Jump to content

thejoker.

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About thejoker.

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So I should make the claim for exactly £10,000? I'm assuming that's not refundable? The subject matter of the claim could reasonably have a negative impact on my career. Do you know how visible the case details are to the public? Thanks for the reply.
  2. Hello I have a few questions I'm struggling to find an answer to. 1) My claim would be artificially limited to £10k to try and keep it in the small claims. Do the court fees get included in that amount or is it £10k+costs? 2) I'm wanting to request my name is withheld under CPR 39.2. I appreciate that this is unlikely but how does one actually request the court to consider it? 3) I've done a SAR under GDPR but I am fairly confident they are withholding information claiming it will reveal internal processes. Is there any means to force the discosure of that information? Thanks
  3. support.google.com/googleplay/answer/3061475?hl=en //play.google.com/intl/en_uk/about/device-terms.html Can't post live links. Yes, it would make sense that they want to put some kind of lien on your account to cover the second device. That would be fine even useful for many, if, and only if, they also allowed you to return a faulty device without receiving a replacement, apparently they have confirmed this is not possible. Their last email was effectively 'Our way or deal with the manufacturer' My issue is I don't and can't really afford to risk another £200, even if the risk is small that they won't deem it under warranty. There is also the risk that the item won't make it to them/they lose it. Surely such a policy can't be in keeping with consumer legislation? it is putting an unreasonable barrier in front of one exercising their statutory rights.
  4. Google's online site has the policy in which for you to return a faulty device you need to first give them permission to put an 'authorisation' on the value of the replacement device they send to you. This is non-optional. The idea that if the faulty device you return is not deemed under warranty by them they will take the authorised value and you keep the replacement they sent you. I.e you pay for same product twice whether you like it or not. Am I being completely wrong in believing this go against Sales of Good Act? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...