Help - QVC will not co-operate!

data1704

esuhl wrote: »

According to the Wikipedia page, the OP is in plenty of time. The issue was discovered a year ago, and he has up to six years from then to make a claim:

Hi esuhl,
Cheers for that. I was trying to find something along those lines, but there is an actual bit of case law to do with the Sale of Goods Act about discovery and another period from the date of discovery.
If I put my hands on it again, or get another copy from my local Trading Standards, I'll post it.
Thanks

Forwandert

data1704 wrote: »

Hi Forwandert,
I don't get where everyone is coming from about ownership.
I have (or had) the property in my possession.
I do not know where my ex lives (we seperated very acrimoniously), so QVC will not know either.
The bank account used to purchase these was a joint one AND is now mine (same account number, I had it changed to an individual), so technically I at the least paid half for these and more importantly, I have an email and a letter from QVC last year that said they will send me the refund (admittedly I didn't include that in my story, but I was trying to keep it short).
Anyway, thanks for the imput.

Hi, I'll try to explain a little.

There's QVC (The seller), your ex wife (the purchaser) and yourself (who ended up with the items after separation)

QVC sold an item(s) to your ex wife
QVC have to comply with the sale of goods act and all the various requirements to the purchaser (your ex wife only as the person that purchased them)

At whatever point you ended up with the items ,consumer rights in regards to the purchases do not get automatically transferred to the new owner (yourself) unless QVC allow transfers.

As such QVC do not have to entertain any of your demands in regards to refunds and if the items do turn out to be fake it is actually your ex wife that would need to take it up with QVC herself regardless of your current dealings with them.

arcon5

data1704 wrote: »

Hi esuhl,
Cheers for that. I was trying to find something along those lines, but there is an actual bit of case law to do with the Sale of Goods Act about discovery and another period from the date of discovery.
If I put my hands on it again, or get another copy from my local Trading Standards, I'll post it.
Thanks

I believe in scotland it's 5 years from discovery

data1704

Forwandert wrote: »

Hi, I'll try to explain a little.

There's QVC (The seller), your ex wife (the purchaser) and yourself (who ended up with the items after separation)

QVC sold an item(s) to your ex wife
QVC have to comply with the sale of goods act and all the various requirements to the purchaser (your ex wife only as the person that purchased them)

At whatever point you ended up with the items ,consumer rights in regards to the purchases do not get automatically transferred to the new owner (yourself) unless QVC allow transfers.

As such QVC do not have to entertain any of your demands in regards to refunds and if the items do turn out to be fake it is actually your ex wife that would need to take it up with QVC herself regardless of your current dealings with them.

Hi Forwandert,
Ok, I can see where you're coming from and normally I would relutantly agree, but why did Trading Standards tell me I had a case and should proceed via a solicitor, a firm of solicitors get involved on my behalf if they thought I didn't have any claim, an original email and letter last year from QVC confirming they would refund me (after I pointed out that they were purchased by my ex, no problem they said) and their legal department three months ago saying they would refund me if I returned the items?
Even if I was wrong in all of the above and didn't have a leg to stand on, they are the one's who confirmed and agreed they would refund me upon return of all items. They entered into an agreement with me. Looksguywalker made the same point in his posting.

arcon5

data1704 wrote: »

Hi Techhead,
I don't think I have.
Whether I wanted to sell to him or not, he is still an expert in this field and has been used as a prosecution expert witness in such cases.
Where as QVC have provided nothing and no one and it's their own opinion that says they are the genuine items.
Thanks for reading the post though.

Which case is that?

data1704 wrote: »

Hi everyone,
I think some of you are going down the route about value etc.
Value in this case is not the issue. The issue is that in someone's expert opinion, all the signatures are fake.
QVC state not only do they NOT have their 'Due Diligence' records (and no other records about the sale to be more exact), in their opinion they are the genuine signatures.
Since when did QVC have such experts? I thought they just sold items on a shopping channel!

Due to the time passed it would be on you to prove they do not conform to contract - usually via an independent report. I'm not sure a potential buyer would be seen as 'independent'.

Maybe it would be worth sending them off to somebody else?

data1704

arcon5 wrote: »

Which case is that?

Due to the time passed it would be on you to prove they do not conform to contract - usually via an independent report. I'm not sure a potential buyer would be seen as 'independent'.

Maybe it would be worth sending them off to somebody else?

Hi arcon5,
Yep, obviously I must have thought it was said on BBC's Fake Britain, because it certainly not mentioned on his website, but he does have the right credentials and has been used as an expert by the media and national press.
As I mentioned before, he may have been a potential buyer, but his opinion on whether they're real or fake still counts.

I wish I could have sent them on to someone else, but even Googling for such, doesn't reveal many in the UK who do as such.
Is it possible thats why QVC haven't come up with their own independant expert?
Thanks for the imput though.

Looksguywalker

arcon5 wrote: »

Yes, 9 years after the event. 3 years above the 6 year limit to bring the complaint against the shop.

Really????

wealdroam

OP, have you told us where you are based?
I can't recall.

If you are in Scotland you may well be able to use the 'five years after discovery' clause.

wealdroam

data1704 wrote: »

As I mentioned before, he may have been a potential buyer, but his opinion on whether they're real or fake still counts.

Post #17 may help you understand why some people do not consider your valuer to be as independent as he might be.

DCFC79

Surely you should be getting a second opinion, you wouldn't get 1 quote to carry out a job say a gardening job would you, you would get 2 or 3 different quotes.