Jump to content

endorfin

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About endorfin

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks for the advice. I decided to take them up on the Repair and Protect plan. 75 quid isn't too bad in the great scheme of things. Already a screw up tho with Domestic and General, booked in for yesterday and they didn't turn up. Rang them and they'd booked next week 2nd October by mistake. Then they realised the engineer booked doesn't cover my area so it's the 5th Oct now. So it's off to the launderette I go, it'll be like being a student again! On the plus side, D&G have agreed to reimburse launderette costs as it was their mistake which is fair enough.
  2. I bought a Beko washing machine from AO in July 2014 which was delivered to my home. From the beginning the machine always had a little niggle. It would run for longer than the remaining time displayed. Sometimes running for a while with 1 min remaining. As time went on sometimes it developed more little quirks. Sometimes I would have to manually cancel the programme and it would flash 'end' for an age without unlocking. Eventually it packed in altogether, just permanently flashes 'end' and door wouldn't open. Contacted AO who put me thru to Beko who sent an engineer round. They said it was some control unit or something on the drum and replaced it. It was OK for a while before the same faults appeared again, I rang them again and engineer came out and replaced same part again. This was March 2017. Yesterday it packed in again with the same fault. This time Beko said it was out of warranty and they couldn't help and to speak to the retailer. Spoke to AO who said out of warranty etc, I brought up the Consumer Rights Act and she went off to speak to a supervisor. Came back and said that because it was so near the end of the 6 years they couldn't do anything. Huh? I told them it didn't matter whether there was 2 years or 2 days remaining I was still within the 6 years and the machine had clearly been problematic from the start. Off she went again, this time a manager came on the line. I explained the issue. I said I could provide proof that the fault was present from the outset through the engineer's reports. She said she didn't dispute this and that I was within my rights under the Consumer Rights Act and that she can offer me an "appreciated refund" of £7.94 What?? She said that "because the appliance has been in the home and used since july 2014 and has been used for 4 years we would look to refund partial value of the appliance" How can they decide that it's only worth £7.94 if it was in working condition, where can you buy used washing machines for that amount? She went on to say, alternatively she could offer £30 off a new washing machine, which I declined! Eventually she said another option would be to sell me a Repair and Protect plan from Domestic and General for £149 of which they would contribute £75 This would get the machine repaired and covered for 12 months. This is a better option than £7.94 but I would have thought that the Consumer Rights Act would cover situations such as this. What's the point of having the act if retailers can decide that the goods are worth peanuts. Any advice would be appreciated before I decide the next step. Obviously taking up their offer of the Repair and Protect plan would be the easiest option to get the washing machine back up and running but I feel like they're pushing me into accepting this because they know I'm unlikely to be able to fight it out without a washing machine for however long it would take to get this settled. Many thanks in advance.
  3. Just an update on this. I'm afraid that most of the information given here is wrong. The opticians ended up agreeing to provide an interpreter for the day of the appointment. On the morning of the appointment I received a text saying that there would not be an interpreter and I had to bring my own. You cannot agree to provide one, then withdraw it just 3 hours before I was due to attend. I exchanged some emails with their legal dept and they agreed that under the Equality Act they were required to make reasonable adjustment, which in this case mean providing an interpreter Another appointment was made and the interpreter attended the appointment. Having an interpreter there made me realise that it would have been simply impossible for it to be done without one. Pen and paper would not have been possible as I would not have been able to read it without my glasses/contacts as the opticians was putting all kinds of drops in my eyes. Lights were switched off too in order for the tests to be carried out so again would not have been able to read pen and paper to follow instructions but there was enough dim light to see the interpreter. There was vital information that had to be relayed such as not being able to drive for some time afterwards (the drops dilate your pupils so much that you're blinded when you go outside) Interestingly, the interpreter was the same one that was booked for the original appointment that was cancelled. They informed her that the customer (me) had changed their mind at the last minute (a complete lie). They were still required to pay for the interpreter's time anyway as there was not enough notice in the cancellation. They also agreed to pay for an interpreter for any subsequent pre op appointments and for the operation appt itself but not for any post care appts. In response to marmacc's comment about them loading the costs onto the bill, this isn't correct, for them to do this would be illegal. The cost of the operations are fixed and I had the same access to offers as anyone else (I still continued to receive offers via email of increasing amounts, £500, £750, £1000 off as time went on) In the end, I decided not to go ahead with it. It turned out not to be what I had expected, it seems that the operation fixes each eye at different distances such as the left for far and the right for near and the brain compensates. This isn't what I had envisioned (pun not intended!) with laser eye surgery. They suggested in the future that if I wanted more 20/20 vision then I could go for natural lens replacement which is like it sounds, removing your old natural lens and replacing with a new artificial lens but the optician said I was not a suitable candidate for this at this present time as my lens were healthy but perhaps in the distant future when they have deteriorated. In conclusion, I could not have attended this appointment and received all the necessary information using pen and paper, there was far too much information as well as the conditions making it impossible. If I had been attending an appointment for a £10 haircut then of course I would not think it reasonable, or even necessary for an interpreter but when it comes to an operation on my eyes (which as a deaf person, are my most precious possession) costing anything between £4,000 - £6,000 then I don't think it's unreasonable for the service provider to provide access to enable me to be in full possession of the facts for what could be a life changing decision.
