Hello, I will keep it short. I bought a TV from JL in May 2018 I noticed a possible fault and have video evidence with dates etc so confirm it was within the 30 days and six months, I made a silly error of trying to put up with it as wasnt sure if it was a fault or that it was a characteristic of LCD TV's (I had a plasma) only down the line nearly six months later I am to find it was a faulty panel and a new panel for my TV was needed. I understand under the Consumer rights after 30 days but before six months I have to give the retailer a chance to repair if they think that is the best way forward (I asked for a refund/replacement first, they said no) an engineer confirmed it was faulty and a new panel was supplied by Panasonic and the repair at my home was to happen today. After an hour of stripping the TV down and the new panel fitted it was put back together and powered up but only to find that the new panel was smashed so you can imagine how annoyed myself and the engineer was. The TV has been taken away to be repaired in the workshop. I contacted JL and rejected the goods as unfit and the fact they have had one chance of repair which was unsuccessful. They replied that the TV will go ahead and will be repaired and returned to me and I would get a small compensation. I said no I am rejecting it but they insist that because it wasnt actually fully put back together (back panel was still off) and tested that it isnt classed as a unsuccessful repair. So what do you think, am I right or are they right? they are now waiting for a Martin Dawes report. I have sent a letter of rejection. I paid using paypal and £100 JL voucher. My mistake and I know I am kicking myself was not to do this within the first 30 days but I have my reasons. thanks ​ Fuming even more now. The engineer JL used, Martin Dawes have just rang to tell me they have put the old panel back in and say its within spec. it certainly isnt, this is the same engineers who stated it had a faulty panel in the first place and agreed with my complaints about banding, pixelation etc. I did notice when the engineer was moving the new panel on the trestle they use he bent it downwards but though nothing of it, maybe he had broken it and or Panasonic wont replace it so looking for an easy way out or JL have had a word.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/829/82910.htm#_idTextAnchor054 Everyone except DWP has been making each of these points from the outset, shame it's taken Parliament 10 years to catch up.

Hi, just some advice on where I stand with the following. On the 11th of June 2017 I bought the following vehicle ----------- from National Car Credit - financed by MoneyBarn I have had problems with the goods from the start a list of which is listed below: The dealer has still not sent me any documents related to the vehicle. I have not received the documents from the DVLA. I was told that it had an MOT. It transpired that it had no MOT. It had expired on the 30/05/2017 but I was only informed on the 21/06/2017 after randomly calling them to find out when the MOT expires I was told that it had a full service history but it transpires that it did not. The service book has not been sent to me In fact they sent me documents relating to other cars The car was taken in for an MOT on 21/06/2017 which it failed. They did not pay for the MOT and the repairs resulting from the MOT failure. The car was sold faulty and I was guaranteed that they would replace the tyre-sensors. No reply from them. I had to replace part of the exhaust after 1 month where it had corroded - £100. I had to do the brakes and drums which they knew needed replacing - £400 The DSC has been problematic and replacement is about - £400 The car was not checked or serviced by them. They sold me the car with service and repair documents – when I checked it to see when my car is due a service it transpires that it belongs to another car – this is not the first time this company has done this as a simple google search testifies. They have not sent me the second key which they were going to post. They have not sent me the service and manual book for the car – which they promised as the car was sold with a full service history. I have sent Moneybarn the e-mail and have been communicating with them. I have had endless repairs done as the company I bought the car from is totally ignoring me now. I have kept all the records of communication with the dealership and referred it to Moneybarn now. Question is - what an I entitled to. I have requested that they reimburse me for the money spent and fix the car or exchange for another car of equal money, the Last alternative is for them to refund what I have already paid and cancel the agreement. Any ideas will be greatly appreciated.

Hi I purchased a sofa on eBay from an actual company, as opposed to a private seller. I paid using a credit card, but as it was on eBay, it went through PayPal. I entered my card number directly, rather than using it as a funding source, if that makes sense. I.e. it was a direct purchase with my card rather than PayPal being used as a staged wallet. I make this distinction because I wanted to know whether this gives me any section 75 rights. So anyway the sofa broke after 3 months. The wood supporting the legs broke so the legs went up inside the base.. Although it was only £150, an item should be fit for purpose and not break so soon, especially as the item description said 'high quality materials used'. I contacted the seller but they wanted nothing to do with it, insisting that I should have noticed the defect earlier. As it was over 30 days, they claim I had accepted the item and could not return it. I supplied photographic evidence but they said that someone must have exerted excessive force on it. This is untrue, we have only sat on it normally and not even used it as a sofa bed which it does convert to. So I opened a dispute with PayPal. They heard my side of the story and I asked if they required either the photographs or the correspondence between myself and the seller as proof, but they said not yet, they would request it if they needed it. The next thing that happened is the seller responded to the case (I didn't get to see their response) then PayPal ruled in their favour without me being able to offer any counter argument or evidence. I need to know what I can do next. Should I contact my credit card company? Info on MoneySavingExpert suggests that using PayPal prevents you from claiming under section 75 but it doesn't draw any distinction between PayPal as a wallet and PayPal as a gateway service. I was hoping that using my card directly may help. What other options are available? My wife was successful in using the government Money Claim service so I may do that if the credit card avenue is not viable. The eBay returns process doesn't seem to cover any scenario after 30 days. The company is Furniture In Fashion if that helps or rings any bells with anyone. Any advice welcome! Thanks Burton

Hi This is my first post so please forgive me if its in the wrong place or irrelevant !! I have had a holiday and reason for complaint as it was not what it said it was... there are two issues that i have summarised below. The holiday company, forest holidays, dont want to know about my complaint and say they will defend any court action, so i would like to ask what do people think ? do i have a reasonable chance of winning a case against them? Details of claim - Part one of claim – Noise and disruption 1. The defendant made the following statements on the forest holidays website – “Our cabins at Sherwood Forest are dotted among the tall pine trees, blending harmoniously into the forest landscape. Sherwood Forest has our widest range of cabins, and whichever you choose, you will be rewarded with peaceful woodland views” 2. The claimant booked a holiday on September 4th 2016 with The claimant being induced by this representation of a PEACEFUL holiday, to enter into a contract. The claimant would otherwise not have entered into the contract—that is that the representation played a real and substantial part in the claimant's decision to enter into the contract. 3. Unknown to the claimant but with full Knowledge to the defendant at the time of booking, the forest live concerts were to take place for the entire duration of the claimants booking. These concerts are to take place in the same forest, on the same land, within 500 metres of the forest holidays cabins. 4. The concerts are big open air events that attract some 9000 + visitors over the duration of the holiday booking. There was continued loud sound checks throughout the duration of the stay and extreme decibel levels of live music in the evenings continuing beyond 11.00pm. The defendant knew that the holiday would not be Peaceful as in the representation at the time of booking. 5. The defendants silence, at the time of booking in September 2016, while knowing these concerts where to go ahead during the entire holiday period, gives rise to an actionable misrepresentation. 6. The forest holidays cabins are in the forestry commission Sherwood forest grounds. The concerts also take place in the forestry commissions Sherwood forest grounds. For forest holidays to say that the concerts are outside their area or control is misleading and untrue. The concerts are approx. 500 yards from the holiday accommodation. Although forest holidays may have no direct control over the concert dates, subsequent noise and disruption they do have control over the fact that they could have informed the claimant of this event prior to making a booking 7. By way of example forest holidays promote bike hire at their Sherwood forest facilities. Bike hire at Sherwood pines is actually not on the forest holidays site as they claim in this instance but is on the same site of the Sherwood forest live concerts, some 500 yards away from the cabins. Yet for the purposes of this claim the defendant states that part of the forest site is not the same part of the forest holidays area 8. The defendant claims they did not need to make the claimant aware of these concerts as it is outside of their control as stated in the terms and conditions. 9. The claimant claims that the noise and disruption was foreseeable and is so not outside of the control as detailed in the terms and conditions – “We are not responsible for anything which adversely affects your holiday which occur due to events which are outside of our control (i.e. that we could not, even with due care, have foreseen or avoided). Such circumstances include (amongst others) war, civil unrest, industrial action, terrorist activity, natural disaster, fire, adverse weather conditions, foot and mouth disease. We will endeavour to manage any problems caused as a result of such an event but shall not be liable to you for any losses caused by such event”. 10. The defendant made the claimant aware of these concerts on 6th June 2017 through an email which the claimant read. 11. The claimant was unable to cancel the holiday and receive a refund as the terms and conditions state ‘If we receive less than 12 weeks’ notice but not less than 2 weeks’ notice, you will be liable to pay the total cost of the holiday” and the claimant would have forfeited the value of the holiday 12. The claimant claims that the defendant had full knowledge of these concerts but did not report this to the claimant until after such a time that the claimant would have paid for the holiday in full and would forfeit the cost of the holiday should the claimant decide to cancel. 13. The claimant went ahead with the holiday after assurance from the defendant that there would be little or no disruption. 14. The claimant made a complaint of continued noise and disruption to the forest lodge holiday staff at the time of the holiday, they stated there was nothing they could do about this and dismissed the claimants complaint 15. The claimant went onto make a formal complaint to forest holidays head office by way of letter detailing the complaint and asking for a refund of the holiday 16. The defendant’s customer service representative then telephoned the claimant to discuss the complaint and get more details, the forest holidays customer service advisor said there would be a management meeting on what they could do and how to resolve the complaint 17. The defendant then responded by way of email, denying any liability and dismissed the claimant’s complaint in full. 18. The claimant refers to the following terms and conditions of the contract – 11. Responsibilities when on location Noisy or disruptive behaviour, especially after 10pm, wilful damage to the Location or cabins or other behaviour considered by our staff to be inappropriate may result in us asking you or a member of your party to leave the Location immediately. No refunds or compensation will be given in these instances, and we reserve the right to claim compensation for damages or inconvenience caused. 15. Liability – Please read this section as it is important that you understand to what you are agreeing 
 We are responsible to you for: (a) any loss or damage that you suffer as and which is foreseeable result of our breach of these Terms or our failure to use reasonable skill and care; or (b) death or personal injury caused by our negligence; or © fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; or (d) any other matter for which it would be illegal or unlawful for us to exclude or attempt to exclude our liability. To respect the enjoyment of others, we ask that noise levels are kept to a minimum after 10:00pm 17 Other Information - Any photographs, descriptions or advertising we issue, and any descriptions or illustrations contained in our promotional material or on the website, are issued or published solely to provide you with an approximate idea of our Locations and the services. All due care and diligence is exercised in the production of such information, and information concerning our cabins and their facilities has been compiled as accurately as possible by our own staff and has been checked at the time of going to press Part 2 of claim – Bike theft. 1. The claimant had two bicycles stolen from the cabins whilst on holiday and claims the defendant knew about, but did not highlight or inform the claimant of the continued problem of bike theft in the forest. 2. The claimant claims that the accommodation provided bike storage was used but was inadequate to secure the bikes considering the defendant’s knowledge of the high risk of bike theft in the forest 3. The defendant claims that they informed the claimant that they should keep bikes inside the cabin, in the kitchen area of the accommodation 4. The claimant claims that storing muddy bikes inside a luxury cabin kitchen area is not suitable or fit for purpose. 5. The claimant claims that by storing muddy bikes inside the cabin kitchen risks damaging the kitchen floors, risks safety to children in the accommodation and risks breaching the terms and conditions should the bikes cause any damage to the property to which the claimant would be liable 6. The claimant claims that the defendant knew about the risks associated with the current outside bike storage but has failed to upgrade these to secure outside storage. 7. By continuing to provide the current outside bike storage the claimant claims that the defendant is, by way of action, promoting this storage to be adequate and is to be used for bike storage 8. The defendant claims that they highlighted the risks of bike storage to the claimant by way of prior arrival email and upon check in 9. The claimant does not recall receiving or reading the above mentioned email and was not informed in anyway at the time of check in 10. The defendant claims that adequate warning signage is placed around the cabin and forest area 11. The claimant has since looked for these warning signs but has been unable to locate them, photos of main areas and bike storage do not show any warning signs 12. The claimant claims that the defendant has become liable for the loss of these bikes due to negligence, failure to disclose or display knowledge of foreseeable high risk of bike theft 13. The claimant claims that the defendant is liable for the loss due to failure to supply fit for purpose storage facilities outside the cabin accommodation 14. The claimant states that the defendants claim that bikes should be stored in the luxury accommodation kitchen is not a solution and is not stated in the terms and conditions of contract. It gives rise to significant risk and injury to children staying in the cabin. Any help would be appreciated Thanks

