is just a promisery - a commitment to demonstrate you are intending to complete the contract in full. As opposed to a part payment - where part ownership comes into consideration. Its years since I dealt with this. Back then I had some back up references as I used the difference in terms to get monies refunded where a car dealer claimed I had placed a non-returnable deposit whilst I claimed part payment and agreed to receive money back once he had sold the car as part of an amicable agreement. He quickly saw there was no point in witholding the monies and returned them. I digress, but point being, the OP has made a promisery to purchase the goods and upheld her side of the agreement by returning at the specified time to conclude the transaction. Retailer had agreed to the terms but have failed due to an error on their part. This all makes patdavies, 'loss of bargain' from post #5 very much the valid legal approach. Of course, your loss of bargain being £30 (the bargain element) MINUS £22.50 (difference to make up to full sale price of purchase) = £7.50 in settlement (your equivalent out-of-pocket). So if they give you back your £7.50 deposit plus another £7.50 in settlement, you would be all squared up as far as the law is concerned.

Ah MET, the reason I came to CAG in the first place. As you seem to be aware, Just ignore them from now on and keep their junk mail as evidence (or just for a chuckle later on in life). They should go away eventually.

Have they returned your deposit already? If so, then you will most likely find that is as far as you will get. The items are no longer made, so by putting you back in the position you were, they would be seen as fulfilling their responsibility. A complaint to head office can't hurt, though I would not expect uch more than a sorry back.

The problem as I see it, is that if you sign the form stating warranty is not valid due to Physical Damage, then Scan can claim you have acknowledged/admitted that the card has been subjected to Physical Damage from misuse (or use beyond its design parameters). This is in opposition to the true problem that the card has become damaged due to a pre-existing fault/latent defect that was present when you purchased it. Now if this was restricted to the warranty only, then all well and good, but what happens when you try to enforce your stat. rights and they present the admission of physical damage, as signed by you. SOGA wont cover you where physical damage is concerned, whether intended or accidental. You need to go back to Scan and request them to send a copy of the warranty conditions. This is not so much as to see whats in them, but to give you a little more leverage if they continue to deny their responsibility. For example, if this went to court, it would not look so good for Scan if you can demonstrate they refused to even supply you details of something you are legally entitled to. I can even see an angle there for claim of breach for Scan not supplying you with the product you purchased. i.e. the warranty itself. As Conniff has said. Don't sign the waiver - you are under no obligation to do so. And if they refuse to supply a copy of the warranty (or even if you get a copy and it turns out to be pants) ask them to repair or replace under SOGA. If they then go on to deny you any action, they are committing a criminal offense due to denying you of your statutory rights. As I said previously, your proof that the board had a defect is already in place. In the form of a visible burnt out (melted) component and a board that will not function after 1 years standard use. An engineers report will only say the same thing. You have demonstrated the board to be defective and the onus has now shifted to the supplier to demonstrate to the contrary or R/R/R. If Scan want to go back to the manufacturer, that is their call and should not involve you except for the courtesy of letting you know what they are doing. If you end up having to get an engineers report done, in order to move things forward, then you need to be reimbursed for it by Scan. Despite what they would have you believe in their form, anything they get out of the manufacturer is to their benefit - not yours. If they manage to get a new card or a certified repair, then everyone might be happy. But if the manufacturer comes back and says no dice, then it is still up to Scan to put things right. And above all, they don't need you to sign a waiver to send that card to the manufacturer. The purpose of that form is suspicious at best!

