Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

How long must is a fridge freezer covered for under the sales of ggods act?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5382 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

My Mum bought a new fridge freezer from Curry's in July 06 for £249.95. She does not have extended warranty on it and it has just stopped working, neither the fridge or freezer are getting cold.

 

My question is, who decides whether a product is of satisfactory quality or fit for its purpose and where can we go from here?

 

Thanks in Advance,

 

Twinkle :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reasonable length of time.

 

Sorry, but that's the shor and curlies of it. There is no definition of that, nor could there be really.

 

In terms of who decides what is reasonable, it is the court. You need to get evidence to show that you expected it to last more than 3 years. Price, how described, quality etc will all play a factor. You could also get an independant report, and if you are successful, claim the cost back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For something that has worked flawlessly every day for nearly 1000 days, I'm assuming there has been no maintenance in that period? To succeed under SoGA you would have to prove there was an inherent fault with the design or operation of the appliance, and from whay uoi describe this wasn;t an issue.

 

An extended warranty would have provided this peace of mind for an additional fee (up to 5 years) and with hindsight, this might have been a cost-effective option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To succeed under SoGA you would have to prove there was an inherent fault with the design or operation of the appliance,

OR that the goods were not of satisfactory quality as regards price paid/brand/life expectancy, which is quite obviously what OP would have to rely on in this instance. :rolleyes:

 

 

An extended warranty would have provided this peace of mind for an additional fee (up to 5 years) and with hindsight, this might have been a cost-effective option.
Thus speaks someone intent on seeing statutory rights eroded further and further. :-(
Link to post
Share on other sites

An extended warranty would have provided this peace of mind for an additional fee (up to 5 years) and with hindsight, this might have been a cost-effective option.

I've always taken the view that if a retailer or manufacturer is prepared to offer an extended warranty on a product, then by inference, the period of what is the expected reasonable lifetime must be at least equal to - but more likely a lot greater than - the offer of extended warranty.

 

Or to put it another way, the seller is banking on you not claiming from the warranty and hence pocketing the cost of an extended warranty - therefore, in order to offer the extended warranty in the first instance, he must have confidence that the product will outlast his commitment. Simple economics of risk.

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus speaks someone intent on seeing statutory rights eroded further and further. :-(

 

Hmm - that's right, insurance is evil and you should never contemplate it. Do explain how 'statutory rights' are worth a fig if the people invoved in the chain refuse to comply. Tell Trading Standards? Gordon Brown? Kermit the Frog?

 

We lve in an age where we are told we have 'rights' but not the ability to enforce them (except at out own cost). So keep fooling yourself that it amounts to something, because unless you are going to fund it and use it as part of your legal action, it might as well be written on candy floss.

 

Further, whilst I enjoy your ongoing tantrums, general rudeness and the like, I bet you bore the pants off everyone else. :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm - that's right, insurance is evil and you should never contemplate it. Do explain how 'statutory rights' are worth a fig if the people invoved in the chain refuse to comply. Tell Trading Standards? Gordon Brown? Kermit the Frog?

 

We lve in an age where we are told we have 'rights' but not the ability to enforce them (except at out own cost). So keep fooling yourself that it amounts to something, because unless you are going to fund it and use it as part of your legal action, it might as well be written on candy floss.

 

Further, whilst I enjoy your ongoing tantrums, general rudeness and the like, I bet you bore the pants off everyone else. :-|

I'm with Bookworm... if people don't defend their rights, then retailers will continue to ignore them. Which places the power straight at the retailer and not at the consumer, which is in deference of the point of this forum!

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When an extended warranty can almost double the price of the item it is NOT good value.

 

That argument aside a fridge should last longer than this has & whilst I do think you have case for some compensation you will have to expect that you will not receive full reimbursement as fair wear & tear will be taken into account

 

PS Buzby our fridge/freezer has been working perfectly since 2000 & it ain't an expensive one:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always taken the view that if a retailer or manufacturer is prepared to offer an extended warranty on a product, then by inference, the period of what is the expected reasonable lifetime must be at least equal to - but more likely a lot greater than - the offer of extended warranty.

