We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
One Show gives poor consumer advice
Flyboy152
Posts: 17,118 Forumite
Tonight's One Show, on BBC One, ran a piece on consumer rights relating to refunds. They highlighted the issues people were having with Comet's demise and what consumers can and can't do, as far as faulty goods are concerned. They featured someone who had purchased a tablet from Comet but had tried to return for a refund after a few days, as it had become faulty. The refund had been refused, as the previous day Comet had gone into administration.
A number of solutions were proffered by the show, including relying on section seventy-five. However, they introduced an apparent expert on consumer contract law, a Rebecca Bell of Slater and Gordon Solicitors. She advised that although the relevant legislation exists, it couldn't be used, as the customer had only transacted seventy pounds on his credit card, in part payment of the two hundred pounds he paid for the tablet and the minimum spend on a card, to enact section seventy-five, is one hundred pounds.
I think this is appalling advise and she ought to go back to law school. But to advertise herself as an expert on consumer law is shocking.
What do others think?
A number of solutions were proffered by the show, including relying on section seventy-five. However, they introduced an apparent expert on consumer contract law, a Rebecca Bell of Slater and Gordon Solicitors. She advised that although the relevant legislation exists, it couldn't be used, as the customer had only transacted seventy pounds on his credit card, in part payment of the two hundred pounds he paid for the tablet and the minimum spend on a card, to enact section seventy-five, is one hundred pounds.
I think this is appalling advise and she ought to go back to law school. But to advertise herself as an expert on consumer law is shocking.
What do others think?
The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark
0
Comments
-
0
-
Tonight's One Show, on BBC One, ran a piece on consumer rights relating to refunds. They highlighted the issues people were having with Comet's demise and what consumers can and can't do, as far as faulty goods are concerned. They featured someone who had purchased a tablet from Comet but had tried to return for a refund after a few days, as it had become faulty. The refund had been refused, as the previous day Comet had gone into administration.
A number of solutions were proffered by the show, including relying on section seventy-five. However, they introduced an apparent expert on consumer contract law, a Rebecca Bell of Slater and Gordon Solicitors. She advised that although the relevant legislation exists, it couldn't be used, as the customer had only transacted seventy pounds on his credit card, in part payment of the two hundred pounds he paid for the tablet and the minimum spend on a card, to enact section seventy-five, is one hundred pounds.
I think this is appalling advise and she ought to go back to law school. But to advertise herself as an expert on consumer law is shocking.
What do others think?
Can you give a link to where she advertises herself?0 -
Tonight's One Show, on BBC One, ran a piece on consumer rights relating to refunds. They highlighted the issues people were having with Comet's demise and what consumers can and can't do, as far as faulty goods are concerned. They featured someone who had purchased a tablet from Comet but had tried to return for a refund after a few days, as it had become faulty. The refund had been refused, as the previous day Comet had gone into administration.
A number of solutions were proffered by the show, including relying on section seventy-five. However, they introduced an apparent expert on consumer contract law, a Rebecca Bell of Slater and Gordon Solicitors. She advised that although the relevant legislation exists, it couldn't be used, as the customer had only transacted seventy pounds on his credit card, in part payment of the two hundred pounds he paid for the tablet and the minimum spend on a card, to enact section seventy-five, is one hundred pounds.
I think this is appalling advise and she ought to go back to law school. But to advertise herself as an expert on consumer law is shocking.
What do others think?
See my earlier comment. I missed part of the programme so didn't know the full price but was pretty sure that they had made an error.0 -
Tonight's One Show, on BBC One, ran a piece on consumer rights relating to refunds. They highlighted the issues people were having with Comet's demise and what consumers can and can't do, as far as faulty goods are concerned. They featured someone who had purchased a tablet from Comet but had tried to return for a refund after a few days, as it had become faulty. The refund had been refused, as the previous day Comet had gone into administration.
A number of solutions were proffered by the show, including relying on section seventy-five. However, they introduced an apparent expert on consumer contract law, a Rebecca Bell of Slater and Gordon Solicitors. She advised that although the relevant legislation exists, it couldn't be used, as the customer had only transacted seventy pounds on his credit card, in part payment of the two hundred pounds he paid for the tablet and the minimum spend on a card, to enact section seventy-five, is one hundred pounds.
I think this is appalling advise and she ought to go back to law school. But to advertise herself as an expert on consumer law is shocking.
What do others think?
The latest Which magazine, which came out this week, includes a feature in which they contacted 5 credit card providers. They pretended to have lost money after part paying for a product by credit card. In each case the purchase cost over £100 but they had paid under £100 on their card. 4 out of 5 card providers refused them assistance.0 -
-
I think if you've got to split a £200 purchase across different cards to be able to afford it, then I think you probably shouldn't buy the item in the first place.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
As far as the ops concerned I think it's a disgrace! Too many consumers do not understand their consumer rights and things like this simply fuel this misunderstanding. If you are called up on to offer advise in this area then you should be offered comprehensive training by a real specialist, as the advise given could cost an individual money if you get it wrong.
The word 'expert' is far too easy to throw about!
Shame on you BBC for getting something so material so wrong!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards