Home » Forums

[mdbarber]

Got both sides telling me they are right??

Buying A car Stereo Online?

On 12/12/07 a Sony mex2500 car cd player was purchased form incarexpress.co.uk for a christmas present.

This cost approx £86 incl delivery.

This was installed a couple of days after xmas and worked fine, for less than 10mins then it died and failed to respond with any more than an occasional beep.

Contacting the support department I was given no help/support other than instructions to complete the on-line returns form and return the unit at my expense insured to the correct value is nearly £20.00 Surely this suggests they think it's faulty

I am an experienced IT field engineer and was able to test wiring voltages and continuity with a multi-meter, also luckily a friend of mine had received the same unit as a christmas present.
His was professionally fitted, so i was able to remove his unit swap the connector over to my unit in his vehicle (eliminating any wiring or car issues), still not working.
The unit remained unresponsive, yet my friends unit worked fine when replaced and refitting the original stereo to my car (a very similar unit wo bluetooth) worked ok as well.

Despite many emails and telephone calls to this firm, including management, they stand with the original instructions it was up to me to pay for return with no assurance of compensation.
This was backed up with the claim that 95% of units returned to them were not faulty on testing contradicting their instructions?, but still no suggestion as to what I might be doing wrong.

Now its bad enough receiving a faulty product, but with this companies policy of penny pinching and not caring how much distress it causes to their customer i then have to ask to what lengths will this go?

Will they take the unit back and claim its not faulty?, perhaps holding it till further payment is made "for testing"?
i have heard stories of these firms making more money from this than actual sales.

My local trading standards says i can reject the goods under the sale of goods act and am under no obligation to return goods but they say their T&C's state i must pay for this, who is right?

[littlejaffa]

It sounds like you think your local trading standards have told you that you can report the item as faulty and keep it, paying nothing to the company. That's not right.

If the suppliers t&c's say your responsible for returning the item should it be faulty/unwanted etc, you could have checked that before buying so can't realy blame them, it may not be nice, but it is legal. You wouldn't try and claim your bus fair back if you returned something to a high street store and this is the same - ish. The supplier are responsible only for the goods, not the royal mail and their pricing policy.

You seem to be going of on a 'worst case senario' tangent (distress?) Unless you know of a reason the company might do these things give them a chance. In the same situation i'd be more annoyed at myself for not reading the t&c's and so avoiding the problem in the first place.

I'd try and get an e-mail from them saying there's is nothing more they can sugest you try (to fix or check your unit) and they ask you to return it. That will give you more clout but still, they are in the right.

[mdbarber]

"It sounds like you think your local trading standards have told you that you can report the item as faulty and keep it, paying nothing to the company. That's not right."

Thats not what is being said at all,

Trading standards are saying its up to the seller to deal with faulty goods, they are trying to cop out on the basis the goods may not be faulty, (i'm confident they are)

yes i admit i didnt check out the t&c's too thoroughly but as usual rushing to live life, work and do xmas shopping assumed statutory protection was enough

[amdavies]

Get back to Trading Standards and get either a written explanation from them or a link to any relevant passages online.
Then quote this to the company.

rant
From my experience, Ts&Cs are rarely worth the paper they're written on. If a company is trying to use them to breach consumer law then the whole document could be null and void. Not many have anything beyond what you're legally entitled to so why have them in the first place ?
Too many companies use consumers lack of knowledge to defraud them of monies hoping that the ones who do notice and create a fuss are enough of a minority not to cost them too much profit.
Personally, I think that these companies that attempt to defraud consumers by using illegal Ts&Cs should be brought up on charges more often. There seems to be a "no harm, no foul" approach when they're caught trying to push consumers into negating their statutory rights.
/rant

[mdbarber]

uuummmm sounds like you've bin bitten at some stage too?

[amdavies]

Nah, I'm just of the opinion that a good vent against suitable targets once in a while is good for the soul.

[Jane Blackford]

I would return the item, get them to admit it is faulty, and then tell them that as it was faulty it is up to them to refund the postage. Don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure that if an item is faulty the return cost is supposed to be met by the supplier, but at the same time they don't want to mess about getting payment off customers who send non-faulty items to them before they can release them.

