Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

Art_2

reformed_84 wrote: »

Hi everyone,
I am really hoping someone can give me some advise on the below....
My boyfriend wanted to do an IT MCSE course via a company called Advent Training. They sent a representative out to see him and explained the course and payment methods for the course etc etc... My boyfriends mother and I sat with James to ask questions as well to make sure it was a kosher deal. His mother was more concerned about being tied to a financial commitment [of just under 5k] and not wanting to see the course through (you know how parents worry!) so she asked the rep if at any point he wanted to cancel it, could he do so? He said yes he could and he'd just have to pay for materials and exams that Advent would have put him through up to that point. Great we thought!!! So the first disk arrives, he does that and then has to wait for a month for some tutor to post out the next step of training- that arrives- a 4 inch thick manual!! No specific tutor to assist just some functional account! My boyfriend tried to learn the manual and coouldnt take to it. So he wanted to cut his losses- not liking the training methodology being used and called to cancel his subscription.
He was advised he couldnt just cancel, he had sign to pay the full balance of the course! he explained what the rep had advised and we have been told to write formally to them.
HELP!!!- surely this company cannot get away with this sort of thing!! My boyfriend signed an agreement to pay the sum of the course via a loan with Clydesdale bank- lookin at the paper work the loan plus interest is almost double the course amount!
A friend of ours also signed up for the course and was advised the same thing and looking at various forums lots of people seem to be having problems with this company!

Has anyone got any advise for us? I have drafted a letter explaining the situation and advise we had been given. Do I send it and see what happens??

Thanks
Sarah

Legally, you are liable to pay the full amount of the course. You have signed a credit agreement. You should have read the agreement before signing. Unfortunately ignorance is no defence.

However, if you feel you were mis-sold the course and you have evidence that others have also been misled, write to the company with a full explanation of the situation and copy your letter to the credit company as well. Demand that they cancel your agreement with them.

Regards,
Art.

reformed_84

Art wrote: »

Legally, you are liable to pay the full amount of the course. You have signed a credit agreement. You should have read the agreement before signing. Unfortunately ignorance is no defence.

However, if you feel you were mis-sold the course and you have evidence that others have also been misled, write to the company with a full explanation of the situation and copy your letter to the credit company as well. Demand that they cancel your agreement with them.

Regards,
Art.

Thanks Art, much appreciated!:beer:

Marty06

I'm sure this has been raised before in previous guises, but this thought just struck me as I reads through this thread, and currently battle with Amazon about a faulty DVD player.

I used to assume that companies were simply ignorant about the Sale of Goods Act - that sales staff were confused by the difference between manufacturer warranties and legal obligations etc.

In my recent encounter with Amazon I've come to realise that Amazon (and thus probably other companies too) have deliberately framed a policy which is sub-legal and are playing a deliberate game of catch-me-if-you-can. i.e. They know they have obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, but their 'policy' is that they will not do anything with a faulty product after twelve months. If you mention the Sale of Goods Act their response is not "Yes, we see we do have some legal duty, let's discuss it" but rather "So sue me".

In other words, they won't abide by the law unless a judge makes them.

What an unethical stance!

Can nothing be done to make companies implement the law as a matter of course, rather than them allowing them to say, "we'll only do something if we're told to"...??

Art_2

Marty06 wrote: »

I'm sure this has been raised before in previous guises, but this thought just struck me as I reads through this thread, and currently battle with Amazon about a faulty DVD player.

I used to assume that companies were simply ignorant about the Sale of Goods Act - that sales staff were confused by the difference between manufacturer warranties and legal obligations etc.

In my recent encounter with Amazon I've come to realise that Amazon (and thus probably other companies too) have deliberately framed a policy which is sub-legal and are playing a deliberate game of catch-me-if-you-can. i.e. They know they have obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, but their 'policy' is that they will not do anything with a faulty product after twelve months. If you mention the Sale of Goods Act their response is not "Yes, we see we do have some legal duty, let's discuss it" but rather "So sue me".

In other words, they won't abide by the law unless a judge makes them.

What an unethical stance!

Can nothing be done to make companies implement the law as a matter of course, rather than them allowing them to say, "we'll only do something if we're told to"...??

You are absolutely right. Companies try to get rid of the customer and in most cases succeed. They are happy to have to deal only with the odd one that stands up to them and wins in the Small Claims Court.

Companies that ignore their obligations should be fined by the DTI. Every customer that has a problem should write to the DTI and make a fuss. This will bring the government's attention to the situation that is not easy for the customer to get quick and easy recourse.

Maybe Martin could use his influence to make everyone aware of this problem and campaign for companies to be made responsible for applying the law correctly.

Regards,
Art.

Marty06

Yes - I think it needs to be brought to public and government attention otherwise companies trade (literally) on ignorance and act with impunity. I think it would be a great campaign for Martin and other consumer rights champions to take up.

Jangla

Got a Samsung G600 a few months ago and have an issue with it. Primarily it doesn't adhere to Bluetooth standards in that it's not backwards compatible with all Bluetooth 1.1 devices such as headsets.

Anyway, sent the first one back and they replaced it with a refurb (which was annoying in itself).

Same problem.

At Nauseum.

Long story short, I've had a nightmare series of handsets with scratched screens/faulty software/etc etc. I'm on my 5th handset now and this one keeps switching itself off every 20 minutes!

Basically I'd like the supplier to replace it with a different model/manufacturer.
They're refusing and insist on attempting to repair each handset - this involves me sending it off, being without a handset for 2 weeks and then them sending back a different refurb because "we don't have time to repair your old handset in a reasonable time".

I'd like to know what my rights are here and what I can hit them with to convince them I mean business. Last time I spoke to a manager they claimed that as the handset was free I had no options at all - which I wasn't having - so they changed their story to "you'll have to contact the manufacturer of the phone."

swt61

Plesae this thread also,


:- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=802517..
thanks,

Simon

reehsetin

Jangla wrote: »

Got a Samsung G600 "

you havent said where you got it from

Art_2

swt61 wrote: »

Plesae this thread also,


:- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=802517..
thanks,

Simon

When you got the court judgment was it against the person or his company?

If it was against the individual, you say you know where he lives so go back to court and ask them to send bailiffs to the address to possess goods to the value of your claim.

Regards,
Art.

Art_2

Jangla wrote: »

Got a Samsung G600 a few months ago and have an issue with it. Primarily it doesn't adhere to Bluetooth standards in that it's not backwards compatible with all Bluetooth 1.1 devices such as headsets.

Anyway, sent the first one back and they replaced it with a refurb (which was annoying in itself).

Same problem.

At Nauseum.

Long story short, I've had a nightmare series of handsets with scratched screens/faulty software/etc etc. I'm on my 5th handset now and this one keeps switching itself off every 20 minutes!

Basically I'd like the supplier to replace it with a different model/manufacturer.
They're refusing and insist on attempting to repair each handset - this involves me sending it off, being without a handset for 2 weeks and then them sending back a different refurb because "we don't have time to repair your old handset in a reasonable time".

I'd like to know what my rights are here and what I can hit them with to convince them I mean business. Last time I spoke to a manager they claimed that as the handset was free I had no options at all - which I wasn't having - so they changed their story to "you'll have to contact the manufacturer of the phone."

When did you buy the original phone?

Regards,
Art.