Hi all, My Wife bought a sliding door wardrobe from Argos last year , when it was delivered there was damage to the sliding doors which they replaced free of charge. One of the doors has always been problematic with opening & closing and now a second door is also being an issue. The first door is constantly coming off of the running rails and now the door has become damaged where the castors fit into the door meaning that the castor does not stay in the correct position anymore. The second door has a similar issue. The doors are made from a plastic coated chipboard which is around 10mm thick and I wondered if I could say that they are not fit for purpose due to the material used and that the wardrobe should last longer than it has. There are other slight issue with the wardrobe also but the doors are the main issue as these are the finishing touch to any wardrobe. Nic

Hi I ordered a Hisense 50" 4K TV from Argos on Monday and it arrived yesterday. After playing with it for a few hours, setting it up to my standards and getting to grips with all the functions, I discovered that the satellite EPG is all but missing. All it shows is 'No programme' until I click onto a channel, at which point it fills in the current programme and sometimes the following one too. This is absolutely useless. The whole point of an EPG is that you can easily see what's on without having to tune to each and every channel first. It also makes the PVR function useless as you can't schedule a recording when it's not showing in the EPG. I did some research (which I should have done before I bought it) and it seems the lack of an EPG is a known issue and is down to Hisense refusing to pay for a license. They also have no plans to do so in the future. This means the satellite tuner is effectively useless. The only reason I bought this TV was so that I could ditch my Sky box and use the tuner in the TV to pick up the free satellite channels and the PVR function to record shows. Without an EPG I'm stuck using my old Sky box. I suppose I could buy a proper Freesat box (or even get Freesat from Sky) but I was really hoping to reduce the number of remotes I have to deal with too. This TV was going to have everything in one nice little package; TV, PVR, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix. Bah humbug. I contacted Argos and was told that I can't return it because it's used and technically isn't faulty. Here's an extract of the transcript from my conversation with them: Dylan (17:19:03 GMT) : I can see that this is a smart TV. I'm afraid that with devices such as this, we cannot accept a return due to our security policies. However, if the item is faulty then you could take it into our store to have it repaired. Visitor (17:21:25 GMT) : It's not something that can be repaired. Hisense have admitted that the EPG is down to their reluctance to pay for it and they have no intention of ever doing so. It's not a mechanical fault that can be repaired, it's just not fit for purpose. Dylan (17:23:01 GMT) : Then this is not something we can assist with as the item does need to be faulty. The lack of an EPG by manufacturer's choice would not be considered a fault. I've had another look through the description of the TV on the Argos site and it actually doesn't mention the satellite tuner; it's not something they boast about for obvious reasons, so it's not really a selling point as such. One thing it does mention though is 'Freeview Play digital tuner'. I did a little digging and it seems Freeview Play is a blend of Freeview and Catchup services in one convenient EPG. This is also missing (yes, it has the latest firmware). Even if it was there, I can't use it as my signal isn't strong enough. I have a communal aerial which only picks up about 12 channels and none of them in HD which is why I purposely got a TV with a satellite tuner. Can anyone tell me what my options are? Thanks in advance. Toby

On 27th September 2016 I bought an Innovate mtxl wideband for £162.50 (sensor amd sensor control unit for my car). This was installed by a professional mechanic on 10th October 2016. On 11th November 2016, less than 1000 miles later, the sensor failed. I contacted the company I bought it from requesting a refund but they would only offer a replacement sensor which I eventually accepted. The replacement was fitted on 21st April 2017 (the car was in stotage over winter), the replacement sensor then failed on the 26th April 2017 with the exact same error code (E8) again less than 1000 miles later. I have again contacted the company who sold me the product and they now state that there is no warranty on the product and the first replacement was out of the goodnes of their heart. Having googled "innovate e8" there are many, many others with the same story. I do not believe this product to be fit for purpose or of sufficient quality. No way a sensor on a car should need replacing every 1000 miles. The manufacturer of the sensor claims an average sensor life of 80,000 km and other manufacturer's controllers that also use this sensor do seem to manage this. I sent the company a letter explaining I do not feel this product is fit for purpose and they responded (in a rather unprofessional tone) they they would not be refunding me. What else can I do to try and resolve this issue?

