Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • means nothing. just trying to kid people its going up some kind of chain. get reading a good few threads here each day. dx  
    • also do an OC2 https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/256744-welcome-secured-loan-sold-to-coast/?do=findComment&comment=4917128  
    • ok  from the infamous cruzhughes mammoth welcome thread i remembered. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/394686-welcome-secured-loanscharge-sold-to-alphaprime-repo-received-claim-dismissed/?do=findComment&comment=5009109 prime credit 5 was a luvy co. along with alpha credit 5 their uk portal was thru prime credit,  loans were administered on their behalf by Acenden, Acenden are Part of the Kensington Group. ultimately these were mostly all sold to Coast  Prime_28th_Aug.pdf
  • 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

Compaq Presario M2000


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6134 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

It sounds like you've been talking to The Tech Guys, who are a repair agent.

 

If it helps, the usual procedure is this -

 

- Write to PC World customer services outlining the problem, quote any relevant acts that you wish to claim under.

- Because PC World customer services cannot see the product, they will usually ask you to get an independent report.

- Forward the report on to them.

- They will make a decision based on the contents of this report.

 

From experience, usual outcomes are;

 

- Claim is rejected

- Repair is contributed to

- Repair is paid for in full

- Item is replaced

- Partial refund offered

- Full refund offered

 

But this all depends on the contents of the report and the cost of any resolutions.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That's an autoresponder which gets sent out to everyone who emails in. You will more than likley receive a reply in the next couple of days, the PC World department is well on top of it's admin at the moment, but i expect they will ask you to forward substantiating documentation by post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Send the reference numbers from any previous correspondence and they can put the report with the previous stuff. I'm guessing that you forwarded documentation that contained no address or previous references.

 

If you just forwarded the report without any of this, there is no way to tie it all together.

 

Every email you receive will have a reference in the format PCWxxxxxCR and every letter you receive will have a reference CC0000xxxxxxx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, having translated your report I very much doubt that they will accept it. It's not detailed enough. It says that the laptop doesn't start up and the motherboard needs replacing.

 

There is no evidence to show how the fault occurred, what diagnostics have been used to determine the outcome. Nothing to show the condition of the laptop (ie has it been dropped, misused etc). The report shows no model number or serial number to verify that it is the same laptop that has been looked at is that which you are claiming for.

 

I'd hope your English report has more detail or I expect that you will be disappointed with the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but i'm still not convinced that it is detailed enough. I may be wrong.

The problem I would see is the wording 'most likely'. The reports are usually requested to determine the fault, not guess it.

 

Also, what if PC World agree to pay to have the motherboard replaced based on your report, and it turns out that the power supply is kicking out the wrong voltage causing the motherboard to blow? This has not been explored in your report. The repair will be ineffective and you'll no doubt expect it repairing again .. and again .. until someone decides to check the adapter.

 

CPU ... unchecked

Fuse ... unchecked

Voltages in Chile .. i don't know these, but if you require a step-up or step-down adapter, is this functioning properly?

 

As i said, I might be wrong, but I think they may request a more detailed report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...