Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you, that is really helpful advice. He paid Goods and Services. I have all the messages we exchanged. Hopefully it will be fine, I just thought it dodgy that he's already saying he will send back if he's unhappy before he's even got the book. Why not have those conversations first.  I have another book to sell too and already have quite a lot of interest.  So am I best sending extra pictures of the condition to each interested person and making it clear it is sold as shown in the pictures and I won't accept refunds? 
    • Done.   I wont be able to send the SAR until the end of the month for TT as I wont get paid until then and I'm a little out of pocket as its my first month working after a spell of no work. Wil that be an issue?   Also what's to stop people jsut selling ficticious debts off? As far as I know, a telecoms provider can't charge you when you move and they can't supply, meaning that a large proportion of that debt is ficticious?
    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Bought a Vaping Kit - died after 2 months - retailer won't replace


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1479 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

Long story short - may get longer later:

 

My wife bought a vaping kit from a shop in Chester on the 2nd July this year. £50.

 

Product is here: http://www.innokin.com/vaporizers/cool-fire-iv/

 

When I first got it, it seemed perfect, worked well, did what it was supposed to do.

 

At the end of August it basically stopped working. Put it on bedside table before going to bed (pressed button 3 times to put on standby), woke up the next day and found it completely dead, nothing seemed to spur it back to life (charging, pressing buttons, checking physical on/off switch on bottom).

 

Took it to the shop on Sunday 4th, was advised couldn't do anything as it was 'out of warranty', went on to advise them about Consumer Rights Act 2015 and how I was entitled to repair/replacement within 6 months of purchase if a fault occurred. The staff member (basically the owner's son) then advised that they could have a look at it and they'd be in touch.

 

Subsequently got a phone call on Monday advising that they could sell me a replacement for £15. My response is below (by this point I found the owner's email address through their FB page:

 

"Vape Shop,

 

I am writing to you in relation to the Cool Fire IV kit that was purchased from your business, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 2nd July, 2016.

 

Subsequently I found that the device has developed a fault where it will not turn on or show any signs of functioning. This is despite normal operational and care taken when using the product.

 

I received a call today from a member of staff at your store who advised that the business would be willing to offer a replacement for the product, at a cost of £15. I advised the gentleman that I would need to give this some thought.

 

Though I appreciate the offer, I wish to decline the offer and exercise my statutory rights to a free replacement, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.

 

As the item in question has developed a fault within 6 months of purchase, I am entitled to have the item replaced at no additional cost and I would request that you confirm that you will do this within the next seven days.

 

I am hopeful that we can reach a mutually beneficial outcome, one where I would gladly continue to make regular purchases from your business, and that other potential customers are aware of your business’ dedication and care towards its customers.

 

Feel free to contact me on this email address or on my mobile of XXXXXXXXXXX.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jimmy Jangle"

 

Later on that day I get this:

 

"Jimmy. I am sorry to hear you are not happy with our service , as i am sure if you speak to any of our other customers, you will find we go out of our way to give good service to our clientele. In this case , however, I am sorry but the cool fire has obviously been well used for the last two months. I strongly believe that this fault has arisen through wear and tear and as you yourself admitted , worked well when purchased.

The "sales of goods act" states that; if the seller does not replace or repair faulty goods, you are entitled to a reduction on purchase price (which we have offered) or your money back MINUS an amount for the usage you have had of the goods. Judging by the scratches on the battery the usage was quite a lot. It also states that ; " if your claim under the sales of goods act ends up in court, you may have to prove that the fault was present when you bought the item and not, for example, something which was the result of normal wear and tear.

We like to have happy customers and would urge you to reconsider our offer of a replacement battery for a heavily discounted retail price of £15. I am afraid this is the best we can do in this situation and if this is not satisfactory to you, we will be sorry to lose your custom. Regards, XXXXXXXXXXX."

 

My most recent response (Removed website addresses as don't want to be seen as advertising):

 

"XXXXXXXX,

 

Let me be frank; I know my rights, and have exercised them where required before, and always successfully I may add.

