Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

Art_2

Rednax wrote: »

I believe I have the same tv as Jay because its got exactly the same problem (32lt75), as it seems to be a faulty product. I did not purchase an extended warranty, however I did point out the problem during the warranty period to LG who then fobbed me off by saying it must be my weak signal strength. Now outside the 1 year warranty period, after trying several different aerials in different locations and hearing from the many people like me and Jay, I've found it is a problem with the set which can be solved by a firmware update. Where do I stand with getting LG to do the firmware update at no cost to me?

Help much appreciated from the wise heads in this forum.

I've never paid for a firmware update. Are you sure they want to charge?

Regards,
art.

Rednax

Tozer wrote: »

Couple of things - can you prove that you pointed out the problem?

When did you buy it? How did you pay for it? Credit card?

Bought in Jan 08 with credit card. Sent LG a letter in May 08 outlining the problems which I still have a copy of, but frustratingly have lost their reply which blames it on my aerial. I believed them at the time so it was only after getting a new aerial that I found out.

Unfortunately the firmware update isn't simple so they have to doit at a service centre which is miles away. That means a courier both ways added to the cost of the update (£55)...

What do you think?

derrick

Art wrote: »

Why does tozer have an issue with you?

You always offer sound advice to posters.

Regards,
Art.

Thanks Art, I do not know why he has this agenda against me, he just seems to want to belittle most of what I offer, I think he is to full of his own importance!

derrick

Tozer wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, there is a distinction between "equal" and "joint". Derrick knows this.

For the purpose of this thread the words jointly and equally are interchangeable, anyone coming here for info or advice will see that for what it is, in this case to inform them that they have the right to claim against the CC company as well as or in place of the retailer within certain parameters, there are usually links to the relevant information.

I doubt any small claims court judges would even bat an eyelid if the word equally were used, (it probably would not even go onto court papers in any form), and in the context of this thread the words equally & jointly are the same for any poster or reader of said thread; -
Equally; - in an equal manner, alike, impartially
Jointly; - in a joint manner, together, unitedly, in concert.

They are so alike, (for the post I made), that you could not slip a Rizla between them, and for the record I do normally use the word “jointly”, this time I did not, but that is no reason to make as big an issue out of it as you are, it is not the crime of the century, (indeed it is not even a crime!).

To pick me up on a word is just you being pedantic and having a go at me due to your agenda and, for whatever reason your sad little life dictates, why don’t you go get a life?

This is an open forum with points and views that others will sometimes, (or with you never in my case), not agree, it does not make them wrong and I will continue to supply info that I think is relevant, it is then up to the readers to take that advice/info as they see fit, and to hopefully research it first after being pointed in a certain direction.

I have gained certain amounts of knowledge over the years, (as have others), and the people who come on here are also trying to gain knowledge, (or impart it), if I can point them to the correct/relevant websites and give any advice that may help, (some of it from personal experience), then I will continue to do so, they do not have to take that advice and if someone else points out a better/different route, then all well and good, it is all knowledge

Art_2

I have to agree with you about the use of words. No CC judge would object to the wrong word. He may change it if he thought it was important.

I have represented people in CCs numerous times. As you know they are very informal and judges do all they can to help both sides present their case.

Regards,
Art.

derrick

Tozer wrote: »

Much of what he says is very good.

Steady now, I might take that as praise :eek: (not) You coming off the meds?.

Tozer

Art wrote: »

I have to agree with you about the use of words. No CC judge would object to the wrong word. He may change it if he thought it was important.

I have represented people in CCs numerous times. As you know they are very informal and judges do all they can to help both sides present their case.

Regards,
Art.

No they won't object at all. I don't think I said that or even mentioned District Judges at all! However, if you are to start quoting law, it is really, really useful to be accurate in what you say and use the right terminology.

If you actually look at my post I simply pointed out that Derrick was wrong.

It is Derrick that has posted a fair few posts about me personally. As I said before, shall we keep this on topic?

Tozer

derrick wrote: »

Steady now, I might take that as praise :eek: (not) You coming off the meds?.

Pathetic and childish response. Not worth saying anything else.

Rednax

Would derrick and tozer jointly (or equally) like to impart their knowledge in helping with my query?

Jesska

Hi, I recently bought an item of clothing in a shop with my debit card.
It was too small, and as I bought it for an event the next day, an exchange now would be pointless.
The item still has the tags on and I have the receipt, however the card I used has expired. Is there anyway I can get the money back? Or will it have to be a credit note?

Many thanks.