Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Claiming because wide screen TV broke after 17 months :-(


tw0906blue
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5654 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, I need help and support!

I bought on credit - and yes I know I can claim via the cc company, but why should Comet get away with it? - a 28" wide screen tv and guess what - it has stopped switching on. It just goes "tick, tick, tick" trying to switch on but it doesn't!

It is my fault that I didn't sort this out when the tv did this temporarily, like for a couple of seconds, in the first year...like loads of us I put my head in the sand and hoped it would never do it again! Stupid eh?

 

Anyway, I called Comet and asked for the tv to be repaired/replaced under European Law (I had seen the Euro Commissioner on tv saying we all have a 2 year manufacturers warrenty). Anyway, Comet were not interested in that but said, in a very proud voice I might add, that they in fact give 6 years cover for major faults. When pressed, they couldn't say what a major fault may comprise of except the "tube" going. Then the bomb shell. They want £60 up front for one of their engineers, or a franchise who work for them, to come and see if it is a "major" fault. Pretty major I suggested when it isn't working so can't be fit for purpose. Anyway, I had looked up Trading Standards website and seen that in fact they are required by law to give 6 years cover of "major" faults. But it has to be proved that the fault was, on the balance of probability, there from the start or waiting to happen due to a malfunctioning part etc....usual wooly speak which helps the trader not the consumer. The £60 is refunded if they agree it is a major fault - yeah right and how often do they agree it is a major fault do you think?

 

I have written twice to them using the TS template letter as a base and twice they have called to say I have to pay the £60 etc. They will of course refund it if it is shown that there is a major fault. And there we have it again, that "major fault"

 

TS are not being any more help, prevaricating but did say they thought £60 was rather steep! But no advice as to what to do next if I wont pay it.

 

My arguement is that

1. Comet should not charge such a punative amount, which is obviously designed to stop consumers from complaining, or

2. if consumers do complain it is all in Comets favour as to what is in fact wrong with the tv and whether that constitutes a "major" fault.

3. If there is a statute saying we have consumer right to cover they should assess the damage and then get into whether it is a pay for repair or not.

 

Comet it seems to me are laughing all ways round.

 

So, help, what can I do? Go the cc route and let Comet off the hook? Take them to court for breach of contract or something? Not fulfilling their part of the Sale of Goods Act Legislation?

 

AND, the football starts in 4 weeks!

 

Good grief, don't let anyone you know buy from them!

 

Thanks all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

I would contact your CC company as sometimes they have sway with the shop.

 

Also they might site a deadline if you persue this afterwards!

 

If you are covered by a 2 year warranty then you are entitled to get it fixed/replaced.

 

Sorry I cant be of more help!

 

Good Luck!

 

Lou x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for getting back so quickly.

 

I have used the TS site thanks anyway and looked at all the literature. Seems to me that the Act is so wooly that unless the tv actually exploded or something equally dramatic it is more or less useless.

 

I have had an independent tv man in this morning to give me an assessment. He says it isn't what Comet would call a "major" fault. As it is the breaker I can hear ticking, preventing the tv from starting up. He reckons a small component has blown - way before it should but that it will be a small chip! As that's what they are mostly made of.

 

I cracked anyway and he has taken it away to fix it - up to £150 he reckons. He is a local guy who I have used before and trust, so beleive what he says.

 

But, I am not going to let this rest! I will write again to Comet and claim the repair cost...bet I know what they will say and I will approach the cc company and ask for a refund and see what happens.

 

I may even write to my MP and see where that takes me...after all it is infuriating that the tv has broken so soon and the legislation doesn't help!

 

My engineer guy confirmed that Comet are bad news for large purchases as the after care is one of the worst...but he confessed to buying stuff frojm them as they are the cheapest. I guess what my Dad used to say is correct - you get what you pay for!

 

Wish me luck :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing a key point in the concept of satisfactory quality. This has a much wider definition than merchantable quality. The test seems to be whether a reasonable person would expect a breakdown to occur within the timeframe in question. If they wouldn't then you have a cause for action. Read Bankfodder's threads and postings on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

hi there

 

i am in a similar position with a philips lcd tv which is 18 months old and stopped working. i like you contacted comet and was fobbed off with the same offer. I would be interested in finding out how you got on.

