Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Rather like farage .. Reform UK plans ‘don’t add up’ and costings are out ‘by tens of billions of pounds per year’, says IFS – UK general election live | General election 2024 | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM As Nigel Farage launches party’s manifesto, Institute for Fiscal Studies says ‘the package as a whole is problematic’   "Reform UK has published its manifesto. They plan tax cuts which they say will cost £70bn; however our analysis shows that they’ve miscalculated, and the actual cost will be at least £93bn. Reform UK says it will fund these tax costs with £70bn of savings and additional revenue, but it provides few details. Their proposal to change Bank of England reserve rules is over-stated by at least £15bn, and the cost would likely fall on businesses and consumers, not banks. These two factors mean that Reform UK’s plans have a total unfunded cost of at least £38bn – about twice the unfunded cost of Liz Truss’ ill-fated 2022 “mini-budget”.
    • The finance company has a 50% stake (legal Owner) in the deal so I would certainly involve them. As for the outstanding £3635 bill thats owing to Mercedes in Croydon I wouldn't be in a rush to settle that just yet and keep it in abeyance as leverage.  Where are you at with Doves in Horsham ?
    • or go really bold ... Further to my request for a copy of the agreement you refer to on ( date) I made a section 78 request pursuant to the Credit Consumer Act 1974 to which you have yet to reply or respond. Pursuant to the Credit Consumer act 1974 section 78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.
    • Pers I'd stop paying the lot and get each defaulted by a dn issuance.  Defaults can't hurt future renting no Only ccj's Can't keep saying the same answers.    Dx        
    • Ok thank you. That’s where we are getting confused, as we’re not sure where we stand legally. But we’re still unsure who we should be going to now, the dealer or the finance company? I’m assuming the evidence we have (the reports from Mercedes) showing that the fault was there when we purchased would be sufficient to prove this? To be honest we would prefer to send the car back completely as are now concerned more problems may arise.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Bought boat which has product recall for potential *DROWNING*


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4731 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 guys.

 

I bought a rubber dinghy from ebay October 2007. Didn't actually ever use, just unpacked from box.

I intended to get it up and running and googled it for tips. I found out that it had been subject to a RAPEX dangerous product notification for explosion and drowining!!!

Link:http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dyna/rapex/create_rapex.cfm?rx_id=170

 

item 3 on the list. It says:

Drowning

 

The product poses a risk of drowning because, even if the boat is inflated correctly, due to a material defect the both of the side air chambers can be ripped and break at the same time causing a "boom"-sound. The raft is being sold together with a wooden board for motor attachment although it is classified as a ”type 1” raft which can only be operated manually, with oars (EN ISO 6185-1). Many customers may install an electric outboard or a petrol engine in their raft as the instructions on motor assembly are not very clear, causing an explosion hazard.

 

One accident reported: a raft exploded while in water overnight. The raft has two separate air chambers on the side tubes, which both had deflated due to a material defect. The product does not comply with the Recreational Craft Directive 2003/44/EC.

 

 

 

Anyway, I wrote to the seller - still had my paypal invoice (for 121£) and proof etc and asked for a refund. He replied:

 

"We are at present looking at the legality of who should issue a refund, if any, (as this item is 3yrs old) We sold that product for a while, however we purchased them from a general wholesaler, not a Best Way distributer.

Due to these circumstances, we were never issued with a recall notice for this product."

 

I have informed Trading Standards who are getting back to me...but for heavens sake - I could have been kiled on this thing and he was the retailer !Unbelievable.

 

Can I sue him?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not yet, no. :razz:

 

You can however send him a nice letter advising that whether he got the product recall or not is not your problem, nor where he chose to get the product from, and that as far as you(and the law) are concerned, HE is the point of access for recourse.

 

Whether he was aware of the defect then or has only found out now is irrelevant to you. Long and short is the goods are faulty, which he accepts, so you are entitled to a refund.

 

That's the theory. In reality, you have a problem and that is the part of "accepting the goods", you normally have a "reasonable" period of time to examine the goods before they are deemed accepted. I think anyone would consider that 3 YEARS is more than enough, even if you haven't actually used the goods.

 

BUT things get more complicated in that there was a recall, so your normal options of repair, refund or replace become moot. In theory, he could give you a refund minus a proportion for the time you have had the use of the product, but it's obvious you didn't actually use it.

 

Hmmmm.... I'd say give him a few days to get back to you and see what he says. I'm trying to think how it would play out in court, and there is no doubt the 3 years lapse could prove a major stumbling block. :-( Tricky one, that.

 

You said you paid £121 at the time, how did that compare with the standard retail price, as a matter of interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Great advice.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery and sent it today to show him that I take this seriously. I have also now emailed him nicely(!) stating what you advised. I think the price was quite good, but not that much cheaper.

 

I have also been in touch with Trading Standards who will get back to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, you should have given him 14 days, then LBa with another 14, as a month is deemed a reasonable time to settle an issue without resorting to the courts.

 

After that, yes you can, BUT you really should think on this one very carefully, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, it's really far from certain that you'd win that one. I suggest chasing up TS, because, unusually for me, I am really unsure on the best way to proceed on this one and I don't want to mislead you. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi...result!!!

Retailer has offered refund:"

Sorry for the delay, we have agreed to give you a full refund.

Can you please package all items together so we can arrange for them to be collected by our courier.

We can arrange the collection from Monday to Friday, please let us know which day is convenient.

The collection will be between 8am and 5pm, sorry we cant be specific with the time as this is out of our hands.

Could you please affix a label with the details below to the package.

As soon as we receive the items we will make a payment of £121.50 to your PayPal account.

Usually the PayPal account details are your email address, if this is different, please let us know."

 

Trading Standards leaned on them too; actually told me that the retailer could potentially be criminally liable for not giving notification.

Also,w was informed I had 6 years to pursue civilly, 3 years criminally.

 

Not happy about him getting the boat back BEFORE I get the refund though. Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Hi

Welcome to The Consumer Action Group.

 

 

I am just letting you know that as you haven't had any replies to your post yet, it might be better if you post your message again in an appropriate sub-forum. You will get lots of help there.

 

Also take some time to read around the forum and get used to the layout. It is a big forum and takes a lot of getting used to.

 

 

Once you start to find your way, you will soon realise that it is fairly easy to get round and to get the help you need.

 

It can be bit confusing at first.

Please be advised that my time will be limited for the next few weeks.Thanks for your understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...