Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason why they are sending text (idle) threats is because the only way they can make money from debts that they buy is by frightening people into paying up. Ask yourself the question? If it’s such an open and shut case for them to win, why haven’t they just issued a claim form already and got their ‘top lawyer’ on it .
    • Ok, i'll post the contract on here if I get it.   
    • We were told that to service our twin axle caravan the cost was £250.  We also requried additional work and we would pay to have done.  We were phoned by the dealer and told cost was £279 which was fair enough for the extra work as labour charge is £60 an hour.  On collection they added on extras like oil, grease and brake cleaner at £8, CO2 gas check at £3 and 32mm Alko flange at £18.  On the two previous occasions the charge of £250 included oil, grease, brake cleaner and Alko flange which is a one shot nut.  the caravan has done 1050 miles since it slast servcie in Oct 2019.  How can they do a service without using oil, grease and brake cleaner?  For the amount of £8 I coudl have bought a tin of grease, a can of oil and a can of brake cleaner.  It is a caravan that does not have an engine and the only actual service parts are the running gear i.e. axles, wheels and hitch.  All the rest are checks i.e. damp check and gas pressure check for leaks.  As for the CO2 gas check is a totla rip off as CO2 is carbon dioxide and not carbon monoxide!  To justify the charge of £3 they used regulations relating to tenancy domestic agreement which is not applicable to caravans ! Unfortunately as they had our caravan to get it back we had no option except to pay for the service plus the extras!  Really annoyed, but what can you do as they have you over a barrel?    
    • After reading around some more, I realise I should have mentioned I also did a Subject Access Request, however I don't think I did this correctly i.e. it was a bullet point amongst others in an email. I guess I should do this request separately and in letter form, recorded delivery? Can I also send this via email?
    • Even if the contract appears to be binding - that doesn't necessarily mean that it is all above board.   With all respect to the Which team, their advice is generally a bit luke-warm and sheltered.   Let us see the contract as well - if and when you get it.   Also even though there appears to be a contract, it doesn't mean that they will honour it and it certainly doesn't mean that they would be prepared to expose themselves in court in order to try to enforce it.    "Binding contracts" may often be useful to frighten people into pay up
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Faulty goods - entitlement to a refund within six months


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2932 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Please stop making things up.

 

We've drilled down to 48C which seems to be where you disagree

 

You say in respect of 48C(2):-

Or the buyer can rescind/reduce price if it is too much of an inconvience (not its going away for a week and I need my nintendo ds now), or you are making them run around for this replacement or repair. If they spend 2 months to screw a bolt on then they have taken to long and you are entilited to rescind.
..which apart from being unsupported and confused opinion, HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH 48C(2). In fact 48C(2) from your own quote says:-

 

48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

......which is self-evident.

 

You, sir, are being a dougnut, sir.

 

You then follow on with stuff about repairs/replacements which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of refund/recission and can only serve to muddy the waters unnecessarily.

 

More irrelevant, misleading, unsupported and false stuff:-

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is— (You cannot force the retailer into a replacement or repair, note this is down to the retailer NOT YOU)

(a) impossible, or (You can't fix it, no replacement exists fair enough)

(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(The RETAILER decides its going to cost to much)

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below. (the RETAILER decides this will be cheaper)

Note all of above is down to the seller, not the buyer you do not get to decide that its going to cost them too much.

But a question emerges:-

Therefore if the retailer decides they want to give you a replacement, where can you force a refund on them?
Right here (again):-
48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

....and then you go on to accuse me of ignoring parts of the legislation which smacks of hypocrisy and spout more uninformed opinion without reference to the law we're supposed to be discussing:-

You can't just ignore parts of this act because it suits you, or it doesn't mention a refund. Its like going to watch a movie and telling the cashier you don't want to pay today. In a normal day to day case a replacement or repair is cheaper, if its not the retailer can offer you a refund.
...then have a go at my "FREE lawyer" who is in fact a Senior Associate with Pinsent Masons and the Editor of OUT-LAW.com

Just because a FREE laywer said you might be onto something, doesn't make it law
...then more uninformed opinion without anything to back it up whatsoever where you try to drag somebody else into the mess you've made...

you have 2 people here trying to explain as best they can to you that you can not force a refund onto the retailer. It doesn't matter whether its within the 6 months or not, unless the seller cannot fix it or replace it, and the goods can be repaired/replaced within a suitable period, and without alot of hassle, you have no grounds to demand a refund. You are only entitlied to a refund, when rejecting goods within a reasonable amount of time, due to a inherent fault.
Enough!
Link to post
Share on other sites

48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

 

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a) impossible, or

(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

 

----

It doesn't mention refund/rescind, you CANNOT ignore the conditions, it doesn't mention them as you are entitled to them when the conditions are not met. Most the irrelevant misleading stuff is the SOGA, and my notes next to the SOGA how the heck is that then unsupported.