 

I was told be head office to contact the manufacturer as it had nothing to do with Comet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to say I didn't get anywhere. And to my shame I let it drop. :-( I got the repair done and the local guy gave me a complete receipt so it could be seen what I had had done. I called Trading Standards who were great with the info but that's as far as they could go with help. Well that's what I was told. Reading back what I intended to do, I am ashamed that I let it drop, but I needed more support as I was lost. All in all it was a very disappointing foray into trying to get some support for an obvious manufacturing fault. If I had taken my complaint back to Comet, I guess they would have fobbed me off again and I just ran out of fight....which is of course what Comet were angling for. Surfice it to say I tell everyone I know not to buy through Comet, but most people just look at me as if I am a sad person and go ahead anyway! I will never buy anything through them again. Good luck with your campaign. Maybe your Trading Standards people will be able to help you. I truely wish I had taken it on further now. But life got in the way and the £150 repair hit I just took on the chin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Anyway, Comet were not interested in that but said, in a very proud voice I might add, that they in fact give 6 years cover for major faults.

 

 

Sorry to dig an old thread up, but which Comet was this? I've just been to my local Comet but they didn't seem to have any similar poilicy.

 

I think my TV has a major fault. The plasma screen itself has failed, the TV is only 27months old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There

 

Comet Are Arseholes. I Contacted Philips Dirctly And Threaten To Sue Them. I Got The Tv Checked Out At My Local Repairs Shop And It Was The Power Unit Which Ws Bust. Philips Agreed To Send Out The Part For Free. I Ended Up Just Having To Pay For The Costs Of The Repair. I Agree There Must Be More Comet Should Do But Until Now I Don't Know Of Anyone Who Has Got The Bottle To Pursue Them To The Small Claims Court.

 

Go For It

 

Issaq

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Currys are the worst.

 

Brought a samsung wide screen LCD just 7 weeks ago, the screen has gone a deep red colour (unwatchable). Reported the fault to Currys on the day it happened, not interested, phone Samsung.

 

Samsung say, phone a certain tv repair shop. So i phone this certain repair shop. They cannot come out to look at the tv for 5 days. When they do turn up they take the telly away for repairs. Could take 5-7 days for the repairs.

 

So thats £500 for a telly that lasted 7 weeks We have now been without the TV for a week and looking at the possibility of being with out a tv for at least a further 5 days (Perilously close to christmas :eek:)

 

Currys, not interested, won't refund, won't replace, won't give a loan tv, will only tell us to phone Samsung, it is not their problem as it happened outside the 28 day return period. TV are classed as luxury items and therefore do not NEED to be replaced.

 

Samsung not interested, Can't refund, won't replace, won't give a loan tv, will only repair the old one. Keep telling us to phone Currys as our contract is with the retailer.

 

TV repair shop don't do loan TV's

 

I was under the impression that an LCD tv is expected to last approx 10,000 hours of use. We had less than 250hrs on ours. That strikes me as unnacceptable and yet no-one will accept responsibility and we are effectively powerless.

 

It's so frustrating:evil:, a call to Watchdog is circulating in my mind;)

 

(I know to some that £500 is chump change but to me it is a LOT of money.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that very few customers know the law and even fewer customer service representatives know it either.

 

If you buy a television made by philips (for instance) from comet (for instance ) then you enter into a contract with comet. It is them who have to provide goods which are Fit For Purpose (ie will not pack up after 2 seconds use) not the mfr.

As was mentioned earlier - the reasonable man test may enter into proceedings in that if a reasonable man would expect a TV they paid £500 to last more than 250 hours use (and I cannot see why he wouldnt) then the goods are not of a satisfactory quality and it is the SELLERS responsibility to put it right.

Not only that - if the fault occurs within the first 6 months then it is the SELLERS responsibility to PROVE that the goods sold were fit for purpose.

 

Unfortunately you go into shop and complain and they say - not our fault speak to manufacturer - AND PEOPLE GO AWAY AND DO THAT. thus abdicating the shop of their responsibility.

 

Dont do it.

 

Tell the shop that under SOGA and common law it is THEM that has to resolve this issue and that unless THEY sort it out you will be taking action against THEM.

 

If there is a problem with the manufacture of the television then it is upto the shop to take that up with the manufacturer - not you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5654 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...