Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

deanos

Was it Pixmania by any chance ?

If so they are a French shop, you can just get a shaver adaptor and it will work fine.

Lublin

No, it was UK Digital Cameras. I read some of their reviews, they were all good so i'm a bit miffed that there is no mention of this.
Thanks

Lawgirl

Lublin wrote: »

Hello

I recently bought a pansonic lumix digital camera from an online shop. When it arrived i found it did not have a UK battery charger adapter (i think its a US one). I'm slightly annoyed as this wasn't mentioned at all in the product description and i would have bought an adapter at the time if required. My partner and i also have a feeling that goods bought in the UK must be supplied with a UK plug, however i'm not sure if this only applies to large appliances such as TV and washing machines and things.
I have emailed the shop to ask for an explaination. Am i right to expect a uk plug?

Does anyone know the rules about these things?
Any help and info is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Lublin

Hi,

you are right to expect a UK plug if the item was ordered in the UK. First you need to check to see if the site was a UK site or not, if it is then you would need to make them aware that under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that the goods are not fit for the specific purpose of being used in the UK (s.14(3)) and so you could seek damages for the cost of having to get an adaptor, a replacement or a refund.

However, if the site was not UK based you would not have the right to make that assumption, and it is likely that the site would not be covered by UK law anyway.

Also you should check with your bank to see if they can help as depending on the price you may be covered by s.75 Consumer Credit Act or the bank may offer chargeback.

Hope this helps!

If not, contact Consumer Direct who will be able to discuss your options.

olly300

omissimo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm trying to find out what my rights are regarding 'free gifts', I recently renewed my orange mobile phone contract through the Carphone Warehouse because they had an offer to get a free PS3. They told me I would get one delivered within 14 days, it's now 3 months later and I still haven't received one. I've made numerous phone calls in which they fob me off by saying they're out of stock and that I'm top of the list when they get some. Is there anything I can do to get them to pull their fingers out?

Thanks

What was the small print on the offer? Do you have a copy of the advert that made you go for the phone?

Lots of companies are very careful to put wording on free gifts adverts such as "subject to availability" to avoid threats of legal action.

So unless you can establish what type of offer you had then it's very hard to fight this.

BTW from my experience carphonewarehouse are a company I will never deal with again in regards to offers or discounts. Their sales staff have difficulty in telling the truth and the company in general has an issue where they cannot sort a problem out quickly if something goes wrong.

Lawgirl

Matty007 wrote: »

Cheers Art

It seems that there defense seems to be based on a few things.

1 ) That it was my responsibility to obtain an engineer report to indentify the cause of failure and that the manufacturer would be best placed to carry out any report, but there was a delay in myself having any such inspection as I felt that it was the responsibilty of B&Q to instigate in any investigation.

My first letter was sent 2nd October 2007 outlining the fault and their responsibility to rectify the fault, even so it was out of their guarantee.

Letter received from 8th October 2007 from B&Q saying sorry but out of guarantee and cannot help.

My second letter sent 15th October 2007 saying even though it is out of guarantee I felt they had a legal responsibility to rectify the fault etc.

No reply

My third letter sent 26th October 2007 re-iterating their legal obligations and threatened SCC etc.

Received letter dated 31st October 2007 outlining that they could not establish whether this was a manufacturing fault or not. As B&Q are not experts in this field I should therefore contact the manufacturer direct who would be happy to deal with this matter for me. There would be a call out charge and if it is established that it is a manufacturing fault they would be happy to pay torwards the cost, however should the fault be due to wear and tear then my statutory rights would not cover these costs.

Then on 5th November called 'Customer Care' and got advice that included that my 'contract of sale' was with the manufacturer and that how did he know that I wasnt a professional Launderette !!!

In total exasperation I finally I contacted Indesit who sent out an engineer on 9th November 2007 and on the 13th November 2007 engineer came and changed the drum free of charge.

Sent fourth letter 13th November 2007 outling my intention to take them to the SCC and claim for Launderette costs and associated inconvenience.

42 days @ £4.00 per day costs and £15.00 per day inconvenience.

Received letter from B&Q saying that they will not cover any of these costs.

I am too go to SCC next Tuesday !!

Your thoughts Art ????

The difficulty with your case is that you seem to have the two issues between Indesit and B&Q confused. The law is clear in that it allows you to pursue one remedy and when you went back to Indesity after 11 months it could be argued you chose to pursue Indesit the manufacturers guarantee.

