Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Another update - just had another round of Text messages, Emails and letters. Physical  letters still going to the old address (forwarded by royal mail). All messages were exactly the same as the previous round with threats of CCj's, Attachment of Earnings, Warrant of Execution, Bankruptcy and Charging Order. Seems to be a 2 week pattern of 1 week letter, following week email - texts seem to be a bit more randon, but always over 10 days between each one.  Not sure if IDR are working diligently behind the scenes to recover monies from me,  or are just spamming me in the hope that i stick my head above the parapet
    • Here's the Claim Form (edited for personal details) and  Defence PDF (edited for personal information). 
    • Should the amount be the figure in the particular or the final amount with fees added
    • The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1PAPDC. 2. The Claimant claims £xxxxxx is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice  pursuant to sec87(1) of the CCA1974; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for.  7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief Should the amount be the figure in the particulars or the final figure with the added fees
    • post it up here first for checking please dx  
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Returning Warranty (Computer component) items.


georgie-boy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4055 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,

 

Whilst this matter is being sorted, I am concerned about the length of time, and the sequence of events by the retailer.

 

About 18 months ago, I rebuilt my desktop computer. Most of the components came from SCAN International – obviously spending quite some cash.

Not long after, the graphic card failed. I contacted SCAN who persuaded me to contact the manufacturer (nVidia/EVGA) [not even SCANs wholesaler/supplier].

Reluctantly I did this to save time, but it cost me money to return the item to Germany etc.

 

1/ About a fortnight ago, one of the 1Tb HDD’s (Seagate) failed, and I contacted SCAN again. They were insisting that I contact Seagate. It is still under warranty.

This time I held fast and told them that as my contract is with them, it’s up to them to sort it out. After several emails, they eventually said that if I send it to them, they will return it to Seagate “on my behalf”. Obviously they expect me to wait for Seagate to comment/replace etc. Apparently; SCAN no longer sell Seagate gear.

 

I think I’m right in saying that I have One contract – which is with SCAN.

SCAN have TWO contracts. One with me and one with Seagate – and the two shouldn’t meet ?

 

SCAN have received my original drive today, & found that it is indeed faulty.

As my contract is with SCAN – shouldn’t they just replace the item,,,,, regardless of what they do with the returned one, and regardless of their contract with Seagate - & be pretty quick about it ?

 

 

2/ Separate issue:

When a faulty item is returned under warranty, is it right that:

i) any replacement is a refurbished item – not new,

ii) any warranty on the replacement, is only as long as is left on the original ?

 

thanks all.

 

F

Edited by georgie-boy
Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with any warranties

 

SOGA rules here.

 

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that the warranty you mentioned is a manufacturer's warranty with Seagate and that you did not purchase an extended warranty (or similar) from Scan at the time. Please say if this is not the case.

 

Assuming that you are a private buyer (i.e. not a business) the contract you have with Scan is subject to the implied terms in the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA). The hard drive has broken down well before you would expect it to through fair wear and tear, which means that your claim will argue the drive was not of satisfactory quality and perhaps not fit for purpose. SOGA does allow you to claim a repair or replacement in these circumstances, but it gets a little more complicated after 6 months have passed since purchase.

 

Before 6 months, the fault is assumed to be present from the day of sale, and the burden of proof is on the seller to prove otherwise. This means that they would need to prove the fault is down to the buyer's misuse, accidental damage etc before rejecting a claim. If the seller cannot do this then the claim must be successful and a repair or replacement issued.

 

However after 6 months, as in your case, the burden is on the buyer to prove that the fault was inherent and is not down to misuse, accidental damage or fair wear and tear etc. When this has been proven the seller must repair or replace the item within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the seller. If the buyer cannot prove this, then the seller has no statutory obligation to repair or replace the item.

 

So in order to make your claim, you need to first prove that your hard drive was faulty from the outset. Unfortunately the only way you'll be able to do this is by getting an expert's report on the product, proving that there was a manufacturing defect or design fault. The expert should be someone both the buyer and the seller agree upon, which in most cases, will be the manufacturer itself. This is especially true whilst the item is under warranty, as the report (or opinion) is usually the cheapest option or free (warranties will often charge postage if the item is not faulty, tampered with or damaged) and if successful will result in a swift replacement without further input from buyer or seller.

 

Because you haven't provided an expert's report in the process of returning the item, the seller is within their rights to refuse a repair or replacement until such a report is received, as the fault may have been caused by you. Scan are arranging a report for you via the manufacturer, which is more than the legal bare minimum, so you don't really have any grounds for complaint. This is not the case if they admitted to a manufacturing defect when confirming the item was faulty, in which case they should agree to repair or replace the item now. Merely confirming the hard drive was non-operative is probably not enough, as your use of the drive could still be to blame for any fault.

 

In my experience, sending the hard drive to the manufacturer is almost always the best way to resolve the situation. Other experts will find it almost impossible to prove a defect either way as the majority of faults with a hard drive can be caused by issues with the PSU or a power surge, which they will be unable to check, or caused by dropping the drive (or computer), which again it is almost impossible to ascertain which party is to blame. Generally, it's in the manufacturer's interest to allow the claim even if there is no absolute certainty, as their relationshop with the retailer, end-buyer and reputation are usually more important than a refurb/repair costs (although this may not be a factor in your case, with Scan having dropped Seagate as a supplier).

 

With regards to the manufacturers warranty with Seagate, the time limits are governed by the terms of the warranty, and, where reasonable, can even be shortened after a claim. Your statutory rights with Scan lasts 6 years (5 in Scotland) from date of purchase regardless of how many replacements you receive. This doesn't mean that a product must last 6 years though, although expecting 4-6 years for a hard drive (depending on use) is reasonable, especially in a desktop PC.

 

Finally, providing the specification and condition is equal to or better than the original product, a refurbished item is an acceptable replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...