 

Or to put it another way, the seller is banking on you not claiming from the warranty and hence pocketing the cost of an extended warranty - therefore, in order to offer the extended warranty in the first instance, he must have confidence that the product will outlast his commitment. Simple economics of risk.

 

 

Quite right they don't offer an extended warranty because they think it will fail they offer an extended warranty because the think it won't which must mean they have determined the life of the fridge to be at least the same if not greater than the term of the warranty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your replies!

 

A miracle has happened, in frustration my Mum give it a clout on the side (in line with manufacturers guidelines of course! ;)) and it just started working again!!

 

She's going to get someone out to look at it anyway in case it happens again!!

 

Twinkle :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm - that's right, insurance is evil and you should never contemplate it. Do explain how 'statutory rights' are worth a fig if the people invoved in the chain refuse to comply. Tell Trading Standards? Gordon Brown? Kermit the Frog?

 

We lve in an age where we are told we have 'rights' but not the ability to enforce them (except at out own cost). So keep fooling yourself that it amounts to something, because unless you are going to fund it and use it as part of your legal action, it might as well be written on candy floss.

Thank you for confirming my earlier comment:Thus speaks someone intent on seeing statutory rights eroded further and further.

 

Further, whilst I enjoy your ongoing tantrums, general rudeness and the like, I bet you bore the pants off everyone else. :-|

Awww bless. :-D

pram.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS.

 

I'm sick and tired of repeating myself about this subject (and I refer to the posts by Buzby, Turtle and Forest).

 

I read a statement during my research for my dissertation, which went:

"Consumer education is largely a wasted effort"

 

I'm beginning to truly believe it. And it faults do not lie with consumers or traders - it's the whole damned bloody system. And trying to explain that, as I have attempted once on this forum to much admonishment, is not a good idea on a forum.

 

I despair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS.

 

I'm sick and tired of repeating myself about this subject (and I refer to the posts by Buzby, Turtle and Forest).

Bad day gyzmo :?

 

I would love to know exactly what offended you in my post above. In no way did it allude to there being a set or defined reasonable length of time, merely speculated as to what could be used as a guide thus enabling some form of evidence to present to a court.

 

If you were insinuating my support of extended warranties in-lieu of consumer rights, then I am afraid you would be gravely mistaken.

 

I read a statement during my research for my dissertation, which went:

"Consumer education is largely a wasted effort"

If I have missed the point, please 'educate', I for one will listen to your efforts.

 

I'm beginning to truly believe it. And it faults do not lie with consumers or traders - it's the whole damned bloody system. And trying to explain that, as I have attempted once on this forum to much admonishment, is not a good idea on a forum.

 

I despair.

Try not to loose faith. (in the consumer, not the system - thats shot to hell ;))

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. consumer education is poor, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. This reflects on companies who often are not trying to avoid rights, they just don't understand them themselves as they are really only consumers themselves.

2. extended warranties are a con.

3. you have excellent rights but it can take time to understand them and substantial effort to claim them.

 

Not sure what the solutions are to 1 & 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. consumer education is poor, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. This reflects on companies who often are not trying to avoid rights, they just don't understand them themselves as they are really only consumers themselves.

2. extended warranties are a con.

3. you have excellent rights but it can take time to understand them and substantial effort to claim them.

 

Not sure what the solutions are to 1 & 3.

 

Oh so right

 

Though we may try we'll never be able to protect the some I'm afraid cos anyone who today has no inkling of their rights either lives in a cave or is stupid

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 a con? Never, it is a consimer choice! At least it is being clarified as to what it is, an insurance policy and not an 'extended guarantee'. You work out whether the term offer (deducting the year you get free anyway) and work out if you think the fee to be paid is worth the price. Ofent it isn;t, but with some kit, it can be an excellent hedge against future ails, especially if you have a machine that makes it successfully to the end of its initial coverage without a problem, THEN stat's to exhibit problems.

 

My personal choice is to find out what the policy would cost, and self-insure myself, putting the same amount of money away in a savings account, one that will fund the repairs if and when required. That way, you've got the money to pay for it, and if you don't need to pay out - you're quids in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...