Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by blitz

  1. I was always disappointed obvious never came back to respond. 1 point to Gyzmo and I, right? - BiS are now redeveloping consumer law anyway, I really should look at the proposals sometime
  2. Do they still sell the model you purchased? - Which one is it (Cat No) Thanks
  3. Indeed you just need proof of purchase, if its paid by card Argos will be able to trace the transaction. When going into Argos insist they file a HazNot form for the item (Which basically means it will be investigated by QC)
  4. First off your case is with the seller of the monitor and not LG, they are only bound by the warranty they set. With regards to action you can take it would be deemed 'faulty' as it is not fit for the purpose it was purchased for. As a replacement and repair will not correct the issue they should be able to offer you an exchange / refund purchase date depending. When did you purchase the monitor, what is the actual fault? Is the fault not with the graphics card?
  5. Basically no there is not a statutory specific time limit, only that it should be a reasonable amount of time. Have you tried contacting the store as I would assume that reasonable period would be up by now.
  6. If you can provide the debit/credit card information with the approximate date and amount Argos can find the transaction details which includes a copy of the receipt. The process is quite simple - Get transaction details which will consist of a date, store, txn number and till number Using this information log on to RetailJ then go to audit logs, select region -> area -> store -> till number -> date from the drop down box -> press ctrl+f -> type in txn number and press enter. -> copy receipt into notepad -> print -> store stamp copy and sign. This system goes back a couple of years, must be done in the store the item was purchased (A store can only access their information), and not always widely known. I can also outline how to use the new repair system if they so wish but I don't want to take that away from them With regards to just presenting the box whilst that does show the product came from Argos it doesn't show an established contract between yourself and Argos which can be requested to follow SGA.
  7. That's accurate for the MD email, with regards to who has to prove it is faulty Argos must within six months (SGA79 s48A). I would be very inclined to take it into the store and ask for a replacement / refund there and then, I have had various bikes bought into the store whereby we have sorted it out (Though this is down to the manager).
  8. From my experience shoes that would have little friction on concrete / mud would generally have little friction on an scramble / incline for which has similar conditions (as inclines you use hiking boots for are generally muddy..) I can't speculate on how good the friction is on normal surfaces but would generally argue that point for s.14 Not fit for purpose
  9. Where is this offer... I have neither heard or seen anything about it? {edit} So its a link to an external site advertised after purchasing, with all detail captured by the third party (i.e its not Argos' T+C but the cash back website?) Surely your would wonder putting your cc / dc details in as many companies would pay using BACS or Paypal?
  10. I know its irritating but retailers will always err on the side of caution when it comes to ID, if they are unsure whether to take it then its grounds for refusal. Companies are not bound to accept a card just because it is deemed a valid form of ID and European ID cards are not well known at all and there are far too many fakes out there to know if its genuine or not. The fines and enforcement are too much and if a member of my staff refused the ID I would be backing them up. Feel free to complain to the store manager and HQ but I would push the complaint into asking if they can look into providing training on ID cards as that is what is lacking, unless they are told they can accept them you will find it getting refused as the amount of pressure and training to only accept certain IDs is very very very high.
  11. The retailer is allowed to pick the cheapest option to them out of replacement, repair or partial refund (Under the SOGA). In this case it would be the latter which they have offered you, when offering they need to make a calculator to determine how much to offer. To do this they will take a timescale for which is should reasonably last to be of a satisfactory quality and work out how much lifespan it should have left. I would say if its 4 years old with a 5 year guarantee that this figure should be 20% of the sale price in cash, their offer of 50% store credit therefore is more than reasonable, you can't insist on this offer in cash however, only to increase there offer upwards which I would imagine could vary between 15% - 30% depending on the exact age in months and what they would take as a reasonable timescale for use. What is the fault and product, have you asked them how much it would be to repair or able to get a quote (as if you can find it cheaper that is always an option too!)
  12. Depends on the T+C of the warranty, they dictate the terms and will usually have get out clauses. They are not worth the paper they are written on and generally should be ignored
  13. They are not obliged to give a full refund nor can you force them to do a replacement, the amount offered however does seem lower then it should. I would argue for something like £30 inclusive of VAT (i.e assuming a HDD should last 3 years and you have had a years use of it). Though feel free to ask for a replacement, HDD prices should have come down slightly too use that for bargaining!
  14. Quite simply LOCOG dictates the rules and you do not argue with them. Don't forget you can ONLY pay by plastic if its a Visa card in the Olympic venues, I think that trumps any food / branding issues.
