Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

yorkygal

yorkygal wrote: »

Hi Im after a bit of advice. We bought some vinyl for the kitchen and it was fitted 2wks ago, it started to 'bubble' and we also noticed that it wasnt cut properly ie you could see the concrete between the vinyl and skirting board. We rang them and they sent someone out the following morning to sort it (was the same person who fitted it on behalf of Carpet Right). He tried to sort the 'bubble' out but its not better and if anything its worse than before and he didnt sort the other problem out. He said if we have any problems to ring CR back, which Im almost cerain we will do as its not been rectified to our liking. Previously the kitchen had carpet down and the fitter said the floor isnt perfect for vinyl but still fitted ok before bubbling started.

Can we claim our money back as we paid about £200 for vinyl and its not been fitted properly - its only been about 2wks since original fitting. Could anyone tell me what our rights are please???

Art wrote: »

Write, recorded delivery, to the retailer and tell them the installation is unsatisfactory and not acceptable to you. Give them 10 days to deal with your problem and tell them if it is not dealt with you will go to the Small Claims Court.

Regards,
Art.

Well the fitter came back and tried to stretch it back into where its short near the skirting boards - and lo and behold its no different - Im getting fed up with ringing them and them saying the vinyls moved it needs stretching back etc etc. Is there anything we can do as we feel were going round in circles and being fobbed off with excuses

Art_2

yorkygal wrote: »

Well the fitter came back and tried to stretch it back into where its short near the skirting boards - and lo and behold its no different - Im getting fed up with ringing them and them saying the vinyls moved it needs stretching back etc etc. Is there anything we can do as we feel were going round in circles and being fobbed off with excuses

Write to them as suggested rejecting the vinyl and take them to the SCC.

Regards,
Art.

p247

I bought a Sony A200K DSLR in Feb from Amazon.co.uk.
It worked great until I took it on holiday to Paris (on a bus) and when I got there found that the display part of the screen (behind the visible glass) had broken.
I keep it in a thick padded DSLR case and had it in my backpack with me on the bus.

I spoke with someone in a Sony Centre, who I told them that I had gone on holiday stated that the screens are fragile to air pressure and that may be the cause. (obviously not since I took a bus)

I sent the camera off to Sony and they stated that the screen was not supported by the guarantee (within a year) and they believe it had sustained physical damage and I would have to pay for repair (half value of camera).

I requested they send it back, but am now unsure how to procede.

Am I covered by the Consumer Good Act? (i.e. Not fit for purpose)

Or do I not have a choice other than to pay Sony to fix it?

Any ideas welcome. Thanks

I strongly believe that the camera did not sustain any physical damage

Art_2

p247 wrote: »

I bought a Sony A200K DSLR in Feb from Amazon.co.uk.
It worked great until I took it on holiday to Paris (on a bus) and when I got there found that the display part of the screen (behind the visible glass) had broken.
I keep it in a thick padded DSLR case and had it in my backpack with me on the bus.

I spoke with someone in a Sony Centre, who I told them that I had gone on holiday stated that the screens are fragile to air pressure and that may be the cause. (obviously not since I took a bus)

I sent the camera off to Sony and they stated that the screen was not supported by the guarantee (within a year) and they believe it had sustained physical damage and I would have to pay for repair (half value of camera).

I requested they send it back, but am now unsure how to procede.

Am I covered by the Consumer Good Act? (i.e. Not fit for purpose)

Or do I not have a choice other than to pay Sony to fix it?

Any ideas welcome. Thanks

I strongly believe that the camera did not sustain any physical damage

You have stated that it was working fine up until you took it away. I can't see how Sony is responsible for the damage and you are going to find it difficult to prove otherwise.

Regards,
Art.

derrick

Art wrote: »

You have stated that it was working fine up until you took it away. I can't see how Sony is responsible for the damage and you are going to find it difficult to prove otherwise.

Regards,
Art.

Plus their contract is with Amazon, not Sony.

shailesh

shailesh wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

The skylight cost over £450 so was paid for by my credit card. Their main argument is the item on their terms and conditions that says any damage has to be reported within 3 days, that is my main worry.