I have experience of how bad Consumer Protection is in the UK. Since February 2014 I have had a complaint with - The Ombudsman Service Limited Registered Office: Wilderspool Park, Greenalls Avenue, Warrington, WA4 6HL. Registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79 - regarding the energy supplier switching process and the criminal activity of Spark Energy in attempting to charge me for gas and or electricity when I have been paying First Utility. The Ombudsman has failed to act, the latest response from them was 03 June 2015, Rhys Brown Ombudsman Services: Energy. I sent a reply on 01 July and reminder on 14 October. I have therefore decided to act by disqualifying ALL statutory authorities; they are obviously just a sop and actively support big business NOT consumers.

Please can someone explain the purpose of group interviews with more than one candidate - does this mean they're looking for more than one person?

We ordered a cordless vacuum cleaner from Very at a price of £79.99 excluding delivery charge. When the cleaner arrived we charged the battery for the recommended time according to the instructions. we then tested it out on the living room rug but it hardly picked anything up. Its only a small rug about 4ftx3ft but the vacuum was struggling to pick up anything at all. After 10 minutes of trying to vacuum just a quarter of the rug we gave up and decided to try it on the stair carpet, same thing happened it was totally useless. We gave up completely and returned the cleaner the next day stating it was not fit for purpose. Initially Very re credited us after receiving it back a couple of days later a delivery agent tried to give us what we thought was replacement cleaner of the same model which we had not ordered so my wife refused to accept delivery. A few days later our Very account had been recharged for the cleaner, we called them to find out why. They said they had tested it and found nothing wrong with it. Since we refused to accept its 2nd delivery Very have possession of the item and want to charge us again to have it re delivered. They are refusing to remove the cost of the item from our account therefore we are being charged for an item we do not have which which is unfit for purpose in the first place! Can someone please give us some advice. We would be 'VERY' grateful!

Asking on behalf of a relative who does not have the internet bought a 2005 4x4 vehicle 31-10-14 from garage in Derby they delivered it 3-11-14 paid £2,700 for it and was given £300 for his vehicle it came with a months warranty, relative kept hearing a noise 7-10 days after sale he went to a local garage with it on 18-11-14 after keep ringing the garage he bought if from and keep being fobbed off when asking to speak to the manager. Local garage booked car in to have a look at it 24-11-14 and made a report it has a constant light on dash board for the air bag, gear box on its way out flooded with oil, clutch going, brakes faulty/sticking, car differential problems. Whenever relative keeps ringing garage he bought vehicle from he gets fobbed off they told him to bring vehicle back but car is not roadworthy according to local garage that as inspected it. Rang consumer direct they said to keep ringing garage and demand to speak to the manager and tell him want a full refund as they have sold him vehicle that is not fit for purpose and that he does not want a replacement etc relative cannot get this far with only speaking to sales team, not been advised to write to them. Advice what to do to secure a refund and to get garage to come and collect this vehicle, relative now as no vehicle for work and will have to go out this week and buy another vehicle.

Hi there, I'm having a lot of trouble with Vodafone refusing to refund or replace my phone, and I'm worried I'm going to end up having to take them to court. I have no idea how to do this, or if I really have a case, but I will give you all the details and I really hope you can help. I'll bullet point it to try make it easier to understand fully. Thanks for your time. .I bought a Vodafone Smart Prime 6 for my Girlfriends Mum for Christmas - Purchased on 10/12/15 for £75 .I paid for an unlocking code so I could use the phone on other networks. .The phone turned out to be faulty (resetting itself every 5 minutes) .I took the phone back for repair .I received a replacement phone as the repair was "unfixable" .I attempted to buy an unlocking code for the replacement phone .The phone can't be unlocked, unlike the original - In fact the unlocking team claim the phone is already unlocked, despite me sending them photographic proof that it wasn't. .I took the phone to the Vodafone store, they say they can't refund or replace it as it's past the 14 day deadline. .I believe I am owed a full refund/replacement. .I explain to them my statutory rights that I believe apply to this situation: "Subsection (3) applies to a contract to supply goods if before the contract is made the consumer makes known to the trader (expressly or by implication) any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods." .I have an email sent by a Vodafone Technical Advisor saying (excuse his spelling): "PLEASE HELP AS IF THIS ISNT CORRCTED THEN WHAT WILL WE DO AS CUSTOMER IT OUT OF THE 14 DAYS OF PURCHASE AS THAT WAS THE CONDITION HE BOUGHT IT THAT HE COULD HAVE IT UNLOCKED WHICH HE DID WITH THE FIRST PHONE BEFORE THE EXCHANGE" .I believe that this states I bought the phone under the condition that I would be able to unlock it - please note this email was sent recently, so after I bought the phone, however I have in writing that the phone was sold to me under the condition that I would be able to unlock it from a Vodafone Rep, so I'm hoping this will count as "before the contract is made" anyway - Please advise! . Finally my rights state: "A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations— (a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract" This has led me to the conclusion that the replacement phone I now have does not conform to the original contract, and I am therefore entitled to a refund or replacement .The Assistant Manager refused to help in anyway saying I could talk to the Vodafone On-line (not in store) team, and if they couldn't help my only course would be through legal action. So I have no idea what to do from here. Do you think I have a case that would stand up in court. I think so, but I would appreciate as much advice as possible. I will be calling the on-line team tomorrow on my day off, but I doubt they will help, so my only form of refund or replacement would be via small claims court, unless an On-line Vodafone Rep can help Thanks for reading, and I really hope someone can help. Ewan. UPDATE: I have just spoken to a Vodafone rep on-line who told me I can contact the returns team and get a refund, but ive been on hold for them for 2 hours so I'm not sure if anything is going to happen. Now I've been told I can have a refund, do they have to honour this?

