Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • 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

ISME refuse to repair Faulty Vax


MAGDA
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3670 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,

 

I purchased a hoover (a Vax) less than six months ago from ISME catalogue.

 

The hoover was hardly used until recently (I had still been using my old hoover,

but had purchased the Vax one as it was a good price

and my old one, although stil fine, was showing signs of age.

 

I recently have been using the new, Vax hoover,

but it very quickly stopped picking up,

and had not been particularly good anyway.

 

My husband has cleaned the filters and so forth, but it still is not picking up adequately and is really not a great hoover.

 

Also, the pipe section of the hoover keeps falling apart and I have to keep pushing it back in.

 

I have contacted Isme and explained that the hoover is not working as it should and I wish to return it.

 

However, they say I must contact their supplier (the manufacturer) and ascertain the cause of the problem before they can accept it back, if at all.

 

I have said that under the Sale of Goods Act the hoover is not fit for purpose and my contract, in effect, is with Isme.

 

However, they argue that is not the case.

 

They say they lack the technical knowledge to deal with the matter direct

and if I return the hoover to them, they will return it back to me,

and add the postage cost to my account.

 

Are they correct in what they say?

 

Many thanks,

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of suppliers try to fob off their responsibilities to the manufacturers. They are not entitled to do this. It is a trick.

Sometimes, though dealing with the manufacturers can save time because it is probably true that the supplier doesn't have the technical resources to deal with it.

 

As they are quibbling, you will have to go through the steps and lay the foundation of a claim.

Begin by contacting a repairer for vacuum cleaners. Get them to visit you and to check the machine and to confirm that it is faulty. You will need this in writing. You may have to pay for the inspection but you will get this money back from ISME if you are in the right.

 

If the defects are confirmed in writing, then write to ISME with a copy of the report. Tell them that they can come and carry out their own inspection if they want but that they only have 14 days to do it after which, you will bring a small claim in the county court.

Then sue.

 

Sue for a the price of a replacement plus any expenses you have been put to plus a modest sum for the loss of the cleaner and inconvenience.

I expect that if they receive your inspection report and the court papers, that they will bottle it and settle - or try to buy you off. Stand your ground.

If they want to go to court, then as long as you have your report - and if they don't bother to get one, then you will win - and you will get all of your claim costs paid as well.

 

It's a nuisance, but there you go.

Better to go to John Lewis who seem to operate perfect customer service. I'm not aware that we have ever had a complaint about them in 8 years of this website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, many thanks BankFodder for your reply.

 

I will maybe give the supplier a call and see what they say,

 

just out of curio, and then get back to Isme.

 

If I don't get any joy then from Isme,

 

I may have to go down the route you suggest,

 

so many thanks for the info.

 

John Lewis it is, next time..

 

..sounds like they offer a good service, which is more than you can say for a lot of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

are you still paying for it?

 

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

Hi dx,

 

well, it was purchased through my Isme catalogue, so

 

went onto the outstanding balance, but I have made regular payments, so would think so.

 

I think it is down to Isme to deal with the problem, not to refer me to their supplier,

 

they, after all, are the retailer and whether they have the technical knowledge or not,

they should be dealing with me direct, not through a third party.

 

If I returned the item, as I want to, they obviously could then contact their supplier

and decide whether to replace the item or credit the amount to my account.

 

If I had purchased the item from any other retailer, I would take it back to the shop,

but in this case, Isme don't seem to want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

under soga and DSR the must deal with it.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...