Jump to content

MaxxPower

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by MaxxPower

  1. I doubt any of them actually know what a Statutory Declaration is. They'd probably just say "Well you do that but we're still taking the goods if you don't pay"
  2. My problem is when they turn up at a property that a debtor does not own, but is merely living at (Staying with parents, renting a room as a lodger, etc) they go off on their "The owner must provide receipts for everything or we're seizing it" and "It's on the owner to prove they own the goods" spiel. I was under the impression that a HCEO had to have reasonable grounds to believe that property is owned by a debtor. So long as it can be shown that the house is owned by someone else then I can't see how there is any reasonable belief that a TV in the Living room is owned by a debtor who merely inhabits a single room in the property, or that every car on the drive is owned by them. I've also seen them threaten to seize work vehicles, ie vans owned by a self employed person. I thought such vehicles essential for employment were exempt provided you could demonstrate it was vital to your employment?
  3. It sounds like Easyjet, British Airways and Ryan Air are all looking to pick up the Monarch staff (along with routes) quite quickly. Ryan Air in particular could do with a bit of a staff increase right now.
  4. The report costs can be claimed back from the retailer, but only if it does indeed say that it's a manufacturing defect and not something like screen burn from being left on a channel or game or paused film for too long.
  5. That wold only apply to online purchases, not in store purchases. PC World does have a 28 days return policy, but only on unopened items. I've never heard of PC World/Currys charging a restocking fee though.
  6. It's a sad story, but I don't think it's reasonable to blame Sky, or infact anybody, for this situation really. The article makes no mention of Sky being informed that the gentleman in question had Alzheimers, or indeed any kind of vulnerability, at any point prior to his family getting involved. If Sky suddenly just started assuming any subscribers above a certain age needed special check-ups on a regular basis they'd probably be accused of ageism and treating elderly people like children. The headline "Sky accused after letting 72yo Alzheimer's sufferer pay £110 a MONTH for TV packages" seems needlessly sensationalist if you ask me. And the line "Media giant Sky allowed an elderly Alzheimer’s to pay £110 a month for his TV package." seems to heavily imply that they were fully aware of his condition, when the article seems to have no factual basis for that. If they were made aware I'm sure there'd be quotes from the family to say so.
  7. It always seemed strange to me that previously the only way to get Motorway experience with a Driving Instructor was to do the additional Pass Plus qualification. Then when you're a new 18 year old driver it was a good thing to do as not only did it build confidence on Motorways and winding country roads, it also reduced the insurance premiums by far more than the cost of the lessons for several years running. Personally I'm all in favour of this. Better to have that first experience with an instructor than alone.
  8. A verbal contract is still a contract, just more difficult to prove.
  9. If the payments were taken by Direct Debit could the money not be retrieved through the Direct Debit guarantee? Surely a condition saying that one missed payment means you forfeit your ticket and all payments made so far cannot be considered fair and therefore wouldn't be enforceable.
  10. I've just noticed this show has now been added to Netflix. It's located under the (and I'm not joking) "Sci-Fi & Fantasy" section Might be a little mistake, or a bit of a commentary on the show by someone at Netflix.
  11. Are Carpetright under any obligation to provide a refund at all though since the panels weren't faulty and they were ordered/purchased in store rather than online? Or do the regulations around online purchase 14 day returns also apply to orders placed in store for items that are not physically present at the time and need to be ordered from a warehouse?
  12. Well the car is back. According to the garage they did fix the problem the first time, but apparently the sensors can only be properly reset by a Renault Dealer which has now been done. Personally I'm not of a mind to trust them as surely they should have known this from the outset. I've told my brother and his fiance to keep hold of every repair docket they've got though as I'm convinced something more is going to go wrong with the car, almost certainly after the 6 month period, at which point getting the garage to do anything will become significantly more difficult. Have evidence to show previous faults, not to mention a less than professional response from the garage, will make any future action a little easier. I can appreciate people saying it's not a major fault, but a fault is a fault, and especially when paying thousands for a car that's not that old there's certainly got to be an expectation of a product without faults, as well as an expectation of the garage selling it to have some knowledge of the product they're selling. It may not seem like a major fault to some, but if your car is almost constantly telling you that tyres are losing pressure while driving and there's a baby in the back that's quickly going to lead to a lot of pulling over and checking tyres on a near constant basis, and just ignoring the warnings as thinking it's just a dodgy sensor yet again could potentially lead to a serious accident. Had they sent it to Renault for a proper reset in the first place, rather than trying to do things on the cheap and bluff their way through when they clearly didn't have the correct knowledge to resolve the issue, all of this could have been avoided.
  13. The issue is that the system has failed for the fourth time despite being "repaired" every single time by the garage. The selling dealer have currently sent it to a Renault dealer for the fourth repair so I suppose we'll see how it goes, but even if it seems like a minor fault surely a near constant recurrence of it gives reason enough to reject the car as having lost all confidence in it? I'm presuming the Renault dealership will check the tyres as well, but I'll recommend to my brother that they take the car to a local garage for a proper tyre check as well just to make sure wear is consistent and that there aren't any other issues with the tyres that the dealer has missed/not highlighted. They did take it to a garage after the first instance of the pressure sensor going off and they checked all tyres for leaks and found none, but for peace of mind I'll recommend they go get a second opinion from a different garage, and have the spare wheel checked at the same time. For questions 1 and 2 though, I've not a clue if I'm honest. Car mechanics just aren't my thing at all. I'll see if I can get the exact model details though and a bit of Googling might reveal the answer to that one.
