Jump to content

Free Spiriting

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. The supplier finally sent a courier to collect the monitor. The monitor was delivered to the seller on Monday. I asked the seller when I was going to get my refund - I was advised once they got a chance to test it. I've just spoken to Amazon directly today (Saturday), explaining the seller has had the monitor since Monday. I asked Amazon how long I was expected to wait for their seller. Good news. Amazon instantly refunded me on behalf of the seller. I'm not sure how the seller will feel about that but I'm pleased Amazon stepped in. Thanks for your replies.
  2. I've received another reply from them this morning, Its lovely that they wish to carry out testing to satisfy themselves there is an issue! My response to this message was
  3. Amazon are keeping a firm step away from this because they say its a third part seller. They have emailed the third party seller asking them to contact me with regards to getting this item returned to the third party. I received an email from the third party stating they would collect the monitor from me if I wished. Naturally, I have replied that I do want the monitor to be collected and a full refund issued. The third party emailed asking me to clarify whether I wanted them to collect the monitor or if they could send me a new power supply to try! I'm not sure I could have made myself any clearer in my previous reply to them as to the resolution I require. I've replied yet again asking the third party seller to collect the monitor from me and to issue a full refund. This is starting to feel like pulling teeth. This correspondence is all on the Amazon messaging system. If I don't have some news in a couple of days, I may just write recorded to the third part Ltd Company's registered address. Perhaps that will focus their minds a little more. Ikonic Technology Ltd don't appear to be a small company. Am I just an annoying mosquito to them?
  4. Actually, it turns out that Monitors are on Parcel Force's exclusion list. The only courier that I can find that will deliver a monitor is on DHL's own website. The total cost to send my monitor (12 KG) with a signature is £36 !! Because I have declared the monitor's value truthfully at £267.99; the DHL website forces me to pay an extra £13.40 for combined signature and protection. If I don't select this option, the site says they won't collect a signature and may just leave the parcel with a neighbour. This whole courier business seems massively stacked against the consumer! I will phone Amazon again and see what they say.
  5. Good call! I see from the Parcel Force site direct, there aren't quite the silly exclusions that some of the other companies have.
  6. I did. Amazon said arrange the courier myself and they will refund me the courier fee if I send them a scan of the Invoice. I think the future lesson here for me is to try to only pick goods that are fulfilled by Amazon themselves. In my experience Amazon fulfilled orders where a return is needed are handled with utmost efficiency including a pre-paid courier label. Sometimes you have to look quite closely to see whether a given item, is fulfilled by Amazon themselves or a third party.
  7. Thanks. Part of my concern is the fact that I can't find a courier service that doesn't have computer monitors or glass on their list of excluded items. I have read a few of the posts relating to claims against these courier firms and I suspect these 'blanket' exclusions probably aren't enforceable anyway. I probably am over worrying - so I should just return it via someone like DPD through Parcel 2 Go and let the Amazon process take its cause. To Amazon's credit, they have just told me if I book a courier myself today - they (Amazon) will refund me the postage charge themselves.
  8. Hi I ordered a new monitor from Amazon, this order was fulfilled by third party seller called Ikonic Technology Ltd. The monitor was delivered today. As soon as I power on this monitor, the household RCD trips. I have tried the monitor in different power outlets which I know to work, and the same RCD tripping issue occurs. I have initiated a return through the Amazon website. This has generated an automatic response from the seller stating the address that I am to return the item to; and that the most they will refund for postage is £3.75. Clearly posting back a monitor that weighs nearly 10KG in it's box, is not going to happen for £3.75 - let alone a courier that doesn't have computer monitors on their 'excluded items' list. Am I within my rights to write to the LTD Companies own registered address, rejecting the item and requiring they pick it up themselves ? Effectively bypassing the entire Amazon return process ? I wasn't sure whether my contract as with Amazon directly, or the third party ? So, I carried out a little research myself. The answer seems clear to me:- ( accessed on 12th Nov 2021, Amazon.co.uk Help: Changes to the Conditions of Use & Sale, January 27, 2012 WWW.AMAZON.CO.UK Thanks
  9. Hi Apologies if this is in the wrong place. My mother in law, has received a letter from Credit Link Recovery Solutions - claiming to act for "The London Mint Office Ltd". The claim is for under £50, however no details have been provided as to what the alleged debt is for. She has written back to CARS (with my help), with the CAG debt prove it letter. We clearly deny the debt and ask them to prove it. Today, she had received a response from CARS stating the "Internet based Letter" has no foundation in law or relevance to the account in question or the amount you owe. The letter goes on to state, "If you dispute the outstanding balance, please provide full details so we can ask The London Mint Co to look into this for you. Why should we provide full details. We have already denied it? Can we not put them to strict proof? One interesting point is that on the rear of their original letter they cite the National Debtline as an authoritative source for information. Some of the FCA guideline text (7.5.3, 7.14.1 and 7.14.3) from the CAG letter is also in the National Debt HelpLine's template letter. (https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/sampleletters/Pages/Complaining-to-debt-collection-agencies-that-you-do-not-owe-the-debt-%28sole-name%29.aspx) CARS stating that an 'internet based letter' which could have originated from the site they recommended for advice, appears a serious attempt to erode my mother in law's rights; an attempt to confuse individuals. While it is not directly relevant, my mother in law is heavily disabled and recently suffered a stroke. The actions of CARS is bordering on vexatious surely. Basically, stating that asking for proof of debt has no basis in law; yet demanding payment. I wonder if they are in danger of committing an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act if they carry on with this conduct. I can attach the original letters as PDFS to this post, but just want to make sure the search engines aren't going to spider them. Thanks Al
×
×
  • Create New...