  15. Tell both the cc company and the retailer: The goods do not conform to the contract as they are not of a satisfactory quality as defined by the s.14 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (As amended). There is no question on the conformity of the goods, with a repair offered by the retailer the goods not being of satisfactory quality is a matter of fact. Due to this I am entitled to reject the goods as they have not been accepted per the terms of s.35 of the act. As the goods are being rejected I must be put back into the position I was in before the contract which for this case would be a full refund for the amount I paid. Should you refuse my legal statutory rights I will have no option but to seek legal remedy and report you to the appropriate authority, be aware that no company policy nor terms you may try to set out can limit or remove those rights.
  16. Just a note there is little cost involved just the 14 days to sending an LBA, you might be lucky..
  17. What I am trying to say is that just because you think you deserve a refund doesn't mean you are...
  18. Yes there is a good reason not to define the time, and in this case a reasonable person would judge that a reasonable time has passed to examine the goods, for which they are therefore accepted. Take a step back, remove emotion and what you want to happen, be objective and see the the different outcomes of pressing for a refund 1) Company gives in after LBA 2) Company gives in after MCOL 3) Goes to court judge deems that the OP has not accepted the product 4) Goes to court judge deems that the OP has accepted the product Its great for the first 3 but the odds of option 4 happening costing the OP more time and money are higher then I would like. Major retailers with professional consumer law departments put acceptance down to 1 month, I am happy to suggest when this can be pushed beyond that, for an item used frequently this is not one of them.
  19. Your contract is with the retailer and you can insist that they deal with the issue.
  20. The two major avenues for a refund in the SOGA are as follows: 1) Rejection of the goods that do not conform to the contract that have yet to be accepted by the consumer. 2) Rescinding from the contract as per s.48C. For each there are conditions applying the one you are asking me to lay out is 1) for option 1) to be valid the goods must not conform to the contract (which they don't) and the customer must not have accepted them (Which I am arguing that its my opinion they have). Acceptance in the SOGA is outlined in s.35 Acceptance is there to allow a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods, for the item in question a pram, something use multiple times a week, it would not be unreasonable to assume that acceptance of the product would occur within a matter of weeks and not months. As such the right of rejection is lost and the OP can instead resort to using other parts of the act for remedies such as s.48 for repairs or replacements. Note that 2) only qualifies if the product is not repaired within a reasonable amount of time, or if its cheaper to the retailer to repair. [Edit] some additional information on acceptance if you would prefer to judge yourself The part of the act allows flexibility as becomes a question of fact, which would include when did the consumer start using the product, when was the fault initially found, how long until the retailer was informed. Bernstien v Pamson Motors (1987) was found in favour of the seller after a car had been in use after keeping the car for 3 weeks. The judgement created alot of discussion on acceptance and the need to balance both the consumers right for examination and retailers avoiding recovery of full price despite goods being used for a considerable amount of time. The only other major case was Clegg v Anderson was a Yacht rejected after 7 months, however there were special circumstances whereby the buyer had indicated that the goods did not conform to the contract on delivery. The buyer requested information and rejected the goods within 3 weeks of receiving this information. Standard retailers these days take a month as a period of acceptance, this is obviously too short for a limited amount of goods but for the majority can be seen as a reasonable amount of time. For example a pair of skis which you have purchased pre-season might be rejected a few months later on their first use. Or a pen for example would be accepted within a matters of days of use.
  21. You are only entitled to a refund if you return the item back to the retailer within a short space of time (i.e the time it would take to use the product a few times is a good guide). In my opinion you wouldn't be entitled to a refund after 3 months, that's the legal position and not a moral one, the law states and not what you may or may not deserve.
  22. You don't accept the product by accepting a repair (s13(6)) however the argument is with this part of the SOGA 13 (4) The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. The above clause does not take into account cost as s13 does, and in my personal opinion for an item that you use daily you would have accepted it during the first 3 months so therefore only entitled to a repair or replacement (depending on which one is more cost effective to the retailer).
  23. Nintendo generally are not out to get anyone, most high-end electronics these days have water sensors (The iPhone has at least 3 small little circle stickers that turn red when in contact with water for example). I would presume a DS has something similar
  24. You don't meet the t+c of a chargeback*, just ask the retailer for a refund. I can't see how they would refuse being plain bands that are not personalised. Feel free to post up the description of the rings (Metal, Colour, Width, Size and Style) and can try to be of help by finding an alternative for you. *Part of the requirement on submitting a chargeback is to attempt to resolve with the retailer first, no attempt in this case has been made.
  • Create New...