I can't say I would agree this is the correct route. My reasoning would be that you are not concerned with the approach to how Scan correct the problem. Your contract is with Scan not the manufacturer. I take real issue with the wording of the form they sent you, particularly; This is implying that Scan have no responsibility in the matter other than offering you a goodwill gesture of sending the item for you. They want you to sign the form in agreement - whether the form is enforcable or not, if you sign they will use it as leverage that you were in agreement with them at the time. The other way to look at this form is the options for you to confirm; Warranty void. That is there opinion, not yours and for them to confirm or demonstrate. Physically Damaged. What is the definition? That the card is 'physically damaged' as in resultant from an impact or mis-use. Or that the card is 'damaged' as in resultant from a latent defect. You are of the latter opinion, but I bet they want an admission of the former. Out of Warranty. They have already demonstrated to you that this is not the case. So what exactly are they looking for you to confirm in this form? Think about it. The only thing you could confirm is Physical Damage and admitting that would wipe your SOGA rights out with the admission as no definition is attached to the term. This is just wrong. It is Scans responsibility. I do not believe an engineers report is even needed. The evidence is there already - a melted component on the card. This 'damage' you have reported appears to be perceived as or being co-erced as by Scan as 'physical damage' (impact/misuse) - rather than from a fault on the card (defect/premature component failure). - By not signing the form, what are Scan going to do? They can't just say 'well tough luck'. You are not detrimenting yourself in any way. - By signing the form you are agreeing with Scan that the warranty does not apply and cutting that option off as an added extra to your statutory rights - and possibly admitting damage beyond the responsibility of either Scan or the OEM.

Okay, first a link to the thread I mentioned above (CP Plus Charge Notice getting heavy handed - please help - FightBack Forums). And another I came across looking for the link, which is exactly as per your issue (CP Plus ticket in Wokingham train station car park - FightBack Forums). No point in going into further detail, these two PePiPoo threads say it all.

mmakov, do a search on PePiPoo for South West Trains CP Plus. There is a threrad on there that almost mimics your situation and makes very interesting reading. Blade Runner is the OP. Net result would appear to be in agreement with patdavies and others on here that the ticket is unenforcable. I have a write up to post, but it is on my home PC. I'll post it later but it basically covers what is already in the PePiPoo thread.

I take it this is only in relation to Blue Badges and not private parking in general. God forbid it is the latter.

Only problem with this approach is that it only insures you for Royal Mail loosing your parcel in transit. Not for proper delivery. When you get a report of non-receipt by your (honest) buyers and go to claim and find the parcel was received and signed for - Royal Mail have tangible proof of delivery to the correct address. It is then up to you to prove that the signatory was not the intended receiver and the parcel has been mis-delivered - which will probably fall on deaf ears by Royal Mail anyway. In the scenario as described by Minkiesmum, this is a definite possibilty. At least with the proof of posting route, it is up to Royal Mail to prove delivery, otherwise insurance payout would be due. If you can prove contents of the parcel along with receipts nailing down the value, then Royal Mail have less leverage to reduce your payment with this approach. I suppose it all comes down to the right approach depending on value and confidence in the validity of the buyer. Ho, hum. Another trick to look out for. Not sure what ebays rules are (if any) in regard to this, but a little disclaimer on the selling page stating that unless both addresses match, then the transaction will be considered void (or words to the like). Better to loose some selling fees, than to loose the item in the long run - though the whole negative feedback issue would need to be dealt with also. Just what the Royal Mail expect us to do with all these stamps they send us in compensation, I don't know. Luckily my last compensation for £18 came in cheque form.

Not to highjack this thread, but is there a time limit on lost baggage claims?

From your description, it sounds like the original DPC has been bridged by the conservatory build. If this is the case, then a continuous DPC will need to be put in place to address this properly. If you cannot get them interested in at least looking at the problem, then you are going to have to go down the route of getting your own structural survey done. Once you have this, write to them, recorded delivery, stating that your structural report shows their work to be at fault. If they don't show any interest from that point on, then you are going to have to head towards the courts. At this point in time your looking for rectification of the conservatory work and rectification of the damage caused by the damp. If you have to get reports, etc. then you will be looking for those costs plus court fees and everything else you can claim through the court system.

mmakov, the second sign in this quote. Is the "S" in the bottom right the beginning of "South West Trains" by any chance. If so, then this may not be as straight forward as a normal PPC route of ignore. I'll expand more if the above is true.

