faulty replacement Sasaki chair , Hitachi Credit & getting it sorted - help

[dx100uk 9,532]

Is this the part of the agreement you mean?

 

here is the agreement

[dx100uk 9,532]

While technically the item is under six months as it is a replacement item,

and the original is over six months,

apparently I do have to pay the report because the time does not reset..

. According to the CAB helpline anyway!

 

- the item is within 6mts [ the replacement] - you don't have to pay for a report

[but on a side note, even if you do, you would be reimbursed whichever result you get if the claim is upheld.]

 

You're really confusing me. I thought you'd sent that PDF to show that I could get a refund?

- I said 'IMHO you are well within your rights to cancel the whole thing'

you have had issues with 'whatever' you have had or now have under the finance agreement

either under the CP ICAC regulations and section 75.

Don't I have a choice here?

 

Or are the finance company going to refuse to do anything on the grounds that I'm refusing a repair?

 

you don't 'have' to accept anything at this stage

get the report

get it off to Hitachi

see what they say

 

then move from there

 

dx

[xoanon 1]

I also still don't know which report.

 

 

The furniture ombudsman offers two different ones but can't say which one is needed.

 

Hitachi will not commit themselves to saying which report they want.

 

I have no idea what to do as there's a big difference in price between the two.

[dx100uk 9,532]

 

I also still don't know which report. The furniture ombudsman offers two different ones but can't say which one is needed.

Hitachi will not commit themselves to saying which report they want.

 

I have no idea what to do as there's a big difference in price between the two.

 

 

you send the report that the eng does tomorrow

 

 

if they want a FO report tell tem to pay for it

 

 

dx

[xoanon 1]

What report?

 

 

The appointment tomorrow is the retailer coming to repair,

 

 

nothing to do with any report..

 

 

I'm not even sure I should let the retailer in.

[dx100uk 9,532]

just reading back through the thread

 

you say you paid the deposit by a credit card

 

have you involved the credit card company under section 75?

 

if not you should be.

 

as well as hitachi credit

 

as well as the retailer

[xoanon 1]

If memory serves I paid the deposit split between a credit and a debit card.

 

I believe its Capital One, if it makes a difference.

 

I was under the impression that I could only apply through one or the other (card or finance), is that not right?

 

I still don't know what to do with the retailer when they turn up..

[dx100uk 9,532]

your rights box is the one

though the OFT don't exist anymore

[dx100uk 9,532]

If memory serves I paid the deposit split between a credit and a debit card.

 

I believe its Capital One, if it makes a difference.

 

I was under the impression that I could only apply through one or the other (card or finance), is that not right?

 

I still don't know what to do with the retailer when they turn up..

 

 

you can get cap1 onboard

 

 

there are no rules that say you cant use two

just only get one write off of course.

 

 

dx

[xoanon 1]

From the Hitachi representative...

 

Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer

 

I have now got to the stage where I'm overwhelmed by conflicting information, or half information in some cases.

 

Can anybody tell me what is what in simple language?

 

I don't understand what the section 75 actually means to me

 

Hitachi says this

 

The Section 75 claim – The finance is a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement and not Hire Purchase. Hitachi has no legal entitlement to the goods and you retain full ownership. As such, under the Financial Conduct Authority on dispute resolution, Hitachi requests the retailer offer a resolution to any issues. If this is not forthcoming Hitachi, after allowing adequate opportunity, will look to make an offer. It is standard practice to advise a retailer of your planned recourse.

 

I don't understand what relevance the cancellation clauses have or the document you pointed at from section 29. Haven't I had the thing too long? If I can cancel using this then how?

 

Frankly, at the moment, I darent open a claim with Capital 1 as well. The reason being if they give a different version of things then I'll just go off and cry somewhere.

[dx100uk 9,532]

Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer

 

I would give them perm to deal direct with Sasaki

 

see what happens.

[xoanon 1]

What happened was that Sasaki decided on the repair.

 

Under initial pretence of wanting to make an inspection, which was agreed to by myself with no issues at all. Every communication since then, from Sasaki and Hitachi, have made it clear that they are coming to repair the chair.

 

They haven't dealt with, negotiated with or mediated.

They just pass on what the retailer wants and ignore what I want.

 

As this is a replacement which has gone wrong,

I was under the impression that I didn't have to accept a repair or replacement

because they've had a chance to make things right.

Is this wrong?

[dx100uk 9,532]

nope theres nowt which backs that up that I know.

[xoanon 1]

In that case, are they being reasonable in offering repair?

 

Or do I have the right to a refund, if so, why exactly and where does it say so?

[dx100uk 9,532]

as has already been outlined....

 

 

'they' the retailer, must, but may choose, under SOGA,

should the product fail, to replace, repair or refund.

[xoanon 1]

You misunderstand..

 

Do I have the right..

 

Not what does the retailer have to do or offer..

 

Do I have the right to refuse a repair and request a refund?