At the same time look at slightly cheaper ways of sending it - £20 does seem a little excessive but I don't know the weight. Parcelforce 48 is £14.99 up to about 10kg with £150 compensation. That's just 2 minutes of looking around.

We know you're a professional - they only have your word for that and I'm sure a lot of people tell them that.

I would get the item sorted, then sort out the postage later. What's the point of being left with a faulty stereo whilst arguing with them?

[1jim]

I would suggest trading standards are correct in this, if the product is faulty you should not be in a worse position that you would have been had the goods been in working order, in other words you should not be out of pocket because they supplied you with duff goods. You may need to pay initially to return the item but I would advise them that you reject the goods under the sales of goods act, add that they are liable for the costs to return the item and that you expect an immediate refund of the cost of the item + costs and if this is not recieved within x days you will take them to smalls claims court. To be honest I would not try another item from this company if this is the way they try and solve problems.

[Optimist]

As the item is faulty trading standards are correct although I think it comes more under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, specifically to regulation 14 which states that you may not make any charge in relation to the supply of goods under a contract whereby the cancellation of the contract is due to the breach of implied terms of the contract.

Their T&C s cannot over write your rights in law

[Jack's Dad]

It may be worth a look at this site, it is independent and gives good advice. It also covers exactly what you are talking about

[mdbarber]

Still not sure what to make of it all and tbh not really sure i trust this lot to behave honestly after the semi threatening letter i received trying to scare me with over the top expense claims should i go to court and lose.
Have to be honest it was more of a matter of principle, whilst i could afford the cost of return i know many young lads who wouldn't be in a position to, my stepson included who lives out of his pocket lol

[amdavies]

Remember, the company has your money and are very pleased with it. In fact, they will do as much as they legally can to keep it, they like it that much.
Some companies may even resort to borderline illegal methods to try and make sure that the money stays with them.

Read these threads about ITC Sales if you don't believe me:-

http://forums.hexus.net/shopping-ret...reputable.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ales-co-i.html


As I said, the reason why they try this on is because they know they can get away with it enough of the time to may it cost-effective. If more people got knowledgeable about the situation and/or got legal advice, how many do you think would try it on then ?
It's too easy for most folks to simply chalk it off as a bad debt and just not bother shopping there again, most don't even tell anyone - apathy rules !

Get back on to Trading Standards, get them to tell you exactly what you need to quote to the company involved and then do so. Small Claims Court is a fairly easy process, have a read up on it if you have some spare time.

[fonzy8]

I've been stung before with this and Microdirect however the unit broke about 6 months in (even though there was a 12 month warranty with the goods) they offered a partial refund on the price it was when it broke and didnt offer the postage back even though the unit was faulty. I didn't think 6 months was a reasonable service life for a freeview recorder, but I didnt have time/inclination to do the court thing but I'm sure I probably would have won in the end. What I did do - big mistake - after talking to one of the directors was get offered a replacement box which I received and that was dead on arrival and rather than lose another £15 or so to send it back again I just gave up! NEVER SHOP AT MICRODIRECT (if you want support)! I also left a review on the Microdirect website saying that I've had 2 units and they both broke within 6 months but it never made it to the product review on the website which I thought was bad!

I'm with "Optimist" here. They have breached their contract in that they didnt supply the goods/services in working condition. I think 10 mins of working is definitely not a reasonable life for a car radio so they couldnt really argue that in court. If you reported within two weeks (I think), I'm sure you are under the Distance Selling regulations which say you should not be out of pocket so they should refund your postage if you say you dont want it, but you should send the unit back so they can confirm it is faulty and go from there.

I'm not a lawyer but from what you posted, you would win in a small claims court so don't worry too much about the bullying tactics - if they receive a writ I'm sure they'll settle out of court but they bank on the fact that not many people would go that far!

Main point learnt is that cheapest place to buy isn't always the best! If you want to take the risk buy cheap but expect to pay more in the long run if things go wrong. If you want the extra insurance that the item is going to last a while, pay a bit more at a retailer with better support policies.

