Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
  • 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

Ebuyer refusing to repair under warranty


themrsfong
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3745 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

I bought an Asus Google Nexus 7 from Ebuyer last August (2012) and it broke. First of all the charging cable ceased working, but that wasn't a huge problem as I had quite a few more. Then I realised the reason it had stopped working was that the micro usb port was actually faulty (it proceeded to break a number of my other charging cables). I had an engineer look at it for me and he said you can clearly see the port is broken and if it was under warranty, to return it. The part itself is around £25 retail and I could probably replace it myself. However, if I did it would void the warranty and also, why should I when that's exactly what the warranty is for?

 

At the beginning of July, I reported the issue to Ebuyer who told me, 'don't worry, we'll simply replace the whole device with a brand new one'. I told them I didn't want a brand new one as I didn't want to have to go through removing and restoring all my data. However, they insisted. I hung up the phone and began wiping my data and packaging it up whilst waiting for my return instructions to arrive by email. Instead of return instructions, I received an email to say the return had been refused.

 

I called back and was advised it had been refused because I 'hadn't bothered' to contact Asus first to diagnose whether the item needed repairing or replacing. Had I been told to do this, I would have done so but nobody had informed me of any such requirement. Ebuyer created another return then gave me an Asus number to call to get a reference number confirming Ebuyer needed to take action.

 

I called Ebuyer back and gave them the reference number and then got my return on its way.

 

Around a week or two later, I received the device back, still broken. I was told by Ebuyer that they had found 'nothing wrong' with it and that I was lucky they hadn't charged me for the return process!

 

I then made a complaint, by email this time, thinking that if I put it into writing, they might actually take more action. How wrong I was. I was told to I had to return it again, this time including the plug and original charging cable (which I can't find because I had stopped using it months before when it broke). I replied to advise this and was ignored by Ebuyer. They continued to ignore my emails until, last week, I'd had enough and moaned about it on Twitter. The person who then replied to my email said 'I'm sorry, I've had problems with my sent emails not arriving'!

 

We went back and forth through a number of other emails until they advised today that unless I can find the original charging cable, they will not accept a return of the device and will not under any circumstance consider returning it.

 

Now, what I'd like to know is:

  1. Can they refuse to repair the device because I am unable to find the cable (which is not the part I'm asking them to repair)?
  2. Are they still obliged to repair/replace the device even though the warranty has now expired (based on the fact I complained when it was still under warranty)?
  3. What action can I take on this?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

I've now just spoken to Asus and they advised that because the warranty has expired, I will need to pay for the repair myself or get Ebuyer to pay for it. I advised Asus that I logged the first call within the warranty period and they agreed. However they said they 'would have' told me to book a repair direct with them. That's not what they said at all - they told me that if Ebuyer was offering to replace the whole device, to go back to Ebuyer with my reference number as this would be a better resolution. Had I known I had to book a repair directly with Asus, I would have done so.

 

I feel like neither company wants to take responsibility even though it's a really cheap and relatively simple fault to repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly ebuyer will NOT replace or refund (in full) an item over 6 months old.

 

Don’t make the mistake I did with my iPad last October, it was 7 months old and developed a fault. They accepted the return and said I would receive a direct replacement only to be fobbed off with a proportionate refund (70% of purchase price) once they receive it back, they sneakily changed my return request from direct replacement to refund.

 

If you still have your tablet in my opinion you should pay to have it repaired yourself, if you return it to ebuyer they won’t repair it despite what they might tell you and in the end you be left with a fraction of what you paid and no tablet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the warranties. Soga covers you completely.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes and the DSR rules

 

don't waste money on paying it yourself either

 

the statutory rules under SOGA and DSR are there to protect you

 

Distance Selling Act - Business Perspective http://dshub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/

Distance Selling Act - FAQ - http://www.out-law.com/page-430

 

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

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

Since it will only cost the op £25 to repair it himself, doing this is the lesser of two evils.

 

Its all well and good quoting the SOGA but if the op was to return it to Ebuyer they would only receive a partial refund, a refund minus 13 months use which could possibly be less than 40% of the original value. Ebuyer will not repair it.

 

There are a few threads on here telling similar stories, including mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Sale of Goods Act says returns are the responsibility of the retailer for one year.

