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

@rapha : Clothing became unstitched after wearing and washing twice. Item is currently still within 30 days of purchase.**Settled**


spesh88
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1079 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

Re a possible s75 claim - is your Amex card a credit card?  I ask because it certainly used* to be the case that some American Express cards, although commonly described as credit cards, were actually charge cards (where you had to pay the whole of the outstanding balance at the end of the month) and were not credit cards - and therefore not eligible for s75 claims.

 

*  I suspect that these days all AmEx are credit cards, but you might want to check to be sure.  If it isn't a credit card you might want to consider what you use it for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spesh88 said:

...

 

I have received no reply and their 'returns process' will not provide me with a returns number/authorisation unless I agree the item is unwashed and 'as new' i.e. saleable and unwashed.

 

I plan to return them to Rapha at my own expense and push for a refund. Do they need to comply? They state on their website they may return non-saleable returned items without refund/exchange.

 

 

Those considerations will only apply to "change of mind" returns within the 14 day statutory cancellation period* for off-premises purchases, or to their own returns policy, which will be in addition to any statutory rights you have.  (They can apply whatever conditions they like to their own returns policy, but can't take away or weaken your statutory rights).

 

In this case the tights are the product of a faulty manufacturing process (or faulty materials) and you are entitled to return them free of charge for a full refund within the 30 day initial rejection period.  I don't think it matters that you haven't actually returned them within 30 days so long as you have informed them in writing within 30 days that you are rejecting them.  They pay your return costs.  The fact you've washed them is irrelevant - you are returning them because they are faulty, not under any "change of mind" policy (whether the 14 day stautory cancellation period or Rapha's own returns policy).

 

(Bit disappointing really - I've always thought of Rapha as a higher quaility retailer of cycling gear - if somewhat expensive)

 

 

*Some might question whether even items returned within the 14 day change of mind cancellation period need to be "saleable" to qualify for a refund, but not relevant here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to @rapha : Clothing became unstitched after wearing and washing twice. Item is currently still within 30 days of purchase.

I'm sure they probably haven't, but you do know they can simply refuse* to accept mail that has to be signed for?

 

All you need to do is send it first class from a post office and ask for a free proof of posting certificate.  The Interpretation Act then deems it to have been delivered to the addressee two working days later - unless the addressee can prove they did not receive it, which is very difficult to do.  (That's why Notices of Intention to Prosecute for speeding are sent out first class by the police and not signed for - it's virtually impossible for the recipient to prove it was not delivered and thereby served on them.  If it's sent signed for, the recipient can simply refuse to accept delivery).

 

Signed for really hasn't any advantage over first class plus proof of posting, and in many ways is less useful.

 

*I'm not sure what the current position is concerning Covid anyway.  Is anything signed for at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to @rapha : Clothing became unstitched after wearing and washing twice. Item is currently still within 30 days of purchase.**Settled**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...