Jump to content



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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2065 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html

 

 

looks like you are doomed to accept a repair

 

 

Section 75 gives an automatic entitlement to a refund, if credit was used to fund the purchase.

No. There is no automatic entitlement to a refund under section 75. Instead, the consumer has the same claim against the lender that they would have against the supplier of the goods, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier.

 

 

wonder if section 75a helps you...

 

 

section 75A - when can we help?

 

Section 75A came into force on 1 February 2011 - through the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive - but applies to regulated agreements made on or after 11 June 2010 . It supplements section 75, rather than extending it. This note is not intended to provide a full explanation of the law. But put very simply, section 75A will normally have effect where all of these things apply:

 

  • the goods or services were purchased under a credit agreement specifically arranged for the purchase of these goods or services. Credit card payments will not normally be covered by section 75A, because the credit agreement under which a credit card is provided does not relate to the supply of specific goods or services - the card can be offered in payment for anything the consumer chooses;
  • the credit agreement is within the scope of the Consumer Credit Directive, but outside the scope of section 75;
  • the amount of the credit agreement is not more than £60,260; and
  • there has been a breach of contract by the supplier, involving the goods or services not being provided at all, only being supplied in part, or not being supplied as specified in the contract.

Before making a claim against the credit provider under section 75A, the borrower must first take reasonable steps to get the provider of goods or services to settle the claim.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

- as said so many times now and in their request below - they want to liaise direct with the retailer - give them permission to do.

don't know where you keep getting it from, but they have no liability under SOGA, that's with the retailer

they are involved solely under your section 75 refund request.

Can I put a response time on them for a decision? - and if they don't comply, what/who do you complain too?

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.

 

 

 

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
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why am I doomed to repair?

 

I have found the section 75 stuff, that clearly states its for getting refunds.

Section 75a is immaterial, as that's for things costing 30k to 60k

 

As I have also said many times. Hitachi are already liasing with the retailer and have been since the claim was opened. I have not stopped them, requested they stop or interfered with their communication with the retailer in any way

 

This is why I'm concerned that they will refuse a refund as the retailer is offering a repair. Under their version of a section 75 they want the retailer to offer resolution and if that's not forthcoming they will make an offer.

 

However other sources, such as CAB, suggest that the retailer isn't part of the equation and all I need do is show that the goods are at fault.

 

In fact, how can Hitachi state that they will abide by the finding of an independent report which suggests that repair or replacement is the better option when a section 75 ONLY allows for a refund?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is from the FOS website

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...th-credit.html

 

 

looks like you are doomed to accept a repair

 

 

Section 75 gives an automatic entitlement to a refund, if credit was used to fund the purchase.

No. There is no automatic entitlement to a refund under section 75. Instead, the consumer has the same claim against the lender that they would have against the supplier of the goods, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier.

 

 

 

they are the ones that govern section 75

if they say this

then I cant see a resolution unless hatachi make a GOGW.

 

 

nothing more to say now.

 

 

let see what they do.

 

 

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

What's a GODW?

 

And I still don't understand what you've said.

 

No. There is no automatic entitlement to a refund under section 75. Instead, the consumer has the same claim against the lender that they would have against the supplier of the goods, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier.

 

 

Its honestly no good just posting it again, I still don't understand it. I can't see why, what it is about, that sentence means I have to accept a repair.

 

As I have said I am struggling with understanding this, I did try to explain why when I sent (or didn't send exactly) the PDF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update...

 

I allowed Sasaki in to inspect this morning.

 

The problem is down to a bracket, which connects a hydraulic arm in place. This bracket is part of the framework of the chair itself and is supposed to be welded. Its broken off.

 

The engineer said that there is no possible way I could have caused this.

 

They are going to send me a copy of the report.

 

It is, apparently, impossible to repair this part in situ - the chair must be removed for repair or replaced.

 

So, what do I do now? (Or when I have this report)

What can I request?

What do I have to accept?

Do I still need an independent report?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed that Sasaki chairs were of good quality and built to last. You have been waiting a long time for this chair.

 

Maybe you can write a letter pointing out the long time you have waited for your chair including the implications it is having on your health by not having such a chair that is fit for purpose.

 

Your thread is complicated to read. DX has given good advice to you. This now seems to be coming to an end since the engineer has said it needs to be repaired or replaced. Hopefully DX or someone else can give you more advice in relation to your last post... Although I hope that since the engineer has inspected your chair that things will move quickly from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i can see this, if i were in your situation i would also be wanting a refund

 

but as DX has pointed out, it seems that legally you are only entitled to a repair (minimum) - even though that seems highly unfair in your situation

Link to post
Share on other sites
Update...

 

I allowed Sasaki in to inspect this morning.

 

The problem is down to a bracket, which connects a hydraulic arm in place.

This bracket is part of the framework of the chair itself and is supposed to be welded.

Its broken off.

 

The engineer said that there is no possible way I could have caused this.

 

They are going to send me a copy of the report.

 

It is, apparently, impossible to repair this part in situ - the chair must be removed for repair or replaced.

