Am I being reasonable?

Blacksheep1979

Peter_Friswell wrote: »

What other costs do you have in mind?

Time off work (even if you win there's a max you can claim of about £50), hearing costs, travel, time spent preparing the case. If you're on £39k or more after tax then what you lose in time off/wages is more than what you gain.

pendulum

Blacksheep's answered well for me!

tbw

I know its easy for me to say - as I'm not the one who might incur costs if the court claim fails. But, I really would feel that I owed it to myself to fight this in court. I've been told before that fighting on a point of principle is a dangerous thing to do but, if the possible costs aren't too high, then sometimes you just feel that you HAVE to argue against something like this.

I've managed to win twice - once against a car showroom that illegally kept hold of my sons broken down car (much too long a story - suffice it to say that one went to the local County Court and cost the showroom owners around £15000 cos they had to pay ALL the costs for both sides including 2 barristers) and the second one against Cornwall County Council for damage caused by a hug pothole (that went to Small Claims but they coughed up the money the day before the Hearing).

You might not win but at least you will feel you did all you could. And anyway, a company that admits its bathroom mirrors are not suitable for steamy bathrooms is surely asking to be laughed out of Court?

Valli

Peter_Friswell wrote: »

Just checked on SOGA and found this
"Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description."

People on here are reasonable and 78% think it should last longer than 18 months

'reasonable person' is actually a legal term ...
and to expect a mirror to 'last' more then 18 months? - well I think a reasonable person WOULD. And I would count myself as reasonable!:D:cool:

Add to this the fact that this is a mirror INTENDED/DESIGNED to be used in a bathroom...

Having said that I have rooted around their website (because I am nosy...reasonable, but nosy) and they have had to recall a different mirror with electrical lighting (which I assume this one is from what I have seen on the site, though I may be wrong) because of an electrical fault which may cause a shock.

Now, even though I am a girl I know that electricity+water=DANGER so I would have thought Bathstore would need to make sure that these mirrors, with their inbuilt lights and electrical systems were and are VERY moistureproof.

Valli

Peter_Friswell wrote: »

It's a DIY mirror and I'll take it to court to show.

Forgive my lack of knowledge but does "OP" and "MCOL" mean?

you're the OP

Original Poster

Manufacturer's C? of Liability?
cause?

pmduk

MCOL is money claim online, the easiest and cheapest way of initiating a legal case.

pitkin2020

pendulum wrote: »

But you risk them withdrawing the offer of 50% off as well, and if it does go to court you could have other costs which you wouldn't get back.
I'd just think about it that's all.

Would you still want to pay £100 for a mirror that could just end up the same way.

vyle

I'm using a cheap bedroom mirror that my gran bought from a fair some time in the mid 50s as my bathroom mirror. She used it in the bathroom for about 20 years before I inherited it and apart from going a bit yellow on the plastic, it's still going strong.

If a bathroom mirror can't be used in the bathroom, then I'd say you're entitled to something, certainly.

Does this company sell chocolate radiators by any chance?

Tozer

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Yes it does say that (although I wouldn't necessarily take people on here to be average for the whole population) however if you continue to read on it also says that up to 6 months it is up to the retailer to prove that it's not an inherant fault, after 6 months it is up to you the buyer to prove there was a fault in the product at the point of purchase. This normally involves a report by an independent expert, not a load of randoms off an internet forum.

In my experience, something like a mirror is going to be incredibly easy to show that it is a fault. It's not like a PC that could go wrong by user error.

Really cannot see any of the District Judges that I have ever encountered siding with the Defendants on this.

Blacksheep1979

Tozer wrote: »

In my experience, something like a mirror is going to be incredibly easy to show that it is a fault. It's not like a PC that could go wrong by user error.

Really cannot see any of the District Judges that I have ever encountered siding with the Defendants on this.

Maybe if you're a material scientist but anyone else commenting 'it's obvious' isn't really much in the way of evidence.