Just an update on this. The retailer is pushing the manufacturer to pay the whole cost of replacing the glass. They spoke to them on Friday, I tried to call them today but could only leave a message as they didn't pick up. I plan to chase them up tomorrow before writing to them.

I now have an additional problem in that the builder will help to fit the new glass but isn't covered for any damage and has advised that a proper glazer does the job as they know what they are doing and are fully insured (worst case the glass cracks when it is put into place as there are clips that will spring back to hold it in place).

Can I ask the retailer to pick up reasonable cost for a glazer, or for them to arrange for one to do the fitting ?

Art_2

shailesh wrote: »

Just an update on this. The retailer is pushing the manufacturer to pay the whole cost of replacing the glass. They spoke to them on Friday, I tried to call them today but could only leave a message as they didn't pick up. I plan to chase them up tomorrow before writing to them.

I now have an additional problem in that the builder will help to fit the new glass but isn't covered for any damage and has advised that a proper glazer does the job as they know what they are doing and are fully insured (worst case the glass cracks when it is put into place as there are clips that will spring back to hold it in place).

Can I ask the retailer to pick up reasonable cost for a glazer, or for them to arrange for one to do the fitting ?

Who was going to install it originally for you?

Regards,
Art.

shailesh

Art wrote: »

Who was going to install it originally for you?

Regards,
Art.

My builder was going to install it, but at the time the skylight (including the glass) was one whole unit.

At the moment the main unit is already in place, but putting the glass in seperately is actually a trickier thing, hence why he's said a glazier would have the proper tools and know how.

Unfortunately it's not just a case of putting the glass in and fitting the frame (like normal double glazed windows) as there are clips which will hold the glass in place. Putting the glass in means having to push past the clips and then ensuring that when they spring back into place they do so without damaging the glass.

Art_2

shailesh wrote: »

My builder was going to install it, but at the time the skylight (including the glass) was one whole unit.

At the moment the main unit is already in place, but putting the glass in seperately is actually a trickier thing, hence why he's said a glazier would have the proper tools and know how.

Unfortunately it's not just a case of putting the glass in and fitting the frame (like normal double glazed windows) as there are clips which will hold the glass in place. Putting the glass in means having to push past the clips and then ensuring that when they spring back into place they do so without damaging the glass.

Your supplier has a responsibility to leave you in a state that you were in prior to the problem. Speak to the retailer and point this out.

Regards,
Art.

ilesmark

Hi all - am having trouble getting my head around a consumer issue.

The common law position, as far as I am aware, is that if you have made a contract, you are bound to deliver the specific good/service at the price agreed. So if I ordered something from a seller and the seller agreed to supply it at the price given, it would not be open to the seller to turn around and charge a higher price on the basis that their own supplier had upped its price, or the work had been unexpectedly onerous or whatever. Unless of course there was provision in the contract that allowed this.

To this end, compensation in the event of a breach of contract is designed to put you in the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. So if, for eg, one had engaged a fitter to install a kitchen and he didn't do it - or didn't do it properly - then you would be entitled to the extra cost over and above the contractual price to get someone else to come in and do the kitchen, or put right the faulty workmanship of the original fitter.

Thus, a few years ago I ordered a part for my car and the seller sent the wrong part and then tried to charge me more for the correct one. I argued that I had made a contract for a specific part for a specific price and that the seller was bound to honour this rather than charge me a higher price; grudgingly, the seller did so.

Last year I bought a SatNav from a retailer and it broke; the retailer offered me my money back but I said I wanted a replacement. The only identical replacement left was no longer in the sale and the price had gone up - again I argued that I had made a contract for a specific SatNav for a specific price and again the retailer eventually gave me the replacement without charging extra.

So far so good. But a couple of months ago, I bought a pair of trousers in a sale from a shop. The fabric wore out very fast and when I took them back the retailer agreed they were defective and offered me a refund. I said I wanted a replacement, but the only (identical) replacement left was by this time at a higher price, just as with the SatNav. But this time, when I argued that I had made a contract for a specific garment for a specific price, the retailer refused to give me the replacement without charging extra.

I have spoken to Consumer Direct about this and they say the retailer is in the right.

They also said I was mistaken about the legal position in the case of the car bit and the GPS - I had merely been 'lucky'.

Can anyone explain?

Mark