After a little bit of advice at the moment… I am concerned our integrated Neff Fridge Freezer may not be fit for purpose (as opposed to faulty). I purchased it from AO.com roughly 18 months ago and paid via credit card. For the moment I have been following the manufactures warranty claim procedure. I am aware my contract is with the retailer but elected to contact the manufacture as I deemed this the path of least resistance and quickest route to a working fridge freezer. To their credit, they have been very quick in despatching engineers and overall I am pleased with their response. Unfortunately however it hasn’t necessarily resolved my concern. To put it into context, last Wednesday was the hottest day for several years, I believe temperatures peaked around 34c in the hottest parts of the country, and that’s when problems started. I came downstairs at roughly 10PM and heard the fridge freezer alarm sounding. I went to check and the freezer was at -10 (it should be -18). I attributed it to what had been a hot day (though by this point it was obviously much cooler), put the freezer on to ‘super’ mode and assumed it would be back to normal in the morning. By the morning it was still alarming, this time at -2! That’s despite being on ‘super’ freezing all night! I contact Neff who advise me to do a manual defrost (turn it off for 8 hours). Once I had done this (pretty inconvenient) I turned it back on. The fridge very quickly reached its set temperature of 4c. The freezer did absolutely nothing for at least 5 hours until we went to bed. I contact Neff who arrange an engineer visit. Annoyingly, at some point during the night the freezer miraculously started working and by breakfast time it was at -7. By evening it was back to -18. At this point I prepared to put it down to ‘weirdness’ and hope that it’s just a one off. Not wanting to end up paying for an engineer to find “no fault” I cancel the visit. Saturday comes and it’s also a pretty warm day. Early afternoon the freezer alarm sounds again, its back at -7. I clear the alarm and reside myself to the fact it really is faulty. I did not monitor the temperature beyond this but noted the alarm light was on until my last observation in the evening. I call Neff once again and schedule an engineer visit. But, once again come the next morning it’s back at -18. Being quite convinced there is something wrong with it I see through with the engineer visit. The engineer has today visited and whilst being helpful and thorough, unable to isolate any particular fault putting it down to a “glitch with the weather”. I attempt to clarify this, but don’t really get anywhere – the freezer is rated for ambient conditions up to 38c – even in the hottest parts of the country it’s only touched 34c. To my mind a £1000 Neff fridge freezer should be the best of the best, I shouldn’t get nonsense like this just because it gets a bit warm – a freezer should by definition keep food frozen (within its rated environment). If no individual component is faulty yet the system as a whole does not meet specification surely this renders the device not fit for purpose? My question is; if I ever wanted to bring a claim against the retailer under the sale of goods act how would I substantiate this? Even an independent engineer may not be able to document a specific fault - It appears to be a result of an under specification in the units design. As I mentioned earlier, it’s not like this is a cheap and cheerful fridge freezer – it really should be able to cope with the extremes of a British summer, as indeed significantly cheaper models do.

Help appreciated from wiser heads on here than mine will ever be . . . At the beginning of last month, June 2015, a friend of mine purchased a 37-month-old Ford Focus 1.6 diesel from one of the Northeast branches of the Evans Halshaw group. He px'd his existing car and paid a cash difference of several £000s. The Focus being a month out of manufacturer's warranty wasn't particularly troubling as the car came with a full service history and Evans Halshaw's 3-month parts and labour guarantee. At completion of the transaction, my friend drove his newly acquired Focus the 60-odd miles to his home. Next morning, he drove the car a short distance for an equally short time before it broke down. He contacted the dealership and it arranged to come and take the Focus away for repair. The car was collected next day. No word was heard from the dealership in the following week and it was only when my friend telephoned to find out how the repair was going that he was told 'we haven't had time to look at your car yet.' So much for week 1. The week after that -- 2 weeks after the transaction -- he was told the fault was a fuel filter which had now been fixed. His car was ready for him to collect. He pointed out that he had no car to go the 60 miles to the dealership so asked for his car to be returned to him. The dealership was manifestly reluctant to do so but three days later, brought the car back. Next morning, my friend drove the Focus for a short time and over a short distance and it broke down again. The car was taken back by Evans Halshaw to be repaired again. My friend was told that a part was awaited. It's now 3 weeks after the date of transaction. My friend told Evans Halshaw it was his belief that he had been sold a product not fit for purpose and should have his money back. He had given the dealership the opportunity to fix the car but it had failed to do so. He was incurring extra costs and going to no little effort and inconvenience as a result. Evans Halshaw told him it wouldn't take long to fix the Focus and they would provide him with a loan car for a few days. This turned out to be a 3-cylinder Vauxhall Corsa, significantly smaller than his own former vehicle as well as the vehicle he had purchased but was unable to use. With the Focus still unrepaired by Evans Halshaw, my friend complained to the dealership last week -- that is, 4 weeks after the date of transaction --about its refusal to refund his money and its failure to repair his car. He pointed out that he has a longstanding booking of a fortnight's family holiday in Cornwall, commencing next week. The Corsa is entirely unable to accommodate himself, his family and his luggage and seems hopelessly underpowered for a round trip of 600 miles or more. Today, Tuesday July 7 2015 is now 5 weeks from the date of the purchase transaction. The Ford Focus is still not repaired. Evans Halshaw is making great play of the fact that it isn't actually charging my friend a penny for the work (work that failed in the first place; work that hasn't even been done since then.) It is steadfastly refusing to refund his money, that is, to restore him to the financial state he was in prior to purchasing the car. Evans Halshaw continues to be unable to repair the car, saying it is *still* waiting for a part to come in. It seems markedly disinclined to even discuss the issue of the 3-cylinder Corsa loan car. Question 1: what rights under consumer protection legislation might my friend specifically exercise by way of bringing pressure to bear on this dealership to give him his money back / return him to the financial state he was in prior to the transaction? (NOTE: the dealership claims it sold his PX the day after the transaction. Presumably, it went into the trade. It seems highly likely to have been retailed out in so short a time.) Question 2: what complaint process should my friend be following here? He has lost all faith in this dealership so should he be taking it up at a higher corporate level at Evans Halshaw?(Not sure where to start with that one though.) Question 3: is there a 'professional body' to whom he can file a complaint about what has happened / is happening here? In summary: it is now 5 weeks since the transaction occurred and he does not have the car he purchased, does not want the loan car the dealership persuaded him into accepting, and having given the dealership every opportunity to repair what is, after all, just a Ford motor car, not some exotic beastie for which spare parts are hard to get, believes he is entitled to say that the car he was sold was not fit for purpose then, is self-evidently not fit for purpose even now, and he should have his money back. Now. Any thoughts? Thanks.