Am I jeapordising my rights by not accepting a refund?

 

You made a big thing of the cancellation clauses previously but I still don't understand why/what relevance/what difference these clauses make to anything. No matter how many times I look at them I still don't understand what I'm supposed to be looking at or for!

[dx100uk 9,532]

ok forget the PDF [The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013]...

 

I've been genning up most of the day

 

and

 

I firmly believe under section 75 you have a right to demand a full refund.

under which that Hitachi is made

 

there is no time limit on a section 75 claim with regard to your situation

 

I can see no 'clause' that states if its a replacement item that fails

that's it negates section 75 either

 

neither can I see any clause that says they may refer to the supplier of the goods

and latterly state that they will not refund and allow the retailer to repair such goods.

 

you have asked for a refund, I see no 'get out' for them.

 

i'll keep reading around for.

 

 

http://www.choose.net/money/guide/features/section-75-credit-card-protection-claim.html

 

 

dx

[xoanon 1]

Ah, that makes more sense now!

 

So I should comply with the Hitachi request for an independent report? Or do they have to arrange one if they want one?

 

I know you have said its less than six months, so under SOGA its assumed faulty

However CAB have advised that the six months is from initial purchase and not reset by replacing the product

 

Yes, you might think it makes little difference, it would get refunded and so on. The fact is that finding £150 for the report isn't something I can just do quickly.

 

I don't think I've seen anything on this anywhere.

[dx100uk 9,532]

I would aver that the item, even though its a replacement, itself failed in under 6mts

so, under soga, the retailer pays for an inspection.

 

how that pans out to the financier under section 75 is anyones guess

they and the retailer need to talk to each other.

 

its worthy to note section 75, it says nothing about 'a repair'

a section 75 claim is a refund claim under the CCA.

 

the item doesn't need to be inspected, as such,

bar only by someone 'with the right credentials' to confirm its frucked

and the claim is valid

 

my take

 

 

so the visit recently never happened then?

[xoanon 1]

No, they never turned up...

 

From Hitachi

 

"Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer."

 

As the claim is against Hitachi, would it not be that they have to arrange the inspection rather than the retailer?

In fact, as it is under 6 months, doesn't SOGA assume there is a fault with no report needed?

 

Is there no precedent, not necessarily through a court, but through prior claims? I can't believe that this situation has never happened before

[dx100uk 9,532]

as already said

let them liaise with the retailer

that they say they want to do

give them the permission too

 

 

however, I see nothing in a section 75 claim that states they can get away with allowing a repair.

 

 

the only option under a section 75 claim, as far as I can see, is a refund/cancellation of the agreement

 

 

that hitachi reply is simply wriggling.

and p'haps you need to point this out to them

 

 

as for the soga point, no SOGA does not assume that

 

 

dx

[xoanon 1]

It doesn't?

 

I was under the impression with SOGA that goods under 6 months old that developed faults were assumed to be inherently faulty (unless misused) and over 6 months the fault had to be independently proven?

 

Therefore if Hitachi want a report isn't it for them to arrange, and pay, for one? They can't say I'm refusing to allow the retailer to make an inspection as the retailer is clearly stating they wish to visit to repair.

 

Hitachi have been liasing, that's why they are trying to get me to accept a repair (by underhand means I think). My concern is that because I'm refusing a repair it will prejudice them.

[dx100uk 9,532]

no soga automatically assumes faults were there at birth or introduced later by a repair.

 

 

the 6mts bit decides who pays for the report

before the retailer

after the purchaser

 

 

I don't think there is any clause under section 75 that allow a financier to resolve a section 75 claim by a repair.

 

 

a section 75 claim is a refund only accouring to the consumer credit act.

although you can accept a repair if you wanted too.

 

 

the fact that the financier has no relationship to the goods makes no odd

hitachi are just trying to confuse things as they always do.

 

 

you want a refund

you are entitled to a refund.

 

 

if they want to monkey around doing a repair

then let them

but you still want a refund as prescribed under the act.

[xoanon 1]

Dx100uk - Does that mean then that I can tell Hitachi that if they would like a report they can arrange and pay for it as I'm dealing with them over this and, as they have joint liability, SOGA puts the onus on them as the timescale is under 6 months?

 

Can I put a response time on them for a decision?

 

I think I've posted before what Hitachi say about a section 75 claim.

 

The Section 75 claim – The finance is a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement and not Hire Purchase. Hitachi has no legal entitlement to the goods and you retain full ownership. As such, under the Financial Conduct Authority on dispute resolution, Hitachi requests the retailer offer a resolution to any issues. If this is not forthcoming Hitachi, after allowing adequate opportunity, will look to make an offer. It is standard practice to advise a retailer of your planned recourse.

 

 

Conniff - See above, its a loan, and see post 26 or thereabouts, the agreement PDF is posted there.

[Conniff 3,558]

Thanks xoanon, I see now.