Missleading Pictures

gomer

LittleVoice wrote: »

See posts #12 and #14.

That still doesn't explain what difference it actually makes. They both still have drawers and are both split in half so i can't really see what the issue is with what direction they are split in. The weight is still evenly distributed.

Does it really matter? What is the actual issue with the way it splits?

Pound

Wig wrote: »

Calling them is one thing, but if you want to reject it, they say you have to complete the online form. I've forgotton if they are legally correct that you cannot reject by phone. I should think rejection by email would be legally valid, not sure about phone.

It has to be in "writing" which includes email but not phone. I think it's worth putting it in writing and sending it recored delivery before the 7 days is up just so you have that protection.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

Wig

gomer wrote: »

Does it really matter? What is the actual issue with the way it splits?

Exactly, does it really matter why they don't want it, other than it was not what was expected?

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

Exactly, does it really matter why they don't want it, other than it was not what was expected?

Does it matter that in this country there are people who use the legal system as a gluttonous money making exercise rather than actually wanting to get a problem sorted?

Debt_Free_Chick

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

The base of the divan is usually a frame, with central supports both vertically & horizontally. The drawers slot in between those supports ... with runners ..... hopefully

This post is complete rubbish as the base is split. Sorry .... must have been a "senior moment"

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

Does it matter that in this country there are people who use the legal system as a gluttonous money making exercise rather than actually wanting to get a problem sorted?

Companies that ensure their products are not misrepresented have nothing to fear from the law. A customer cannot claim any money that they are not entitled to, i.e. they cannot make a profit out of returning goods under distance selling regs, so there cannot be any "making" of money. As you rightly say there is a "problem" which needs to be sorted, but the customer should not be the one to pay for it to be sorted if the company is the one that caused the problem.

Wig

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Edit: This would be the case with a single base. With two bases, then the edge of each base effectively forms the support.

That's what I thought you meant anyway.

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

Companies that ensure their products are not misrepresented have nothing to fear from the law.

How come you think cheap Argos furniture should last 10 years then? I know you'll tell me you didn't actually write that, but your calculations of £25 per year equate to that.

It looks like some people really do want to milk the legal system!

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

How come you think cheap Argos furniture should last 10 years then? I know you'll tell me you didn't actually write that, but your calculations of £25 per year equate to that.

It looks like some people really do want to milk the legal system!

I think you've missed the point that Wig is making. It's not for the customer/claimant to decide how long something should last, it's for the court to decide.

If a claim is frivolous or unreasonable it won't succeed, simple as that. County Court Judges are intelligent and highly qualified people. And they're impartial.

As Wig says, a customer can not "make money" or "profit" out of the civil court system.

uktim29

taxiphil wrote: »

I think you've missed the point that Wig is making. It's not for the customer/claimant to decide how long something should last, it's for the court to decide.

My point Phil is the attempt.