 

I have gone on about repairs/refunds as that is in the conditions set, to follow before you are can get a refund.

 

b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

- Is where (I may ramble) I go on about section 48BC(2)

 

Note everything under the line above is uneditted and only bolded SOGA 48A-C

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4/10 - Could try harder. May I suggest (as we are at an impasse) that you go and get some legal advice and quote your source before passing Go or collecting £200 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will research and restructure, provide full sources etc, when I have time. However as a side note please do not link to this thread as law, and state that they are entitled to a refund within 6 months, whilst TS, DTI, Consumer Direct are still saying within a reasonable time.

 

Sale of Goods Act Quick Facts - DTI

Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK

 

As if your argument is true, it means these company's have it all wrong.

 

Btw my source has always been: Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended up to date to 1/10/2003

which is the actual act, and no fact sheet quotes etc have been quoted. There is no better source to provide then the act itself, so how any of the quotes are unsupported I have no clue.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious:

 

Please understand this. I am taking a degree in this field (just finished 2nd year). I have Solicitors, Trading Standards Officers, a (retired) High Court judge amongst others as my lecturers. I am doing very well in the course, and I have used my materials from university in my posts.

 

Are you now saying, and I am not being funny here, that what all these lecturers are saying is incorrect? That they have messed up a rather significant piece of legislation?

 

You have just taken apart Blitz's last post and said that it is rubbish. Can you please explain why? I have not found any inaccuracies in what Blitz has said about the Act. The points made by Blitz and myself have not yet been proven to be other than stated. Simply telling people that they are wrong, without any backup to support such a statement is unhelpful.

 

48C which you are specifically referring to states :

 

"(1) If section 48A applies, the buyer may [meaning can do so, but does not have to if they do not so wish]

(a) requite the seller to reduce the price of the goods....

OR

(b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods

IF the condition in subsection 2 (below) is satisfied.

(2) the condition is that-

(a) by virtue of section 48B(3), the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; [this bit means that, where replacement or repair is impossible, or disproportionate, then and only then the buyer may ask for a refund]

(b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a).......

the part about recission (48C(1)(b) applies ONLY IF the other remedies are impossible or disproportionate to the cost of recission, OR the seller has breached the requirements on repairing / replacing within reasonable time and with minimum inconvenience.

 

I really do not see what the problem is in understanding this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I received a very short (but free) opinion today from a real live specialist e-commerce lawyer (I dont think there are many firms of those around in the UK). The question was:- and the reply came:-

 

"I wonder if you could offer any comment on whether web retailers should be confident in offering 30 day refund policies for faulty goods in light of the six month period in SOGA 1979 Part 5a?

 

In a nutshell does this mean that consumers can enjoy for the most part a six month period in which a refund can be requested should a fault develop?

 

My lay interpretation is that 48A (copied below for reference) would seem to be without any requirement for the issue of Acceptance as detailed in part 35 and that a contract of sale will in almost all cases have at the very least an implied 'fitness for purpose for a reasonable period' within it so I can't see subsection (4)(a) applying 99% of the time either."

 

and the reply came:-

 

Quote:

"Broadly speaking you are right."

 

I'm going to approach DTI, OFT and Trading Standards now and see if anything gives re amending guidelines and advice leaflets. It'll probably take a long time and may well come to nothing but what the hell. In for a penny and all that.

 

 

 

If the above is true then would that hold for say a used car bought on HP, if so who would be responsible the garage or the HP company, and if so then we need the written examples to show other people

Long time ago in a galaxy FAR FAR AWAY, there lived an elf who shot banks for a living.........

Now through the power of the internet there is the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP,

 

Watch out they are getting crafty those pesky CRITTERS!

 

Banks will tell you their charges are transparent!

So is the invisible man but that does not mean he is fair or lawful.

 

DONT GIVE UP! FOLLOW THE CAG ADVICE AND RECLAIM YOUR CHARGES.

CAPITAL BANK! YOU ARE NEXT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...

no idea, but gyzmo was right, the OP was failign to distinguish between tier one and tier two rights under the soga. And failing to actually understand the statute. It often helps to read the statute alongside decided case law. The situation is quite clear. the 6 months refers only to the burden of proof for tier two rights (repair, replace, reduction in price) and not tier one (rejection).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always disappointed obvious never came back to respond. 1 point to Gyzmo and I, right? - BiS are now redeveloping consumer law anyway, I really should look at the proposals sometime

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...