A friend of mine is having a nightmare with her Experia Miro mobile phone . . . it loses mail, it loses calls, it loses contacts and turns itself off intermittantly . . . she is 1 year into a 2 year contract and been back to the vodafone shop many times to resolve the said problems. It has been sent away to be fixed and it's still happening . . . to say this phone isn't fit for purpose is an understatement and the fact there are so many problem threads like this my friend is worried it will never be resolved. What legal rights does she have to get this sorted because fixing it doesn't seem to working and she pays £28 per month for the privilege! Thanks in advance for any help posted . . .

Hi, we spent 430 on a lay z spa Monaco hot tub. We bought it in may and it was delivered 25 th June. We've since had to replace the whole pump thrift lay z spa warranty and now it's gone again. We're feed up as we go outside to use it and it's not working. We have spent loads looking after it, correct chemicals cleaning etc. Can we take back to argos. Want money back Thanks

I run a local work club where I help people with IT problems such as setting up email accounts, UJM accounts, CV building, basic Maths and English etc (voluntarily) and we had a new person arrive today in tears. It was his first time signing on and in his own words has no idea about computers, never used one, doesn't know how to turn one on etc. After calming him down and telling him I was there to help he told me on his very first visit to the JCP that unless he has an email account set up, UJM set up and a CV printed and saved he would 'be liable to sanction' Bear in mind he has no skills IT wise and only very basic English and Maths skills and no PC access he would not have a clue how to do any of this and would have risked no benefit money and an automatic sanction on his second visit. I told him that the JCP adviser was a bit extreme and as long as you initially show evidence of what you are doing to find work the email account, UJM and CV can be done in the coming weeks. He said he would do this to his adviser but the adviser, or coach or whatever they are called this week said it has to be done by his 9am appointment on 25th. Luckily he used his common sense and found the work club and I was able to do it all for him this morning BUT me doing it doesn't solve the problem, he needs help and training to do it himself especially if using UJM and email regularly. In my opinion the adviser/coach has set him up to fail at his first hurdle. He then told me the adviser/coach wants to see evidence this had been done so I printed a copy of his CV, noted his email address and password on paper and his UJM gateway code and advised him not to show his password to the adviser/coach. He also said he has to tick the authorisation on UJM, I said "leave it unticked, it is not mandatory for you to let them have access" but I wondered should I have done this to save him aggro - if he gets pulled on it I will fight his case for him. All in all, as the title says, I think he has been set up to fail from the start. In other news, unemployment is down, funny that being the summer season, but now that is over let's see the next set of figures - oh, and what about the thousands moving to ESA from JSA?

In 2002, we took out a mortgage with Northern Rock and whilst, my husband and I were both working paid our monthly capital repayment quite happily. In 2009, after our mortgage had been ported to NRAM, we applied for a temporary interest only period when I had my daughter. We renewed this on a yearly basis and but experienced a few glitches in 2010 which accrued us a small amount of arrears. In 2012, we made a capital repayment of around £32,000 and asked for this to be used against the arrears. Except it wasn't...In 2012, we also renegotiated an interest only period and due to human error on our part, and having made a verbal and written agreement with NRAM, forgot to send some forms back with our signatures on it. And then the proverbial hit the fan... In October 2013, when we were refused an extension of our interest only agreement out of the blue, we realised that we were £3700 in arrears. And our credit rating was shot to pieces. We started to investigate what had happened and interestingly, NRAM had not allocated our capital repayment from 2012 towards earlier arrears. And now our account has been registered as delinquent with a legacy of 6 years, making remortgaging impossible. And so I went to town with NRAM. I registered a complaint in October 2013 and despite involving the FOS who did uphold part of our complaint but not the second part I believe unfairly, it is still not resolved. NRAM have been instructed by the FOS to report their mistake to the credit agencies, but we are still showing a delinquent account on our credit files which is giving us a one star rating. I cannot tell you the trials and tribulations we have been through to get to this point. I have involved not only the FOS but our local MP. Their systems are completely labyrinthine, mismanaged and corrupt. In dealing with my complaint I have spoken to 40 different staff members. The only way I have had any kind of redress with them was by involving their Chief Executive's office. We have spent 9 months getting a result that should have been resolved in one month and as a consequence of this, I have set up an action group on Facebook. If you would like to club with me and some others affected by NRAMs corrupt system, then please contact me. I believe there is a wider story to tell about NRAM and think the wider public need to know about it. It has been described by other posters, but I think this now needs cohesion from those affected to see it through. Our credit rating is shot to pieces by an error on NRAM's part and they see no need to feel concerned about this. Even yesterday, I received 4 pieces of documentation from them that made no sense and conflicted with each other. If we are getting this, what other mistakes have been made by them, what lives have been ruined by their mismanagement?

