Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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

SAMSUNG not honouring warranty for screen damage - **RESOLVED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 112 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

My mobile phone came with a 2 year warranty for repairs to screen except for that caused by accidental damage.

The screen has a problem which requires replacement of the whole screen but SAMSUNG are demanding payment.

I have contested this with their contracted repairs company, and plan to escalate to SAMSUNG,

I was wondering what I can do if SAMSUNG simply refuse to repair the phone.

I understand that OFCOM don't exist anymore; has the government replaced them with another authority?

 

Help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the screen actually damaged in that is the glass broken? Or is it simply that electronically it has ceased to function?

 

Also, who sold it to you

 

I'm also rather curious to know why you think that Ofcom would have anything to do with the problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

BankFod, bought from 3 network with a contract. 

Screen looked okay to me except for the inner screen protector which bubbled up and at one point looked cracked (I think it's mad of Perspex like material). 

I may have been thinking of Office of Fair Trading. I remember them stepping in and resolving a problem with CURRYS warranty years ago

I've email Samsung as per above, lets see what they say.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The office of fair trading doesn't exist any more and anyway, they would never have dealt with the individual complaint like this. Trading standards might have done but a very long time ago. They completely change now.
The only person who will help you will be yourself – and with our help if you want.

I'm still not sure why you think that Ofcom might have been interested.

When did you get the telephone?

If there is no damage on the outside of the screen then I don't think it's possible to say that it was deftly damaged by you. I think that there is sufficient leeway and explanations that you could make a good case that it was simply some fault with the telephone

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say the inner screen, is this one of the foldables? The warranty for Samsung foldables is 1 year for a screen replacement, not 2. It is also not free, and there is a small deductible to pay.

As bankfodder states, when did you purchase the phone?

Double check that you're not double covered, normally with contract phones you'll get a warranty with your supplier as well for the duration of the contract. (even if it's not needed due to consumer rights laws). It might be worth, if this is the case, seeing if Three is willing to repair/replace the phone instead of Samsung.


 

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

Posted (edited)

Samsung have confirmed that it will not repair under warranty. 😕

 

Cheaper for me to sell the phone as used and put that money towards a newer mobile. 

Edited by bitemarx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand. You have been asked twice now when you first bought the phone. You are first of all over 12 hours ago and yet you still haven't told us and I am getting the impression that you don't want to let us know.

Maybe you could confirm this and tell us why not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Phone was bought in January 2023. Sorry but I couldn't access the website.

SAMSUNG have not replaced the screen but they have somehow fixed it so that it looks like a new screen!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to stand by for a response because it will take a while to go back over and refresh our understandings about this.
This happens when people don't engage with this thread properly

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't need a response anymore since Samsung has given me a satisfactory resolution.

I am, of course, eternally grateful for the responses and the guidance from all in this forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to SAMSUNG not honouring warranty for screen damage - **RESOLVED**

Okay, I jumped the gun. I didn't read your post properly.

Thank you very much indeed for letting us know. If it is a satisfactory outcome for you then that is excellent. Well done

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...