All the council car parks in my nearest town now require you to enter your car reg. They did this to stop people transferring tickets. If this is the case for your council run car parks, then - as your ticket would not match up to your car - this would only exaserbate the infringement as per wheelergeezers advice. Something to check if you have any intentions at all of defending this further. Not that it affects the outcome in any way, but did you intentionally not buy a ticket or was it accidental?

The difference being between intentionally defrauding the landowner and being penalised for minor (and often insignificant) errors against unfair terms where the prescribed tariff has been paid and especially where no loss to the landowner has been experienced.

Bad day gyzmo :? I would love to know exactly what offended you in my post above. In no way did it allude to there being a set or defined reasonable length of time, merely speculated as to what could be used as a guide thus enabling some form of evidence to present to a court. If you were insinuating my support of extended warranties in-lieu of consumer rights, then I am afraid you would be gravely mistaken. If I have missed the point, please 'educate', I for one will listen to your efforts. Try not to loose faith. (in the consumer, not the system - thats shot to hell )

Darn it I've edited the post to remove the incorrect info. I was thinking of adding something about only a court appointed bailiff could do anything with power, but decided against it. Thanks for pointing it out dx

Whilst a debt collection agency can have a private debt collecter visit you, they are effectively powerless. If you tell them to leave and don't come back, they have to leave your property (or face trespass charges). If they hang around and bother you, they then face charges of harrassment. If you need to, you can tell the DCA your in dispute over the costs. Once advised, the DCA should not persue an account in dispute. The unfortunate thing is that most (if not all) the the above (PPC, DCA, solicitor) are at best 'friends' who probably sit one desk apart, or at worst the same person. Rules and laws mean very little to them and they just prey on your emotions to try and force payment. You are under no impediment to communicate with them. As a private company they have no legal backup to make you do so. And the ticket is no more than an unsolicited invoice - their invitation to treat. You, out of sheer goodwill, have appealled to them advising of their faulty equipment - which they seem to have acknowleged through deactivation of said equipment - yet they still pursue you. That is because the appeal system does not really exist. It should really be termed an informaton extraction system, because thats all they use it for - getting more details to try and forge a case from nothing. So, yes, seven plus letters does sound daunting, but just file them away as evidence somewhere when they land through your letterbox. Console your partner when they get itchy feet over the whole deal and live on in the comfort that the more letters they send to you, the more money they are wasting and just maybe one day they will see the [problem] no longer pays off.

They can apply to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper and would most likely get them, but as far as DVLA is concerned, that is all they help they will get. After that it is up to them to pursue you. Given you have 'appealled' , they most likely have your details already so going to the DVLA would seem a little pointless. As others have said, as this is not a ticket issued on behalf of the local council, the standard advice is just ignore and they should eventually go away. The norm. is around 3 PPC letters, 2 DCA letters and 2 Solicitor letters depending on the PPC pursuing. As you have 'appealled', you may get a few more as it will take them a little longer to cotton-on that they are onto a loser.

Rightly so, as if the council adopt before the road is fully completed (including allowing for settlement) they will get left holding responsibility for completion. Likewise, the building company do not want to release the road because any subsequent damage from machinery may be costly to repair plus the council are likely to place restrictions on use once the road is adopted. This is why the wearing course is generally the last thing done on any roads. The underlying courses of road are simple to repair in isolation and don't need to look 'pretty', but the final wearing course would need to look good (for the council to adopt). After adoption, the council don't really care and will allow repairs (and the inevitable spoiling of the road athetics) because anything more will cost (usually to an uneconomical position), with replacement of the wearing course only being done when absolutly necessary (or budgets need spending ).

If I remember rightly, the Halfords Laser Blue bulbs are only Halogen, and your never going to get the right colour temperature as Buzby is alluding to. Without your Xeon bulbs in, you may find the Halfords bulbs look more blue, but when compared to the xeon there is no comparison in the visual colour. Your brain knows they are different and wont let you forget it now