Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Samsung are ANOVO are taking me for a ride!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2517 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 guys

 

i need your help,

i literally am being mugged off,

 

 

ive called all samsung departments on numerous occasions,

anovo, ive emailed,

tried twitter DM's,

and im getting a scripted nonsensical explanation!

 

originally i sent my s7 off as it NFC wasnt working properly and it was overheating

 

 

got the first reply from the service centre on the 11th,

said the phone was out of warranty repair and they cant address the issue till i pay them to get it fixed,

 

 

i said no to their repair as i wanted to get it repaired locally in my shopping centre,

 

 

after i thought about it i figured it would be safer to do it with samsung direct going forward,

i resent it in

 

 

on 19 Jul i received the follow up literally saying exactly the same as the first mail, im trying to attach a screenshot but cant

 

To summarise, this is what i wrote to them via post;

 

To whom it may concern

 

So,

 

I've been loyal to you for years now, my entire family only uses samsung, tablet devices, phones, televisions, as do my business partners and close freinds, ive converted everyone over from Apple, and today i really got my "thanks"

 

2 weeks ago, my galaxy s7 developed issues with its NFC and it started overheating, so, i sent in my phone for repair, and they tell me

 

"your phone has damage which isn't covered under warranty, attached is a screenshot"

 

it was the email attached, of the back of the phone being cracked,

 

as you can see, they are clearly referring to the crack on the glass.

So i pay the money and then don't hear back for a few days,

then i receive an email saying my order is on its way,

so i call your incompetent Anovo repair team (who if you google have appalling customer ratings, its quite embarrassing actually)

and they tell me my device is "beyond repair due to its expenses to replace the main board which has fried"

 

so, now they are telling me, the overheating issue is due to the board, but it is to expensive to repair under warranty,

 

now, the mainboard is an INTERNAL issue with the phone, not an external problem cause my accident damage

 

therefore, it is irrelevant of the cost, it is a manufacturing default that the phones circuiting has resulted in it to overheat and fry

 

yet your employees keep telling me that the phone is out of warranty due to the cracked class, i don't understand this logic?

 

so with a car, if it has an outside crack, the manufacturers garage will tell them "we know you have engine issues but since you have a crack outside on the car we cant do anything"

 

this is truly repulsive and shows how out of touch your company has become from reality,

 

you are literally not taking responsibility for your phones fault and deterring the core issue and passing it on to myself and saying the issue is the cracked back

 

it is irrelevant of the cost of the internal part, manufactures warranty covers the internal parts of the phone failing

 

im truly sad and hurt at the service

 

----------

 

i cannot attach the screenshot it keeps saying "error red font"

 

i cant even photo a external link to the image, it says im too new a member...

 

 

they did refund the money i paid for the crack but thats not the issue!

 

 

they are not addressing the internal issue and using the external as some sort of justification for not fixing my phone,

thats literally what the phone support told me,

and she said she checked with her manager and "

they cant do anything as its out of warranty damage and they wont look to replace it"

 

SINCE WHEN WAS AN INTERNAL COMPONENT OF A PHONE NOT SOMETHING COVERED FROM WARRANTY

 

i dont know who else to talk to, i dont have a phone anymore and they wont help me at all...

 

phone was given from samsung directly not a retailer

Edited by blu3hef
add dates info
Link to post
Share on other sites

upload..clickme

your port of call is to the place your purchased the phone from under CRA.

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

upload..clickme

your port of call is to the place your purchased the phone from under CRA.

 

hello,

 

thanks for the prompt reply, ive read the first link, so no worries i can do that and upload it as a pdf, and i feel 23 Right to repair or replacement

 

"30th June 2015 15:41 #1

BankFodder "23 Right to repair or replacement"

 

 

 

with my document?

 

sorry for the beginner questions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently dealing with Anovo for my S8+ - Reached them today, also had many worries after reading reviews.

Ive taken lots of photos BEFORE its been dispatched to them and there isnt a spec of damage on mine.

 

I dont trust them

- However back to your point

Suggest a read up on Consumer Rights Act 2015 - S7 released in 2016 so youd be covered under it.

Also be aware you may have to go legal for this.

 

But let us know once youve read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently dealing with Anovo for my S8+ - Reached them today, also had many worries after reading reviews.

Ive taken lots of photos BEFORE its been dispatched to them and there isnt a spec of damage on mine.

 

I dont trust them

- However back to your point

Suggest a read up on Consumer Rights Act 2015 - S7 released in 2016 so youd be covered under it.

Also be aware you may have to go legal for this.

 

But let us know once youve read it.

 

thank you!

 

sorry to hear by the way, yes me either,

 

i felt under goods - ss3-32, section 23 is appropriate to my case, i did read the act and felt goods under guarantee, sales contract, ownership and what goods contracts are covered are also relevant, but because the phone was a replacement i was unsure if the same laws applied

 

before this s7 i had a NOTE 4, which i got from carphone warehouse on contract, i had so many issues about 1 year in, and eventually after 5 or 6 repairs, and months and months of back and forth they replaced it with this S7,

 

anovo kept sending it back after they did repairs twice on the board and other parts of they phone, as they knew that once it hit 3 i would be entitled to a replacement under their 3 strike policy, so they did everything they could to avoid the third repair, one time they genuinely replaced a part and didn't inform me, and i knew this as the phone stopped overheating when they sent it back lol!!!!, the way it got solved was i physically went to a samsung repair centre and showed their management the phone wont turn on, it literally took my phone to not turn on for them to accept my issue,

 

and now the replacement has this issue,

 

in terms of going legal, if thats whats needed than so be it!

 

baring in mind what ive said, is my assessment of the goods act, section 23, 3, 4,5 and 30 are relevant

Link to post
Share on other sites

upload..clickme

your port of call is to the place your purchased the phone from under CRA.

 

Hello, i have read the act, please could you instruct me on how to progress,

 

baring in mind what ive said, is my assessment of the goods act, section 23, 3, 4,5 and 30 are relevant? and where do i submit it? do i reply to the appropriate act?

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015>> Goods >>> ss.3-32

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 days LBA - Add in appropriate sections which they breached

ask them to rectify. If they fail then log onto MCOL - Start claim - Pay cost which you could potentially reclaim

 

Screenshot_1.png

 

Get evidence and keep it all.

 

FYI my s8+ Returned from ANOVO yesterday. Watch this space as i dont think youll be the only one with a claim being put in against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...