 

So, what do I do now? (Or when I have this report) - send it to Hitachi

 

What can I request? - cancel the whole agreement

 

What do I have to accept? - a repair

Do I still need an independent report? - nope

 

 

 

 

good result there then.

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

Cancel on what grounds (so I can quote when I speak to Hitachi)? Is this a sec 75 thing?

 

I'm sure I've seen also that they can issue a partial refund, is it worth looking into that in addition to a repair (if that's what they force me into)?

 

Possibly a stupid question... If they agree to a refund do I have to return the chair? In the sense that I can't even move the thing, never mind that I wouldn't know how to take it apart and pack it for a courier or something

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cancel on what grounds (so I can quote when I speak to Hitachi)? Is this a sec 75 thing? - as posted in 53

sec 75 does not give the option of cancellation - you are appealing to Hitachi's better nature to cancel the whole thing

as its now XXX months into the agreement & you still have no chair

I'm sure I've seen also that they can issue a partial refund, is it worth looking into that in addition to a repair (if that's what they force me into)? - resolutions cant be mixed

Possibly a stupid question..

 

 

. If they agree to a refund do I have to return the chair?

In the sense that I can't even move the thing, never mind that I wouldn't know how to take it apart and pack it for a courier or something

 

 

that would be their problem.

 

 

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

Having a think xoanon, If you were to post them a letter, preferably recorded, telling them that as this has gone on so long that you want your replacement chair by say 7 days. (put in a date), and that you are making time of the essence, should the chair not arrive in that time then you could have a get out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances mean it will be an email rather than recorded post but something like this? I know I've probably missed, forgotten or got something wrong. I'm not too good at this sort of stuff.

 

Dear Hitachi,

 

Sasaki have now inspected the chair, I'm sure a report will be with you shortly.

 

In essence the failure of the chair is down to a broken welding on the structure itself, this welded bracket being a part of the actual chair frame itself and completely inaccessible without taking the chair apart.

 

I am also informed that this cannot be repaired in situ, although the engineer was unsure if a repair was even possible. According to the engineer this is a factory fault as a welding could not otherwise fail in such short time.

 

Without this being fixed in some way the entire foot rest part of the chair is immoveable and useless.

 

Given that the entire reason for purchasing a massage chair was to benefit my health, and given that I STILL cannot gain any benefit from the chair after over a year, I would respectfully suggest that under section 75 of the consumer credit act I am entitled to request from yourselves a full refund as the purchased item has not been, nor has ever been, fit for purpose.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

give a while i'll help

 

 

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

Dear Hitachi,

Sasaki have now inspected the chair, I'm sure a report will be with you shortly.

In essence, the failure of the chair is down to a weld on the main structure of the chair itself failing.This weld holds a bracket concerning the foot rest which raises with operation of the chair.

The engineer stated that this renders the whole mechanism of the chair immoveable & that sadly it is completely inaccessible without taking the chair apart.

He also confirmed this certainly could not be repaired in situ, and would need returning the factory

to see if a repair was even possible, having never seen such a failed weld before, he was unwilling to comment further.

I specifically purchased a Sasaki Massage Chair to benefit my health, to date, I have not benefitted at all.

This unfortunate situation has now persisted for over a year now.

I respectfully ask that you now seriously consider, as a gesture of goodwill, a total cancellation of the finance with regard to this purchase as I no longer have any faith in the product after all this time and feel enough is enough.

As well as the sale of Goods Act & such legislation as the consumer credit Act, section 75 and Section 75A - through the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive, i would have a robust base under which i could utilise suitable redress should i require to do so.

 

However, i hope you understand my posistion and will as a major player in all types finance honour my request.

Yours sincerely

  • Confused 1

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've just got this from Hitachi. Note that I had not sent any email as yet, nor have I seen any report.

As for misuse... The engineer stood here and said no, it is not physically possible that I could cause the damage present.

 

Dear Mr Booker,

 

I am writing with regards to the complaint registered relating to goods and services purchased from Sasaki Limited (“Sasaki”).

 

You advised Hitachi Personal Finance (“HPF”) that the replacement chair supplied by mutual agreement in January 2015 was faulty. You reported this to Sasaki on 27 February 2015. The retailer was refusing to assist and you requested a refund. Upon receipt of your complaint I contacted Sasaki for their review and response.

 

The retailer responded that they had been aware the previous chair had been misused and as such they had not refused to service your current chair but advised that, if it had been used outside of the recommendations, a charge would be made for repair. They were awaiting confirmation that the chair had been cleaned and was ready for inspection.

 

You were unhappy with the delays in arranging a mutually agreeable date for the retailer to visit and you expressed dissatisfaction that neither I nor Hitachi would agree to a refund which you believed you were entitled to. I advised of the options to escalate the complaint including Trading Standards and The Furniture Ombudsman Service.