The main argument B&Q will have will be that you initially never pursued them under SGA for a rep / repl, you went directly to Indesit to have it repaired. They will argue that it is due to this repair being carried out incorrectly that the machine became faulty again and so they cannot be held liable for any losses you incur as a result of Indesits actions.

Had you gone back to B&Q to get the machine repaired the first time I would agree with Art and recommend you pursue for any consequential losses that you can prove (with receipts etc) under SGA, as the machine is not of satisfactory quality (the burden of proof remains with the consumer at this stage) and would agree that you would have a high probability of being successful but unfortunately this is not the case.

On the other hand, sometimes larger companies will leave actions undefended as this is cheaper for them and so you may be successful that way.

Lawgirl

Matty007 wrote: »

Cheers Art

It seems that there defense seems to be based on a few things.

1 ) That it was my responsibility to obtain an engineer report to indentify the cause of failure and that the manufacturer would be best placed to carry out any report, but there was a delay in myself having any such inspection as I felt that it was the responsibilty of B&Q to instigate in any investigation.

My first letter was sent 2nd October 2007 outlining the fault and their responsibility to rectify the fault, even so it was out of their guarantee.

Letter received from 8th October 2007 from B&Q saying sorry but out of guarantee and cannot help.

My second letter sent 15th October 2007 saying even though it is out of guarantee I felt they had a legal responsibility to rectify the fault etc.

No reply

My third letter sent 26th October 2007 re-iterating their legal obligations and threatened SCC etc.

Received letter dated 31st October 2007 outlining that they could not establish whether this was a manufacturing fault or not. As B&Q are not experts in this field I should therefore contact the manufacturer direct who would be happy to deal with this matter for me. There would be a call out charge and if it is established that it is a manufacturing fault they would be happy to pay torwards the cost, however should the fault be due to wear and tear then my statutory rights would not cover these costs.

Then on 5th November called 'Customer Care' and got advice that included that my 'contract of sale' was with the manufacturer and that how did he know that I wasnt a professional Launderette !!!

In total exasperation I finally I contacted Indesit who sent out an engineer on 9th November 2007 and on the 13th November 2007 engineer came and changed the drum free of charge.

Sent fourth letter 13th November 2007 outling my intention to take them to the SCC and claim for Launderette costs and associated inconvenience.

42 days @ £4.00 per day costs and £15.00 per day inconvenience.

Received letter from B&Q saying that they will not cover any of these costs.

I am too go to SCC next Tuesday !!

Your thoughts Art ????

The difficulty with your case is that you seem to have the two issues between Indesit and B&Q confused. The law is clear in that it allows you to pursue one remedy and when you went back to Indesit after 11 months it could be argued you chose to pursue Indesit under the manufacturers guarantee.

The main argument B&Q will have will be that you initially never pursued them under SGA for a rep / repl, you went directly to Indesit to have it repaired. They will argue that it is due to this repair being carried out incorrectly that the machine became faulty again and so they cannot be held liable for any losses you incur as a result of Indesits actions.

Had you gone back to B&Q to get the machine repaired the first time I would agree with Art and recommend you pursue for any consequential losses that you can prove (with receipts etc) under SGA, as the machine is not of satisfactory quality (the burden of proof remains with the consumer at this stage) and would agree that you would have a high probability of being successful but unfortunately this is not the case.

On the other hand, sometimes larger companies will leave actions undefended as this is cheaper for them and so hopefully you will be successful that way.

Lawgirl

chimp14uk wrote: »

Hi,
I recently ordered a mattress from Marshall Ward for around £40. I received a confirmation email confirming the order and the price.
The £40 was taken from my bank account.

However, I've just received another email saying that the prices on-line were incorrect and that they were cancelling the order. If I still wanted the mattress, I would now have to pay £159.20.

Do they have to honour the £40 price as this was taken from my account and therefore a contract was entered into?

Thanks in advance.

You don't necessarily have a contract, as the T&Cs are always relevant to the contract, especially online. If they state in the T&Cs when acceptance takes place (which most websites now do) then it may not matter that the amount was taken from the account. Some T&Cs state that acceptance is when you receive the confirmation email, some when the money is taken and most state that the order will be accepted after a certain timeframe or on delivery - this is to make sure human error doesn't eat into their profits.

