Argos - Returns policy

somethingcorporate

I think you will find it is you trolling. I'm out.

George_Michael

Secret recordings of your own conversations with people acting in the course of business as always admissible as evidence by courts in the UK.

Absolute tosh. (unless of course you are stating that Oftel, the UK government and the written legislation is wrong).

Any private telephone call either needs the permission of all parties who were recorded or there need to have been a warrant obtained prior to the recording taking place before it is admissable in court.
The only times that unauthorised recorded evidence is allowed to be released in court is if the case involves terrorism or certain immigration cases.

It does you no favours whatsoever to keep sticking to the same old waffle instead of admitting that you are human and have simply made a mistake.

arcon5

malchish wrote: »

The faulty item, given to the retailer for "insoection" before the fault is independently identified and confirmed, could disappear for a while only to reappear repaired alread with the conclusion of Agros "expert" that there was no fault to start with. So the OP will have no option other than accept this repaired product, and there will be no log of already one repair.

And your point is? If it arrives back repaired then that's surely a good thing? And in accordance with ops statutory rights.

A consumer who wants to play safe and who cannot identify the technical fault himself, is advised to find an independent expert. It can well be free, like a quotation for a repair. Or it is possible to pay for a proper report if needed.

If op pays for a report having had the retailer offer to inspect the fault, the retailer would have a valid case to argue the are not responsible for the cost of the report and the customer has not mitigated their losses. It's likely a judge would deem this practice unreasonable.

Once a company sold an unsafe kettle that caused the explosion, there was a potential big damages claim. The retailer asked to send the product for inspection. The gullible consumer sent it... it never returned back. It was deemed "safe" by the company and the refund arrived. The evidence was gone, no damages claim was feasible after that. The consumer lost about 5K . .

This is a completely different scenario. Now you're blowing this whole thread well out of proportion. Jeeze, there's always one.

They have the right to inspect, you have the right to independently inspect. Your choice. If you are happy with a repair - no problem. If you want to (a)protect yourself regarding any claims of "misuse" or (b)"never been faulty, it works fine", think twice

Doesn't matter if you are happy with it being repairing or not. If you request an alternate remedy the retailer can reject this in favour of a more cost effective remedy ie repair.

SoGA

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

a) if they claim the fault has been caused by misuse then you can still dispute this and get your own report. At least now you can demonstrate a) you tried to mitigate your losses b) you gave them opportunity to inspect goods and now have a case to request reimbursement of the fee.

b) happy days, a now working set.

mattyprice4004

flywaspmetaphor wrote: »

Thanks for everyones help, surely there is no further need for any more "banter"

This is a discussion forum, if you don't like discussion I'd suggest opening a blog with no comments section.

malchish

visidigi wrote: »

In that case my advise to those users would be....

Click on the blue word 'malchish' on any of those users posts and then click on 'Add malchish to your ignore list'

There we go, normal, factual postings will return to your screen...

This post is self-evident. This is about trying to shut down every poster who does not work to the agenda of "consumer, no-no".

Every consumer who has any doubt about admissability of consumer recordings can call Ombudsman and ask them if they will look at recordings as evidence in a dispute.
They will confirm they will. They do. Peopke had their money back thanks to recordings.
It is admissible. It is recording for your own use, including defending your legal rights.
People who tell consumers that they are not allowed to use recordings as evidence either deliberately lie to you, or are ill - informed.

Looksguywalker

malchish wrote: »

This post is self-evident. This is about trying to shut down every poster who does not work to the agenda of "consumer, no-no".

Every consumer who has any doubt about admissability of consumer recordings can call Ombudsman and ask them if they will look at recordings as evidence in a dispute.
They will confirm they will. They do. Peopke had their money back thanks to recordings.
It is admissible. It is recording for your own use, including defending your legal rights.
People who tell consumers that they are not allowed to use recordings as evidence either deliberately lie to you, or are ill - informed.

Do you ever read what you've typed? Please do. I don't mean the poor spelling/grammar BTW!

shaun_from_Africa

malchish wrote: »

Every consumer who has any doubt about admissability of consumer recordings can call Ombudsman and ask them if they will look at recordings as evidence in a dispute.

Why did you change your argument from saying that judges in court were allowed to listen to private recordings, to now saying that the FSO can listen to these recordings?


Is it because you now that that you were wrong when you first posted?

malchish

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why did you change your argument from saying that judges in court were allowed to listen to private recordings, to now saying that the FSO can listen to these recordings?


Is it because you now that that you were wrong when you first posted?

Both judges and Ombudsman listen to recordings. It is admissible evidence. If the recording has been made by one of the pairties of the conversation (with or without consent of another party).
I am right, not wrong, and I have plenty of proof - a lot of cases have been won or settled ONLY because of this evidence. "Judges allowed"??? you think it is not up to the judge to decide what evidence to view? He-he, then you do not seem to know much...

"personal use" definition includes using to protect the person's legal rights (read: sue)

Please provide any single example of a case where a judge did not allow recorded evidence, if you know of any.
Cases where such evidence is available do not even need to come to court in a mojority of situations. But - have a look at NHS corporate quidelines , for example - you will see they warn their doctors that secretly recorded materials are admissible...
If you do not believe even then - take legal advice!

neilmcl

malchish wrote: »

I am right, not wrong, and I have plenty of proof.

If you want to bolster your argument in these threads, rather than keep saying you're right and you have plenty of proof, here's an idea, why not share this "evidence" with the rest of us.

For the record I'm not saying you're right or wrong but you're statements in a lot of threads lack credibility without your so-called proof.

George_Michael

malchish wrote: »

"personal use" definition includes using to protect the person's legal rights (read: sue)

Just out of curiosity, where exactly did you find this definition written up, or is it just your definition of personal use?
I would have though that using a privately recorded conversation in court would make it public use.