Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • 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

Currys - Faulty goods repair already, failed again, want full refund!! **full refund given by headoffice**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2619 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

Hello.

Many thanks first of all for the option to join.

(I suspected there would be an active forum for those seeking some pointers with regard to consumer rights!!)

 

I did a little research before visiting Curry's today with my "complaint" but remain, for the present, in limbo:

 

In August 2016 we bought a De Longhi coffee machine (on-line) which developed a fault,

in that it was intermittently ditching the contents of the machine's reservoir of around 1.5 pints of water over our worktop. (not ideal when electrics are involved)

 

We took it back to our local Curry's (November) and it was returned to De Longhi for "repair."

 

On return,

all appeared OK but the same fault recurred (December) and returned it once again.

 

Having done so for a second time in 4 months,

I was aware that I was now entitled to a refund or exchange.

 

I stated that I wanted a replacement.

Unfortunately they no longer stock the same model,

(with the nearest match nearly twice the price)

and advised that I should return it to De Longhi personally.

I refused, and

 

initially, they declined even a refund.

I disputed this and they eventually relented.

 

However, I stated that I wanted a replacement as a refund would leave me disadvantaged at having to pay more.

 

Management become involved,

and between us we agreed that they could e-mail De Longhi asking if they would be prepared to replace it.

 

I anticipate that they will,

if not with the same model, with an equivalent.

 

Should they refuse, I would like to know my rights ahead of their reply..

. if anybody can advise?

(I imagine in this case that Curry's themselves would be obliged to offer an alternative, even if that were to be their closest match at their expense?)

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

outside of 30days from purchase

there is nothing which allows you to dictate what the retailer must do

 

 

they have the option to refund.repair.replace at their discretion.

 

 

dx

Edited by Andyorch
typo

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

Thanks for the reply - BUT, according to Which, the Consumer Act of 2015 states (outside of the 30 day period) .....

 

"If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you have a further right to receive a refund of up to 100% of the price you paid or to reject the goods for a full refund"

 

...or... again according to Which ....

 

"If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement."

Link to post
Share on other sites

the key word here is 'request'

 

 

the initial issue here is the product first went wrong outside of 30 days.

the fact that the repair 'failed'

in effect has no real bearing

other than is might sway things to your advantage.

 

 

if you'll get betterment is another thing

you could offer to pay the difference to a newer model

or

indicate why cant the manu do a GOGW and cover that.

 

 

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

Beyond the 30 day period, during which you have what is called – a short-term right to reject, if a fault develops in the first six months then there is an assumption that the defect existed at the time that you bought the item. During the six months, as has been explained to you, the seller has the right to attempt a repair. If that attempted repair fails then you are entitled to have a full refund. It seems to me from the legislation that you are not necessarily entitled to have a replacement if that means that you end up at greater financial benefit. I have to say this seems to me to be contrary to the normal principles of contract which are that you would normally be put into the position that you would have been if the contract had been successful – and that would mean that you should be given a replacement even if that was more expensive.

 

I think it probably needs looking into. Let us know what you find out

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just thought I'd give an update on my complaint, outlined above....

 

On return, Curry's maintained their stance in-store, refusing to give me a refund.

 

However, I stood my ground, and after an hour, when the manager (not that I believed her) was authorised by "the computer" to issue a refund. Regardless, I complained to Curry's as to how my complaint was handled.

 

I later received a telephone call from Curry's head Office Customer Services manager, who in turn had sought advice from their own litigation department.

 

It turns out that my complaint was, in the words of their litigation advisor "bang on." In the absence of their ability to offer a replacement, and the fact that it had previously been repaired entitled me without question, to a refund.

 

The management at the store were wrong in insisting that they could send it off for a second repair, or, as they did, offer a credit note.

My rejection of the product was absolutely correct.

 

The Customer Services manager at Head Office explained that this was not the way Curry's would normally deal with such complaints, and that I should have been dealt with within a few minutes.

 

Furthermore he issued additional compensation for my inconvenience, adding that the staff at the store would be "dealt with," though this understandably would be confidential.

 

And so, though they do have a right to replace (which was never disputed) If as they were, unable to do so they must in these circumstances issue a refund.

 

They DO NOT have the option to insist on a SECOND repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

brilliant result.

 

this will help numerous posters in the future.

 

we indicated they had a choice

IMHO they made the right choice and it under lines what we have always thought.

 

local managers need retraining!!

 

well done.

 

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

Many thanks for that.

And, to reinforce your own point:

 

When I took the machine back following the failed repair

I had printed out a section of advice from 'Which' outlining what I was entitled to, just a dozen lines or so,

 

both the guy at the "returns" counter, and later the manager refused point blank to read it.

"We have our OWN policy" the manager explained,

to which I said,

"So you are telling me that your policy trumps the law ?" ......

"We've seen it all before" she responded.

 

This for me was the "light the blue touch paper" moment.

 

As you rightly say, local managers need retraining, and judging from the response from Head Office she and her staff will I'm sure be getting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in argos the otherday.

collecting a parcel from an ebay purchase

 

 

at the next check-in was a lady with an xbox bundle she'd purchased for her grandson for many £100's at xmas

the thing had given up.

 

 

she didn't have her receipt and was told sorry we cant do anything without a receipt

even what I assume was some manager was called over he said the same thing.

 

 

it transpired she had paid by credit card and said she did not have that with her but could get her hubby to send a photo of it to her phone and was doing so.

this manager said, that wont do you need the receipt from us, it clearly says this in the sale of goods act.

 

 

well that's as far as he got, I had to say something and stated no it says proof of purchase.

guy had a terrible attitude and started the old its nothing to do with you

and you don't know anything about SOGA we've all been trained....

 

 

I stated well if you've been trained you'd know its now the consumer rights act and has been since 2015.

told her to do a section 75 she was dialling the card provider

 

 

when another manager appeared and said theres no need to do that we'll exchange now

we dont want external agencies getting involved it looks bad to head office.

 

 

one happy bunny was she.

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

glad you got sorted.

 

for anyone else arguing with a dixons group manager, they can remind them that at managers conferance 2015 they were ALL given a personal bonus of £1000 each to stop arguing with customers and do the right thing.

sales and support staff werent issued with any extra bonus, nor were lower level managers only general managers or 'store directors' as they are called in the huge stores.

 

what they are scared of is, chargebacks. unauthorised returns affect the profit and loss report of the store and their own bonus for the quarter.

 

but its now in place that anything that has had 1 repair can be returned and overridden on the system, using the term CRA faulty returns as long as details of said initial repair at included with the daily paperwork.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that insight Oliver....not like multinational companies putting profits before customer service:wink:

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...