They could also rely on the doctrine of mistake if it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the mattress was advertised at the wrong price, which may well be argued.

I would say try and negotiate with them some sort of discount but seriously consider the pros and cons of taking this to SCC, I would recommend talking it over with Consumer Direct again.

Matty007

Lawgirl wrote: »

The difficulty with your case is that you seem to have the two issues between Indesit and B&Q confused. The law is clear in that it allows you to pursue one remedy and when you went back to Indesity after 11 months it could be argued you chose to pursue Indesit the manufacturers guarantee.

The main argument B&Q will have will be that you initially never pursued them under SGA for a rep / repl, you went directly to Indesit to have it repaired. They will argue that it is due to this repair being carried out incorrectly that the machine became faulty again and so they cannot be held liable for any losses you incur as a result of Indesits actions.

Had you gone back to B&Q to get the machine repaired the first time I would agree with Art and recommend you pursue for any consequential losses that you can prove (with receipts etc) under SGA, as the machine is not of satisfactory quality (the burden of proof remains with the consumer at this stage) and would agree that you would have a high probability of being successful but unfortunately this is not the case.

On the other hand, sometimes larger companies will leave actions undefended as this is cheaper for them and so you may be successful that way.

Not too sure whether I agree there, however your views are most welcome.

B&Q do not have their own engineers anyway to deal directly with electrical appliances so at some stage an outside contractor would be used if customers are forced to have to have any faulty aplliances repaired within the guarantee period.

It was B&Q that intiated the first repair with Indesit and also the last one too, I would suspect that if they argued that the Indesit engineer was in someway culpable for the second failure, they too had some responsibility in that incompetence.

My guarantee was sold when I purchased the machine with B&Q, I am not too sure whether that they can then somehow negate further responsibility when we are forced to use their guarantee when the appliance becomes faulty.

Each time I have contacted B&Q and pursued them for resolution as my contract of sale is with them.

It was only when it became apparent that B&Q would not help in the matter when they again persisted in their stance that I should deal with the manufacturer throughout, each time I made it clear that this is not my responsibility, however it would not be reasonable for me not to have the machine repaired until I came to the SCC. ( 6 months later )

Bizaarely, Indesit has a 5 year guarantee on all parts.

It is not my responsibility to be aware of the manufacturers policies and procedures but it is reasonable for me to expect B&Q 'Customer Care Managers' to be aware of their suppliers policies and procedures.

I made it clear in the first letter that it is likely to be the repaired Outer Drum again that has failed.

If B&Q had read my letter and was aware of their suppliers ( Indesit ) guarantee then one quick phone call could of resolved this issue in a day or two !!

But instead they continued to be evasive and commercially dishonest.

I am at the SCC tomorrow afternoon and I will keep you updated.

Your comments are greatly appreciated.

Art_2

Lawgirl wrote: »

The difficulty with your case is that you seem to have the two issues between Indesit and B&Q confused. The law is clear in that it allows you to pursue one remedy and when you went back to Indesit after 11 months it could be argued you chose to pursue Indesit under the manufacturers guarantee.

The main argument B&Q will have will be that you initially never pursued them under SGA for a rep / repl, you went directly to Indesit to have it repaired. They will argue that it is due to this repair being carried out incorrectly that the machine became faulty again and so they cannot be held liable for any losses you incur as a result of Indesits actions.

Had you gone back to B&Q to get the machine repaired the first time I would agree with Art and recommend you pursue for any consequential losses that you can prove (with receipts etc) under SGA, as the machine is not of satisfactory quality (the burden of proof remains with the consumer at this stage) and would agree that you would have a high probability of being successful but unfortunately this is not the case.

On the other hand, sometimes larger companies will leave actions undefended as this is cheaper for them and so hopefully you will be successful that way.

If you read the original posts you will find that the manufacturer was involved in this case as a result of B & Q suggesting this action.

I would be surprised if B & Q bother to turn up in court to defend the action tomorrow.

Regards,
Art.

Art_2

deanos wrote: »

Was it Pixmania by any chance ?

If so they are a French shop, you can just get a shaver adaptor and it will work fine.

Their address is shown as being:

UK Digital Cameras, Unit G17, Oxgate Lane, London, NW2 7HJ

Regards,
Art.