Personally I buy cheapest in most cases. Microdirect is the only bad deal I've had so far and the money I lost there is nothing to what I've saved overall - but I won't be buying from there again though as I feel the quality of the goods they supply isn't up to much after having two dead units.

Are there any websites out there that are targetted at saying whether suppliers are good/bad rather than just general? It sounds like the UK needs something that just says supplier x sells y units and has z complaints - at least you can make a decent judgement on the risk of buying from them!

[mdbarber]

As a quick side note last week i made some purchases off ebuyer, one item was faulty, the power switch collapsed after 2 uses, this was a £28.00 computer drive box.
Waited and heard nothing, then looked on their enotes system and the rma and collection had been approved, a couple of xtra clicks later and there is a courier appointment booked for next week on my mrs's day off.
Ummmm some seem to get it so right, why cant others?

[hunsbury0]

If you have paid for it by Credit card, then I think you can do a charge back for it, Contacting the credit card company.

[simes]

Its not unreasonable to expect you to pay to return the goods. If after testing it is confirmed faulty , then they should refund your postage costs.
This policy seems to be pretty much standard with most retailers sending goods out that require installation. Car stereos are an item that can easily not work due to incorrect fitting as you are surely aware. Its not like a kettle or a toaster that simply either works or is definately faulty.
Why not give them a chance to test and refund.

What you should be getting confirmed is that if it is found to be faulty they refund your return postage costs.

As for threatening letters, it is clearly yourself that has gone over the top threatening court action before you have even given them a chance.
What did you expect them to do ?


I had a faulty monitor from amazon at christmas ( the company with one of the best customer service records). They did collect the goods ( but then a monitor is not an item that requires complicated fitting).
They still had to recieve the item back, and test it is faulty before they refunded the money 30 days later.

[computersaysdoh]

Check Sale of Goods Act. Are they in breach of contract when the goods are fawlty?

Even if you still have got the goods, and some would say that takes you past the DSR time limit, I would have thought you as the consumer should be protected by SOGA - you cant be expected to pay cost of returning item.

You might want to check with credit card company - even tho less than £100 . .

[mdbarber]

Originally Posted by simes

Its not unreasonable to expect you to pay to return the goods. If after testing it is confirmed faulty , then they should refund your postage costs.
This policy seems to be pretty much standard with most retailers sending goods out that require installation. Car stereos are an item that can easily not work due to incorrect fitting as you are surely aware. Its not like a kettle or a toaster that simply either works or is definately faulty.
Why not give them a chance to test and refund.

What you should be getting confirmed is that if it is found to be faulty they refund your return postage costs.

As for threatening letters, it is clearly yourself that has gone over the top threatening court action before you have even given them a chance.
What did you expect them to do ?


I had a faulty monitor from amazon at christmas ( the company with one of the best customer service records). They did collect the goods ( but then a monitor is not an item that requires complicated fitting).
They still had to recieve the item back, and test it is faulty before they refunded the money 30 days later.

Why exactly is it not unreasonable (double neg sorry)to expect someone who has had the misfortune of paying good money to receive faulty goods to then have to pay out more money?

As for car stereos being misfitted,, a well trained chimp can do them and its not like i didn't request any support before complaining, it was their idea to send it back!
And in the last month i have been to two calls where monitors were fitted incorectly

I tried to get them to offer a guarantee of paying return postage if unit was found faulty the declined and i have copies of emails to prove that

Where does it say in my posts i had threatened court action??.
You seem to be assuming an awful lot instead of reading the posts here friend because Trading Standards themselves agree with me

[jdh488]

I Know in the past even when I have made purchases on Ebay if goods are defective most companies accept the fact that an item is defective it is their responibility to rectify the fault or replace the item at their expense, if this company were to send out a replacement unit, with a company agreement it would cost them a minimal amount with a collection on delivery, like Dabs and Ebuyer operate, problem solved, it just goes to show how big companies get big with excellent customer service and others end up loosing business, i certainly would not buy from this company!!

[mdbarber]

LMAO,,, ebay trader beats these guys on customer service