Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

integrated dishwasher several repairs now dead -2 Year Warranty? **WON MANU REPLACED IT**


Chipper64
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2352 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

We are currently having problems with an integrated dishwasher.

 

Since buying it in Mar 2016, there have been several faults when it needed an Engineer to make the repairs with new parts.

The current issue means yet another repair will be needed taking the total to 5 repairs in just over 18 months.

 

I feel we've got a 'dud' unit and the manufacturer are trying to get it to limp over the March warranty expiry date.

 

Ideally like to have it replaced since i have lost confidence in this machine and it's ability to be useful much after the warranty expires.

What are my rights in terms of requesting a full replacement?

Thanks for any help/info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are entitled to a replacement or refund.

 

As they have had several attempts at repairs and this hasnt worked out you can use the Cosumer Rights Act and say the item isnt fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality. It should last for 5 years.

 

The warranty has nothing to do with your statutory rights so dont be led down that path by the retailer, they are liable.

 

If you want your money back they are allowed to deduct a sum for the enjoyment you had had BUT as you have had 4 previous breakdowns this deduction shouldnt be anywhere near what you would expect for 18 months use followed by a catastrophic event.

 

I would have thought that at most a 20% deduction.

 

Now, your problem will be getting the retailer to understand that you have these rights.

 

Some will be oblivious and others just wont give a damn.

If you need a replacement then a massive discount off a new one will be something they can understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your automatic rights under the Consumer Rights Act expired after six months of buying the appliance. Now you have to rely on your ordinary rights. I quite agree with you that if there have been five faults in less than two years then it certainly seems as if there is something unusually wrong with this machine.

 

You can either assert your rights under the warranty – or assert your rights against the seller of the appliance under the Consumer Rights Act which basically says that you are entitled to enjoy an appliance of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period of time. It certainly seems to me that you have not had a satisfactory experience during the time that you have had it.

 

You can either sue for damages – basically meaning and other repair or you could say to a court that your experience has been so dismal that it has had the effect of terminating the contract and you now want to have a refund.

 

It may well be that you will be awarded damages to take into account the use that you have had from the machine. I think you would have to itemise the faults that you have had, the inconvenience to which you have been put, and the amount of time that the dishwasher has been unusable. In addition to that, I think it would be reasonable to include the number of times that you have had to make special arrangements to be in in order to receive a repairer et cetera.

 

Whether you want to sue the manufacturer or the supplier is a matter for you. What does the manufacturers warranty say? I think that if you were to serve the manufacturer notice that you are now calling in the warranty and that you want a replacement machine then the March 2018 deadline would cease to apply because the manufacturer would have a duty to take notice of the problem now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where did you buy it?

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

So the machine could be years old and 2nd hand.

Whilst you may have some angle to get some money back it would not be expected to last for 5 years as suggested as you bought it wth knowledge of it and also it depends how much you paid.

If you paid 50quid for a 2nd hand dishwasher then id say you've had your moneys worth.

If you spent £500 quid in currys for a new one then you would expect it to last around 5 years. That's called reasonable expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so who did these repairs, an eng after you contact the manu?

ideally your claim is against who sold it to you

but if the manu has been sending repair men FOC then I'm not sure if you can use CRA against them?

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

Guys,

 

Thanks for your help and advice on this.

 

For a nice change, the manufacturers have agreed to play ball and to swap the machine for a new one.

 

The only cost to us is going to be the fitting and removal costs.

Thanks

 

Chipper64

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey that's a great result

who was the manu?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...