  14. Last try to get some help on this guys. Please? I've just been told that the garage are point blank refusing any kind of refund despite having had the car back 5 times in less than a month and a half and that once it's repaired again she will have to take it back. I could really use some advice on just what her legal rights are in dealing with this as we go forward.
  15. Isn't part of the issue not that people are poorly represented in court, but that many just bury their heads in the sand until it's too late and so end up not actually turning up to court when they have the chance? I do wonder what the ratio is of cases High Court Bailiffs attend that stem from default judgements rather than contested judgements.
  16. Hi guys, sorry to be triple posting but I could really use some advise on this one. The car was collected from the garage today after having been there for the last 4 days and halfway home all the pressure sensors went off yet again, so the car is now on the way straight back to the garage. Can we now demand a refund of the £1,300 trade-in value from the previous car, the £500 cash that was provided and cancellation of the finance agreement? We're past the 30 day period now, but the issue first surfaced and was originally reported and fixed within 30 days and the car is now heading back to the garage for the same issue for the fourth time, making it a fifth return in total. Obviously my brother and his fiance have completely lost all confidence in the car and they have a 1 year old daughter, so need something they can rely on. Update - My brother has just called me and advised he's asked the garage for a refund and cancellation of the finance, they've refused with the response "It doesn't work like that" Where do we go from here? Do we need to send them a letter giving them 14 days to refund and then if they don't take them to small claims court? The garage currently has the car, so do we simply leave it with them and refuse to take it back? Looking at this section of the AA website, https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights My reading of this is that we're legally entitled to a refund, but we may have to take the dealership to small claims court in order to get it.
  17. Just a bump to this as my brother has just advised me the same fault has occurred again for the third time and so the car is going back to the garage for the fourth time in total. I just wanted to clarify my (to be) sister-in-laws legal rights before we start insisting on a refund. I'm assuming we can also involve the Finance Company, but what would we say to them?
  18. I don't believe that applies to custom orders like this where the product was made to customer supplied specifications/measurements rather than an off the shelf item. Glad to be wrong but I've always been under the impression that's the case.
  19. Ok, posting this on behalf of my soon to be sister-in-law. I've tried to get what I thought were all the pertinent facts but I'm sure there are things missing. Anyway, getting to the issue. On 28th April 2017 she purchased a 64 plate Renault Clio from a garage. When test driving the car it had flagged up it had a puncture via the pressure monitor, but the garage advised they would get this sorted. On picking up the car the issue had indeed been sorted so she drove away happy. 1 week later she took the car back to the garage for the first time due to a scraping noise when using the brakes. This issue was resolved by the garage and has not occurred since. 2 weeks after that the car once again came up that it had a puncture on the built-in pressure monitor. She took it to a tyre place to be checked but they advised all 4 tyres were fine and had no punctures. The car was taken back to the garage it was purchased from and then returned with the fault said to be resolved. Just yesterday however the same puncture notification has come back again, and so the car has gone back into the garage again. They've advised they'll check all the tyres and sensors to identify the problem and if needed replace the tyres. Obviously however she and my brother are losing faith in the car as it's now been back to the garage 3 times, twice for the same problem. The potential problem is that they're now outside of the 30 day rejection period. The car was paid for via trading in an old car, for which she was given £1,300, plus another £500 cash, and the rest is via finance. I believe this is Hire Purchase finance but I've not seen the agreement and I'm not sure who it's with. It's a type of financing where she'll own the car at the end without a balloon payment being required as you'd get with PCP. Basically I'm wanting to know what options she realistically will have on getting the car back if the issue happens again. Despite being outside of the 30 day window does she have any rights of rejection and to get a refund? If her traded in car has been sold would she be entitled to the £,1300 they paid her in cash instead plus her original £500 back? If they haven't sold the car and can return her old one, but she's offered less on trade in from another garage will this one need to refund her that difference?
  20. Have you contacted them to ask where the refund is and why you haven't received it? Did they advise how you would receive it? Have you checked your bank statements to make sure they haven't just refunded it directly in there without a letter?
  21. This will almost certainly be reversed by the phone companies the day we leave the EU. I can only hope Three keep their Feel at Home policies covering EU nations since they cover a lot of non-EU countries in their policy as well.
  22. My reading of that link is that the 30 days only applies to in store sales where goods do not meet the purpose they were bought for, but I don't think a retailer could be held responsible for a customer not checking compatibility, provided all of the correct information was made available at the point of sale by the retailer themselves.
  23. I'm guessing this only applies in this case because Argos failed to provide the information that a HDCP compatible HDMI port is required. If that info had been provided then I'm guessing there would be no case for a return/refund of a store bought product with no faults that had been opened? As the product itself would then meet all fit for purpose regulations and it would be on the purchaser for not checking any compatibility requirements.
  24. Wouldn't that only apply if it was purchased via the website rather than in-store and the product isn't faulty?
  25. Your main argument would probably be that Argos themselves don't appear to advertise that a HDCP compatible TV is required (At least there's no mention of HDCP on their website) so you had no way of knowing this requirement before purchase and could only find out once opening and testing the product. Technically it is your responsibility to check if the product is compatible before purchasing, but you can only go by the information that they supply you with. All their website says you need is a HDMI connection and WiFi, no mention of the HDMI connection being HDCP compliant. If I were you I'd go to the Argos website product listing for the Chromecast Ultra and grab some screenshots of the whole page. This way you've got proof incase you need to take things further and they update the page in the meantime.
×
×
  • Create New...