 

Sasaki has informed me today that a service visit has been completed. You have completed the maintenance form and written that the footrest is awaiting repair. The retailer advises they believe the issue with the footrest is due to misuse as this part is not designed to bear weight until a person is sitting in the chair. Even if they repaired the problem would be ongoing.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, as previously advised, we would recommend you to have an independent report carried out on the goods. This would have to done by an industry recognised company such as The Furniture Ombudsman; however you must request Sasaki to abide by the findings of the report in writing beforehand.

 

May I take this opportunity to offer my apologies for any inconvenience you may have been caused.

 

You can at any time refer your complaint to the FLA Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme by contacting them on 0207 836 6511 or by visiting their website at http://www.fla.org.uk/index.php/consumer-information/how-to-make-a-complaint2/

 

This is our final response in respect of your complaint. If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome in this matter you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

You have six months in which to do this from today’s date.

 

The link below will provide you with information on how to refer you complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Please copy and paste the link into your web browser.

 

http://financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/guidance/telling-your-customers.htm

 

Edited by Conniff
Reduced line spacing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically they are confirming what has been said on here already. If you feel the welding is not satisfactory then you should get an independent inspection done. Any payment for this inspection can be claimed back if the inspection goes in your favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that did cross my mind.

 

 

think you are stuffed as there is more to this story than what you are telling us?

 

 

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

To try and describe the fault.

 

The footrest is raised and lowered by a hydraulic system, the failed bracket is the lower bracket.

 

The suggestion seems to be that I am raising the footrest before sitting in the chair. On this model, the chair must be partially reclined before the footrest moves. Meaning I'd have to mountaineer my way into the chair.

 

Given osteoarthritis in my knees, lower back trouble, an inability to do stairs properly and the fact I use a walking stick just HOW exactly am I supposed to do this? I also live alone, nobody else uses the chair.

 

There has been no misuse of this chair or the previous chair. Nor any proof supplied to suggest otherwise. No there is not more to this story than has been posted, I'm not stupid, if I'd caused it I'd admit it. I haven't, there is no physical way I could have according to the engineer.

 

Do I have a right to see these claims and challenge them? I haven't seen a report as yet from anywhere. The maintenance form referred to was just to say what was done and found by the engineer.

 

Should I challenge Hitachi first, on medical grounds. I assume that taking a section 75 to the credit card company isn't worth it now either.

 

If not its FO or FSO? Suggestions as to which and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be sternly pointing out to Hitachi that you have not at anytime misused or damaged any chair you have had

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

Sasaki has informed me today that a service visit has been completed. You have completed the maintenance form and written that the footrest is awaiting repair. The retailer advises they believe the issue with the footrest is due to misuse as this part is not designed to bear weight until a person is sitting in the chair. Even if they repaired the problem would be ongoing.

 

How is it possible for a footrest to have a broken welding joint? If there was a lot of weight on the footrest for the intention of deliberately breaking it, then surely the metal would bend before a welded joint breaks? There would be other forms of damage which the engineer would see?

 

If the person is sitting in the chair and the footrest is used, then I assume that it is strengthened or secured in place by the internal mechanisms of the chair.

It would be almost impossible to break the footrest when it is not being used and not strengthened or secured when it is in the down position.

 

As others are advising since your final response letter, an independent inspection is needed if you intend to take this further. Though if the independent inspection states that the chair had been misused then I believe there is not much you can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it possible for a footrest to have a broken welding joint? If there was a lot of weight on the footrest for the intention of deliberately breaking it, then surely the metal would bend before a welded joint breaks? There would be other forms of damage which the engineer would see?

 

 

A lot would depend on the type of welding used Peter. Arc welding and Mig welding are very different and have different capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are Hitachi actually in this?

 

Are they on the side of the retailer or a neutral party?

 

By that I mean that they are just taking one word over another with no proof.

 

Does carrying on with Hitachi do anything as they are suggesting its now a matter for ombudsman or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it possible for a footrest to have a broken welding joint? If there was a lot of weight on the footrest for the intention of deliberately breaking it, then surely the metal would bend before a welded joint breaks? There would be other forms of damage which the engineer would see?

 

If the person is sitting in the chair and the footrest is used, then I assume that it is strengthened or secured in place by the internal mechanisms of the chair.

It would be almost impossible to break the footrest when it is not being used and not strengthened or secured when it is in the down position.

 

As others are advising since your final response letter, an independent inspection is needed if you intend to take this further. Though if the independent inspection states that the chair had been misused then I believe there is not much you can do.

 

No bars on the frame were broken. No bars on the frame were bent. The hydraulic system state is unknown, but was replaced, and the failed bracket was below the hydraulic system. This means the failed bracket was at floor level.

 

The engineer said its impossible I could break it, and that it had to be a factory error. Sasaki other people are saying different.

 

You tell me who is up to something there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

id be inclined to pay for an independent engineers report, especially as I know the cost of these chairs are very expensive.

 

but if you decide on independent report, it could be a waste of money if that report does not go in your favour.

 

i do feel you have been messed around in the amount of time its taken, its not as if it is a consumer product for luxury, it is a product to assist with your health.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...