 

Actually European Law Says that ALL electrical goods sold as new are automatically entitled to a 2 year warranty:

EU directive 1999/44/EC retailers may also be liable for up to six years…

 

so yeah Ebuyer are breaking EU law by only offering customers 1 month warranty…

 

AS a member of the EU this is now law in the UK Consumer experts say retailers are exploiting ambiguous legislation to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Ministers, however, claim the law is quite clear.

 

The Sale of Goods Act offers protection against faulty goods even when the manufacturer’s guarantee has run out.

The act says goods must last a reasonable time

– and that can be anything up to six years from the date of purchase.

I think the law is quite clear on this matter

 

Consumer Direct is the government’s new online and telephone advice line.

Call an adviser on 08454 04 05 06.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but ebuyer have a VERY bad rep for returns

 

look rge the christmas photo they put up

 

search on the register for it

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sale of Goods Act says returns are the responsibility of the retailer for one year.

 

Actually European Law Says that ALL electrical goods sold as new are automatically entitled to a 2 year warranty:

EU directive 1999/44/EC retailers may also be liable for up to six years…

 

so yeah Ebuyer are breaking EU law by only offering customers 1 month warranty…

 

AS a member of the EU this is now law in the UK Consumer experts say retailers are exploiting ambiguous legislation to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Ministers, however, claim the law is quite clear.

 

The Sale of Goods Act offers protection against faulty goods even when the manufacturer’s guarantee has run out.

The act says goods must last a reasonable time

– and that can be anything up to six years from the date of purchase.

I think the law is quite clear on this matter

 

Consumer Direct is the government’s new online and telephone advice line.

Call an adviser on 08454 04 05 06.

 

This is largely inaccurate.

 

The SOGA says nothing about returns being the responsibility of the retailer for one year.

 

The UK did NOT implement the provision contained in the EU Directive in relation to electrical goods having to come with an automatic 2 year warranty. This was an optional element of the Directive and whilst some Member States chose to incorporate this into their national legislation, the UK did not.

 

And as such Ebuyer are absolutely not breaking any law by offering only a 1 month warranty.

 

The Sale of Goods Act does not state (as you have implied) that goods have to last upto 6 years. The Limitation Act states that for a claim for a breach of contract you have 6 years from the date of that breach in order to issue legal proceedings via the courts. In England and Wales (but not Scotland) it is taken that the contract was breached on the date of purchase even if the fault did not manifest itself until some time later. This is a wholly different concept.

 

Consumer Direct was abolished about two years ago and taken over by Citizens' Advice. The number is the same though.

Edited by Rex Shepherd 7
speling eror
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/24/ebuyer_rates_staff_on_returns_rejected/

 

thats the story i was talking about

 

ive got a bin that i payed £35 on black friday

the automatic open has gone faulty havent returned it as the price has gone upto around £60 so i doubt i will get a replacement

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

dsr rules apply too

 

and don't forget section 75 [credit card

 

chargeback on debit cards

 

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

Chargeback’s or even just the threat of one is a good weapon when it comes to dealing with Ebuyer. Also when you phone them on their premium rate phone number as part of the RMA process (10mins on hold usually) tell them your recording the conversation. They are very underhand when it comes to dealing with returns especially over 6 months old so play them at their own game. They often tell you one thing and then actually do another, in the end all roads lead to the buyer being left out of pocket.

 

A quick look on some of the review sites will tell you as much, hardware forums and even Ebuyers own forum are full of tales of discontent. It’s especially bad when you buy hardware with a 3 year warranty and it goes bad after say a year. You call the manufacture and they’ll tell you to go through your retailer for a replacement. Ebuyer will initially tell you no problem, sent it in and it’ll be replaced. But, once they have it they’ll change their tune and say as per their T&C’s you’re only entitled to a part refund minus how much use you’ve had from the item. You end up with a small refund and no replacement. Ebuyer then return your item to the manufacture for stock credit and receive another unit they can then sell at full price.

 

They’re not a very nice bunch at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

saynoto0870 etc site or etc find the cheaprate number.

 

tell them you are recording the call under the instructions of your local trading standards office

 

that you rang earlier

 

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

readign the reviews on the bin i got they all appear to fail after a couple of months anyway... some people saying they have now had 3 replacement lids

 

going to take a screwdriver later and take a look at the board inside, its not powering at all so likely to be a loose lead or dry joint

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...