Hello, I've searched this forum for similar threads and I found a quite lot, however my problem is slightly different. I bought a car (Honda) for £700 with 110k miles on the clock, 2002 reg. The reason for the low price is because it has part service history only, however I've checked the car and test driven it, and apart from some corrosion it was OK. It came with 12 months MOT, no advisory items at all. I bought this car on Monday (17/02/2014) and it had to be recovered on Wednesday (19/02/2014) after 60 miles driven by me. the engine and lights started dying whilst I was driving on the motorway, the battery light came on and both low beam headlight bulbs were fried, and the dash looked like a Christmas tree, ABS and SRS lights flickering etc. Initially I assumed it was just a dead battery, but the reason for the breakdown was actually a faulty alternator, it caused an overcharge before its final failure and that caused damage to the bulbs and possibly the battery. Luckily I managed to exit the motorway and stop safely (without low beam lights) in a petrol station where I was assisted by my insurance's breakdown recovery. It was 10pm the vehicle had to be towed as the alternator could not keep the engine running, I was asked where should the car be towed to. I asked to be towed to my home address as all garages were closed and I was just 5 miles from home a nd I was only rapidly thinking in getting a remanufactured alternator and fit it myself. Obviously the breakdown assistance told me that it was my responsibility to get the car moved to a garage later if I wanted so. As I bought this vehicle without any warranty I thought to myself that it was pointless to move it to the dealer and then do a 10 mile return trip to home. I'm a newcomer in the UK, and I'm not completely aware of the law, then I started to search about the minimum cover that a dealer should provide and then I found something about the sales of goods act. I decided to call the dealer and the guy have agreed to fix the alternator: "ok sir, bring the car to us so we can take a look at it". I must admit that it was fair enough, however I then explained that the car could not start and be driven as it would die after 5 minutes. He told me that he can tow the car to his garage but I have to pay a £40 charge. I insisted that it's not fair that I buy a car and it dies 2 days/60 miles after. He told my that he was being fair, and that if he wishes he does NOT have to repair the car because I didn't buy any extended warranty. I just told him that I'll speak to him later. I have decided to go to the CAB on Monday to seek some advice, but I would like to know what is your opinion about this, do I have the right to ask for a possible refund? I mean, he's willing to repair the vehicle but not willing to pay for the 10 mile tow, and I seriously believe that even after the alternator repair, the battery may eventually fail as it was affected by the overcharge and it's completely drained. Besides this, I've been spending £10 per day on public transport so I can get to work. I don't know what to do really...

Hello there, I am currently a student and I bought a 2001 Fiat Punto Mia (MK2) with 74K miles on the clock from a trader to get me from my place of work whilst on placement, it cost me £620. The difficulty I am in is that the dealer in question sold me it from his private residence, however, he told me throughout the viewing of the said car that he was a trader, and that he occasionally brought vehicles back to his residence to sell, he had even filed out the registration documents as a trader. 5 weeks after buying said vehicle the car has developed what looks like a serious fault, in that the cylinder head gasket has possibly been banjaxed. I was driving home from work yesterday, and the temperature warning light came on. I pulled to the side of the road, and opened the bonnet to check the water level of the cooling system. There was an acceptable amount of water in the filling point, I topped it up anyways, and revved the engine to get any air pockets out, and then topped it up again. However, whilst driving it the rest of the way home, I soon found the temperature warning light on again. At home I plugged an OBT2 diagnostics adapter into the car and revved it up again, the thermostat opened and the radiator's fan started spinning, however the temperature kept climbing (up to around 120 degrees c), the warning light ignited again, I was getting no heat out of the internal heating fans, and the heating pipes running into the radiator were still cool, even though the thermostat was open, the water in the filling point was also bubbling and coming back out due to back pressure, I even got out of the car and used a laser temperature gauge on the engine bay, and it was reading 117 degrees c, the car had also lost a bit more water prior to my parking the car in the driveway. I was under the impression I had bought it off a dealer, so I phoned him and told him the problem and asked him to either take it back or repair it. He refused, stating that he was a private seller and that he had sold it as such, and due to the car being over 6 years old I had no warranty. I told him that he had told me he was a trader and had filled out the registration documents as such, but he was having none of it. I couldn't do any more about it at that point over the phone, so I told him he would be hearing from me again, and he then hung up the phone. I then googled his mobile number on facebook, and lo and behold I found the business that he trades under, further googling got me the address of the said business, which I have recorded. I then phoned the DVLA to ascertain whether the previous owner of the vehicle was the dealer in question, they confirmed this, I asked them whether the car had been owned by a trader prior to my registering it in my name, they said yes, but they couldn't give me the name, I then asked them was it under the trade name I had found, they said yes, so as far as myself and the DVLA are concerned I bought the car from a dealer. Therefore I can assume I'm covered by the trader's section of the sales of goods act. Further googling also showed me previous adverts the seller had been posting on the likes of gumtree, I even have a cached copy of the advert for the car I now own. I then contacted the consumer advice line, needless to say they weren't very pleasant, and the person I was talking to basically told me that their main concern was that the trader I had bought from was trying to pass himself off as a private seller, and that if I wanted to get compensation from the likes of a small claims court, I should've bought a more expensive newer car (bit impossible considering I'm a student). Considering what I have said above, could anyone please tell me what my options are in this case? Cheers, Splat.

Hi everyone I was wondering is someone can give me some advice please. I bought a mattress in January of this year, it was delivered late in February 2013. Since then we have had nothing but problems with the mattress as it dips both sides and has ridge right down the middle of it. We were told by the manufacturers to turn the mattress round every week for 3 months to let it settle as it is pocket sprung. Please bear in mind that my husband and I are disabled but we found someone willing to do this for us. Now we are in June and it is still as bad as ever! We asked the company who sold it to us to change it as there is a fault with the mattress, they then spent an age and a day contacting the manufacturers and telling them it needs to be replaced. The manufacturers have said get stuffed basically as it was the wrong mattress for us!!. We have stuck to our guns and want it replaced but the company who sold it to us have said that yes they will replace it and send it back to the manufacturers for inspection BUT we must pay £60.00 for delivery and taking away of the old mattress and IF a fault is found with our mattress that we have at the moment then a partial refund will come back to us. Surely by law this is not right is it? the Sale of Goods Act must come in here. My husband and I are at our wits end and cannot lay on this mattress at all as it is that bad. Any help would be most appreciated from you. Thank you.