 

I know many people who own and use a Cool Fire IV, and have seen theirs continue to function well for at least 6 months after purchase. My brother in law, for one, purchased his in January 2016, and still uses it to this day, and he uses his far more frequently than I did. That alone is evidence in itself that there is clearly an issue with the one I purchased, if it couldn’t last any longer than 2 months.

 

Regardless of whether a device appears to function normally at the point of purchase, it remains the case that as the product has developed an issue through no action of my own within 6 months from the purchase date, I am entitled to a replacement at no added cost under the Act as discussed.

 

Were the item to show age-related signs of degraded performance (ie. Battery capacity reduction), then I may be inclined to agree with your assertions.

 

However, a device working that appears to work perfectly fine at near-full capacity one moment, then stop dead a matter of hours later meets the description of an item that isn’t fit for purpose).

 

“Judging by the scratches on the battery the usage was quite a lot”

 

The battery isn’t scratched – you’re referring to the housing in which the battery is contained. That is merely cosmetic and if any item would stop working because of a superficial scratch that was only on the surface, I’d stay off the roads as there’d be a few thousand cars that would come screeching to a halt in that case. If you could prove that the (minor) scratches were to be the cause of the fault – I’d be more than interested to see this.

 

Furthermore, I should point out that you didn’t post the paragraph after the part regarding court action, I quote the paragraph in full:

 

“If your claim is about a problem that arose within six months of buying the product, it's assumed that the problem existed at the date of delivery and it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, or as described when it sold them.” – As I am claiming within 6 months of purchase, even if this were to go to court, the burden of proof will rest with the retailer, not the customer.

 

As the manufacturer themselves provide a 90 day warranty (US only, but that isn’t relevant), then it can be assumed that a product that fails in a lesser timeframe has developed a fault.

 

I would also like to point out that the “reduction on purchase price” actually applies to a situation where the money paid initially for the faulty item is refunded, less a deduction (however this only applies after the 6 months from purchase have elapsed)

 

I am aware of my rights under the act (I am an established and very active member of a number of vaping and consumer-related websites, including XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX to name but a few) , I have been completely honest about the situation, and am disappointed with the response given so far, which in the opinion of all I have discussed this with (including the aforementioned websites), is in total disregard of my statutory rights.

 

In view of this, I have no option but to reiterate my stance, which I will not deviate from:

 

Unless a replacement is provided under the terms of the Act within the next 7 days, then I will seek further action, up to and including issuing proceedings against you in the county court to recover the amount paid for the item at fault, with associated costs and statutory interest, with no further reference to you.

 

I have already submitted a complaint to Cheshire West and Chester Trading Standards, and will make it quite clear via various local and national outlets (Vaping-related forums, Social Media, Press and TV), that your business does not take its customers’ rights seriously.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jimmy Jangle"

 

Thoughts/opinions?

 

I ask as it seems that new Vape shops seem to pop up a lot and are run by people out for a fast buck and have no grasp of basic consumer law...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's an area which attracts those trying to turn a hobby into a lifestyle business with very little grasp of consumer law in some cases. Do I think their offer was reasonable? I probably do to be honest though I understand why you'd stand your ground and want your full rights upheld by the letter of the law. I happen to be a user of Innokin products and mine aren't scratched, they show very little wear and tear but they have been knocked off my desk by cats, fallen out of my pocket while walking the dog etc. I couldn't put my hand on my heart and say I hadn't contributed to shortening their hoped for useful life. If you can then I can see why you're determined to get a free replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a similar issue with a different product and feel there offer is reasonable, ...... Sorry Jimmy! I know it's not what you wish to hear.

 

Ps* I thought at first you were writing this from beyond the grave and the Vape had taken your life😳

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

How did this turn out?

 

Similar story: bought a Viva Kita unit from a store in Manchester, stopped working in under 2 months, store would do nothing about it. The internet entity (from China? From USA? Unsure) banged on about a valid receipt (was given none) so went back and got one, and they still did nothing... what rights have I got? All the spin aside, it's simply this: a faulty product bought from a UK shop.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...