  4. I'm sorry but in what capacity are you offering this advice? You cannot compare this to a German asking for a translator. Deafness is a disability, I cannot suddenly learn to hear or learn to speak (believe me I wish I could) if I were a wheelchair user reasonable adjustment would be to provide a ramp to gain access. If I were blind then braille print may be offered. In any case the blind man or the wheelchair user will have full access to the information based on the fact they can hear and speak. An excerpt from the CAB on the Equality Act states: "Should you have to pay for the adjustments? The Equality Act says you should never be asked to pay for the adjustments." By your reckoning, if I went to the cinema and asked for reasonable adjustments to be made so I could watch a film, in the form of displaying subtitles, the cinema agreeing to display them, as long as I paid for them to be transcribed and for the technology to display them. That's reasonable adjustment? In any case they have not offered an interpreter, if you read my post, they have stated they do not offer an interpreter and that I will be responsible for providing my own. In short they have not offered any form of adjustment to enable me to access the information and to understand the procedure of the eye surgery. And no I do not have anyone that I work with in a professional capacity that is qualified to interpret, but even if I did I would not want someone I work with attending a personal and private appointment. Would you want your workmate coming with you to a private doctors appt or to see the bank to discuss a loan because you're struggling in debt? The Equality Act was created so that disabled people, amongst other minorities are given equal access to public services as their able bodied counterparts are.
  5. I tried to make an appointment with a very large national chain of well known opticians who offer laser eye surgery. As I'm profoundly deaf with a speech impairment I use sign language to communicate. With something as important as my eyes I would like to get the full facts with regard to the options of having laser eye surgery. I asked for a BSL interpreter and they said they would contact head office and get back to me. They have come back to me and said that it's not something that they provide and I would be responsible for providing my own interpreter and advised it would cost approx £80 - £150 They suggested perhaps bringing in a family member or a friend to speak for me. The latter is not possible as I do not have any local family and my friends are also deaf and sign language users. Are they required to provide an interpreter under the Equality Act under reasonable adjustment for auxiliary aids and services? A pen and paper would not be reasonable adjustment for me as BSL (British Sign Language) is my first language and has a different grammatical structure to written English. This post is being written on my behalf by someone else. Any advice would be gratefully received.
  6. It's a Seat Leon 1.9tdi 2005 (basically a VW Golf mk4) It's got full service history with all services done on schedule and is low miles for the year.
  7. I don't think the car's history is relevant to this issue. The car was bought with full service history and the terms of The Warranty Group parts and labour cover is that the car was regularly serviced on schedule. It has been serviced on schedule and this has to be proved otherwise cover isn't valid. In my opinion this does not detract from the RAC's liability. Simply put, they diagnosed faulty starter, fitted new starter, still not fixed, took to RAC garage who did nothing and said all was fine. Starter catches fire. Injury or potential loss of life luckily averted. They should be bending over backwards to rectify this.
  8. Please move this to the correct topic if this is not the right place please. This is my first post so go gentle My girlfriend (who is also deaf and disabled) took out a RAC membership last October (2015) with RAC Parts and Labour cover which provides cover up to £750 in the event of a parts failure. She also added courtesy car cover. She did this because she knows nothing about cars and wanted complete peace of mind. *Parts and Labour cover seems to be provided by a third party warranty company called The Warranty Group (TWG) In January 2016 her car wouldn't start at the top of a high rise shopping centre car park. RAC came out to her and diagnosed faulty starter motor. The RAC patrolman decided that he would replace the starter there and then and purchased a brand new starter from Euro Car Parts. It seems the RAC bore the cost of the new starter, rather than The Warranty Group for some reason. He replaced the starter in the pouring rain and when he had finished the car started once, then would not start and run again. The RAC man gave up and said it needed to go to an RAC approved garage. It was taken to a RAC garage while my gf was provided with a hire car under her cover. The next day, the garage made contact and said that the car was fine. They tried starting it and it fired up right away. They had not carried out any work or done any tests and it was ready to be picked up, no charge. She picked it up. Fine for one week then battery light came on. RAC came out and diagnosed failed alternator. Back to the same RAC approved garage and the alternator replaced at great cost. She had to pay the bill herself because for some reason her parts and labour cover with The Warranty Group was not live, despite being purchased in October (now Feb) so a ghost claim was set up where she had to pay the bill and claim it back. Fast forward to two weeks ago, September. I was with her this time. She tried starting car and it would not start. Smoke started coming from under the bonnet, opened the bonnet and the starter motor was on fire!! Next to the house and several parked cars. I managed to get some water very quickly and put it out but this could have been a potential disaster. Starter motor is directly under the battery and if that had caught fire it would have been a catastrophe. Called out the RAC who had a look and immediately disconnected the battery. Explained the history to him and he said he would put in his report that the starter had caught fire etc. He took the car away to another RAC approved garage (the one we had used before was no longer RAC approved for some reason) When we received the email report it just stated check all electrics. Nothing about the starter or the fire. Hire car provided to her for 3 days as per her cover. Now we come to the problem. Rang the RAC and spoke to customer care about