where do i stand?

stugib

gordikin wrote: »

Stop it!

No you are not!

Please read Stugib's post:-

I swear sometimes my posts go up in invisible ink

gordikin

stugib wrote: »

I swear sometimes my posts go up in invisible ink

...what did you say?

stugib

gordikin wrote: »

...what did you say?

I so asked for that

asbokid

easyhost wrote: »

well as long as you marked it as unchecked you are covered. you should check any goods when these are delivered or mark and delivery note as unchecked. once you sign you are signing as accepted

will you stop giving duff advice! it's not helping anyone, and just clogs up the threads.

arcon5

As much as I agree with the poor quality and the fact you should be entitled to a refund/replacement...

I don't agree with the fact your filing a section 75 at this stage. Surely you should only take the issue to the CC company if you have exhausted all other options, including allowing them to inspect it so you know exactly where you stand with the seller?

PZH

arcon5 wrote: »

As much as I agree with the poor quality and the fact you should be entitled to a refund/replacement...

I don't agree with the fact your filing a section 75 at this stage. Surely you should only take the issue to the CC company if you have exhausted all other options, including allowing them to inspect it so you know exactly where you stand with the seller?

Totally agree :T

gnaril

The OP can hold the card company liable directly under Section 75 and there is no requirement that they exhaust the avenues with the merchant.

However in the real world and not the stuff that is spoon fed on the forums and martins duff info. The bank would generally direct the customer to pursue the retailer initially. If they were being arsey about it the bank would issue them usually with an indemnity letter relating to the customers complaint which generally gets the company/merchant to fulfil their obligations if they are ignoring them or give their account of events because at least 40% of the claims coming in are total !!!!!!!! with false claims and accusations by the customer and when you get the full story from the other side its very interesting.

Anyways OP you should get it all sorted out with the company but ye if any issues send all your correspondance etc to your bank for them to review and advise you further.

All the best

kev.s

arcon5 wrote: »

As much as I agree with the poor quality and the fact you should be entitled to a refund/replacement...

I don't agree with the fact your filing a section 75 at this stage. Surely you should only take the issue to the CC company if you have exhausted all other options, including allowing them to inspect it so you know exactly where you stand with the seller?

you're probably right, i maybe jumped the gun here, i spoke to my cc company again and advised them i will wait to see the outcome of the seller, they have logged the complaint and issued me with a ref number, however in my defence i only called them initially after advice from consumer direct...ah well live and learn:A

Flyboy152

easyhost wrote: »

No under SOGA they must be given the chance to repair it. if it is in his house he has accepted it.
when the OP received this did he inspect straight away and then when he signed for it did he mark on the delivery note that it was damaged.

Flipping 'eck, where do you get this stuff from?

kev.s

ok guys, bit of an update..

after 2 week wait the furniture company sent a "technician" out, he arrived proptly but thats about it...

showed him scratch one, his response?.... "thats not a scratch, thats a silver wax crayon the use to draw out the leather", after pretty much holding his finger on it he agreed it a scratch as it would not come off.

asked him what the white marks were and what causes it all over the suite..his response?.. "couldn't really say,looks like dust"...thats right because dust is irremovable, and if he can't say what it is hows he meant to write a report on it?

asked him to sit on the 3 seater and compare it to the 2 seater to gauge the diffence, as the 3 seater looks like someones sat on it and never moved for months, his response?.. "we're not allowed to sit on folks suites"...hmmm i think i smell some bull!

asked him why they would have sent it with a scratch which has been couloured in..his response? "maybe they never noticed".. well they noticed enought to colour the bloody thing in!

now i was told that the company was supposed to be an independant assessor.. when the guy says to me that "most of out guys were ex ***** employees" kind of make that smell i was smelling ripen a bit.

called the furniture company again today to get an update, got to wait another week for them to get the report..