The service that is supposed to help those experiencing financial problems is "not fit for purpose", according to MPs. In a hard-hitting report into the Money Advice Service (MAS) published today, the Treasury Select Committee said it had wanted to scrap the service completely but had been persuaded to grant a stay of execution because the Treasury has already announced an investigation. The report condemns the "excessive pay" of senior staff and the amount of cash used to promote the service rather than help vulnerable people. The committee has called for an urgent review into the service, which has an annual budget for 2013-14 of £80m. In a telling sign of the importance of the issue, it has demanded the review must be completed "no later than summer 2014". The damning report criticised the "very large amounts spent on marketing" by the Government agency, which was set up to help people needing debt and financial guidance. It splashed out about £20m on communications and marketing in 2012-13, including some high-profile TV advertising. However, critics said the predominantly web-based service failed to help people, many of whom needed face-to-face advice. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mps-condemn-money-advice-service-as-not-fit-for-purpose-8978820.html http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news/treasury-committee-calls-for-independent-review-into-future-of-the-money-advice-service/

I'm hoping this is the right place for my post. On Oct 27th I applied for a laptop on finance, this was accepted and I received it on 29th Oct. I brought a specific laptop for gaming purposes. Everything was fine, however on the 4th Nov I had 6 different Blue screens with error messages. I then uninstalled games I had placed on the laptop and re set to factory settings., the error continued. I then called Scan Computers on the 6th Nov and they collected the laptop on the 7th. This was the 7th working day it was collected. I have spoken to Scan computers today, who have said that they have tested and no fault found. I explained it was when I had games installed mainly (Battlefield 4 which plays fine on a PC and another laptop in the house) Scan computers are now installing Battlefield 3 to test. I have explained I will not be using the laptop for Battlefield 3, but wasn't listened too. As I have the laptop on finance and it was returned on the 7th working day, am I able to either cancel the agreement under not fit for purpose or choose another laptop? I have called TS however I have not yet had a response. I could only see online with returning goods if faulty, however this is a disagreement with Scan Computers, as I bought the laptop for gaming, could this be classed as not fit for purpose? Thanks in advanced.

Hi Folks, I bought brand new (built for me to my specification) a Skoda Fabia VRS, which I ordered in November 2010 and took delivery of in May 2011. Since then it has spent 13% of its life undergoing repairs for the following: Replaced three wheels due to corrosion Replaced front and rear skoda badges due to corrosion replaced all four wheel badges due to corrosion Engine oil breather modification to deal with high oil consumption (used at least 1L per 1000 miles) Replaced clutches on the DSG auto gearbox due to failure Gearbox software update to deal with poor gear change Replaced all four wheel badges again due to corrosion Replaced interior trim under steering wheel after it fell off and wouldn't fit back on Replaced driver's door card as a result of untraceable rattling Things still wrong with it: All sorts of interior rattles and squeaks I've lost the will to fix DSG gearbox still shows signs of not being quite right The replaced wheels are already showing signs of corrosion (less than 15K miles on them). The car has now covered 30K miles from new, has once completely lost drive on the motorway nearly resulting in a serious collision and once bogged down on a roundabout also almost resulting in a side-on impact. Following several letters, Skoda UK have: Claimed to have sent me £170 as a "good will" payment to cover the cost of oil I've paid for, and the cost of travel to/from my dealers 10 miles away (well over 10 visits now) Offered (so far) £1500 towards a new Skoda The £170 (which was now a few weeks ago) has disappeared into a black hole. I'm trying not to labour that point with them as I'm more interested in whether they'll make good on their promise of "trying to get me into another Skoda". Given the dangerous nature of the gearbox faults I've experienced we've completely lost faith with the thing, and while Skoda appear to be willing to "try to get me into another Skoda", the reality is that because of my bad back and the high mileages I do, there are very few cars that suit unless I buy new and specify some options (specifically heated seats or my back seizes up in winter, and a car with very comfortable or sculpted seats). So basically where I am with them is that they've offered £1500, and I'm left having to buy a new car with the above options, which requires me to put in another £3600 from my own pocket. This is after just two years of motoring. My question to you good people is: Does this seem right/fair to you? Or do I have a case to just "reject" the car and ask for my money back? At no point have Skoda offered to do any of the things I'd expect them to: Apologise Offer to thoroughly investigate the gearbox faults or replace the gearbox entirely to put my mind at ease (after I explained to them that it has twice tried to kill me, and my wife now won't drive the car at all, and certainly not with our two-year-old in the back) discuss DSG gearbox issues in general, the quality of their engineering or quality control processes (after a very long letter I wrote them about the quality of their workmanship). respond to my comments about the fact that Volkswagen Group (Skoda's parent company) have been forced to offer 10 year warranties in both China and the USA over almost identical DSG gearbox issues in those countries (after I've made it clear that I don't appreciate feeling forced to sell my car (and suffer depreciation of £6K) after two years just because they seem unable to produce a gearbox that works) I look forward to your responses as I'm in a real muddle and don't know whether I should just bite the bullet and pay the £3500 it would take to put me into another Skoda that suits my needs, whether I should reject their offer entirely, suffer the £6K depreciation and buy something non-Skoda, or fight them for my money back (or at least a larger 'good will' payment). Worth saying, I've now been in discussion with them for well over a month (approaching two months), and they've raised their initial offer of £1000 to £1500. Thanks Louis