the fire. My girlfriend believed that because it was fitted by the RAC and the part should still be under warranty, there wouldn't be an issue replacing it. However the RAC appeared to be reluctant to accept any responsibility. First saying that the report doesn't mention anything about the starter so there's no proof that it was the starter. Got put through to a different dept, who then said that because they were treating it as 'an allegation of damage' that it was her responsibility to get the fault investigated and get a report to show that it was the starter at fault and they she would have to pay for all this! They also said that The Warranty Group would not consider a claim (even though it wasn't TWG who fitted the starter but the RAC) as it was an allegation of damage again the RAC. The garage that the RAC had taken it to were not able to look at it for several days, by which time the 3 day period on the hire car would be up. My gf said she would have no car to get to work and as a disabled person she couldn't use public transport. This made no difference to the RAC. Report finally came back from the RAC approved garage, who we discovered had only done a visual check because they "didn't have the equipment to do any tests" saying fire damage to starter motor, wiring loom from starter to fuse box and fuse box. It said in the report "suspected high resistance in wiring" (based on nothing but a visual check) and quoted an estimate of £640 to repair. The RAC jumped on the "high resistance in wiring" bit and said that showed it wasn't the starter! Despite the fact that a manufacturer fault in the starter can cause wiring problems. They then said that they would pass it to TWG to see if they would cover it (even though it wasn't the TWG that fitted the starter but the RAC) TWG came back and said no, they don't cover wiring looms! (checked the terms, and it does say they don't cover wiring looms) The RAC were basically trying to wash their hands of the whole thing. A few emails back and forth and they've now said they'll send out an independent company called Hoopers to check the car and do some tests but they can't give us a date. It's been 2 weeks now that she has been without her car. The RAC simply do not seem to care, the fact that she is also disabled does not seem to matter to them. I think the whole thing is shocking. She took out the top cover with them, with Parts and Labour cover to cover mechanical failures up to £750 and hire car cover so she would not have to worry about being without a car. Instead she's had nothing but worry with this company. *The starter motor itself was replaced by an actual RAC patrolman, not a garage under The Warranty Group. *The patrolman fitted it in the pouring rain, and the new starter not working may be down to the patrolman making a mistake, or failing to notice an existing issue. *The car was taken to an RAC garage where it SHOULD have been investigated to see why the new starter was not working, not just turning the key the next morning and saying it's fine. *The alternator failed 1 week later, this may not even have been the alternator but a failing connection between the alternator and the starter and should have been a clue for further investigation. With the RAC being the last people to have any contact with the starter and the associated wiring, I can't see how it falls down to my gf to have to foot the bill. Apologies for this very long post, and hope I haven't switched you off before you can offer any advice. It's advice I'm after about where she stands in regard to this. Thank you for reading.
  9. Hi Not sure this is the right section to post my query I'm a bit overwhelmed with the amount of categories here! I've recently won a small claims court against an independant courier company. Briefly I used them to ship a large LCD tv that I sold on ebay to the winning bidder in 2007 & took out insurance. The TV arrived smashed & I put in a claim with the courier company but for some reason the claim was taking an extraordinarily long time to be settled each time I would ring & speak to the person dealing with the claim he would say that the insurance were still processing it, despite the insurers never having contacted me. This went on for months until one day I was told that the employee had left the company & they claimed no knowledge of my case. I entered into email correspondence with them whereby they promised to look into it but never got back to me. I had no option in the end but to initiate a small claims case against them which I eventually won, the director turned up at the 1st trial date claiming it had 'come out the blue' despite my having all the paperwork to show I had been in correspondence with the company he asked for an adjournment & then he didn't bother turning up at the 2nd trial so it was found in my favour. I won the case on 7th July & they were given 7 days to pay by the court. I have heard absolutely nothing. I rang the company a couple of times and spoke to their secretary who said she would pass on my messages & ask the director to get back to me but still nothing. I have now sent a letter saying I am giving them 7 days to pay or I will execute a warrant. They have until Thursday 20th August to send full payment. What I'd like to know is how to go about executing a warrant if they don't pay up. I don't expect to hear from them as my experience with them is they seem to just ignore everything in the hope that it will go away. The judgement amount is £1759 and the company is a limited company registered with companies house, established in 1991. What are the bailiffs chances of getting this money back from them? I seem to recall reading somewhere that they cannot remove goods that are needed to run the business, which I presume could apply to practically everything in the business! Also do I address the warrant to the limited company or to the director? My other concern is that I am going abroad in September for up to 6 months so if I execute the warrant now, will this cause problems for me? Any advice appreciated! I've never been very lucky with regards to things like this, the only other court case that had a favourable result was when my ex neighbour pleaded guilty to vehicle theft of my van & its contents (he sold it for scrap when I went away on holiday!) and agreed to pay compensation in court...I received £30 in total before he was killed in a motorbike accident (also stolen!) and as far as I'm aware this would mean I am no longer entitled to anything? It'd be just my luck if this company went bust before I could recover the debt from them.
×
×
  • Create New...