One Show gives poor consumer advice

Uncertain

goater78 wrote: »

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.

Whilst I would totally agree that doesn't in any way restrict your legal rights.

bod1467

Slowhand wrote: »

...so you can't provide a link to what you claim then?

Stop baiting.

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

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!

Indeed. But this person who gave the advice needs to be brought to task as well. I do hope that some of her colleagues were watching and have pointed out her mistake.

The trouble is, those seeking the advice from this law firm will be none the wiser and just accept that what they are being told is correct.

This has prompted me (for the very first time ever), to e-mail the BBC to point out the mistake; I hope I am not the only one and they broadcast a correction.

neilmcl

Uncertain wrote: »

Whilst I would totally agree that doesn't in any way restrict your legal rights.

And totally irrelevant to the thread.

OlliesDad

Slowhand wrote: »

...so you can't provide a link to what you claim then?

Although I realise this was just an attempt at one upmanship, below is the link to the show:

The One Show - 29/11/2012

katejo

goater78 wrote: »

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.

I sometimes deliberately pay for part of something by credit card to secure this protection (eg. holiday deposit) and then pay for the rest by debit card. It doesn't mean that I am splitting it due to not really being able to afford it.

System

katejo wrote: »

I sometimes deliberately pay for part of something by credit card to secure this protection (eg. holiday deposit) and then pay for the rest by debit card. It doesn't mean that I am splitting it due to not really being able to afford it.

Yes but you wouldn't do that in a shop when buying a reasonably inexpensive product. They didn't strike me as people who deliberately split the purchase to improve their consumer rights protection. They looked a right pair of schmucks.

I suppose the only occasion I can see you would split a purchase is if you had say £130 in gift vouchers and made the rest up on a credit card.

Although as already discussed this is not relevant to the thread

Flyboy152

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but you wouldn't do that in a shop when buying a reasonably inexpensive product.

I don't call two hundred inexpensive, reasonably or otherwise.

They didn't strike me as people who deliberately split the purchase to improve their consumer rights protection. They looked a right pair of schmucks.

I suppose the only occasion I can see you would split a purchase is if you had say £130 in gift vouchers and made the rest up on a credit card.

Although as already discussed this is not relevant to the thread

That really is an extremely unkind assumption. There could have been many reasons why they used the method of purchase that they did, not enough cash in his pocket, as you have said; gift vouchers, a couple of days before pay day, joint purchase and many others.

Like Katejo, if I have to buy something for over one hundred pounds, I always pay at least part by credit card, purely for the protection afforded to me by section seventy-five.

molerat

OlliesDad wrote: »

Although I realise this was just an attempt at one upmanship, below is the link to the show:

The One Show - 29/11/2012

It is called trolling although technically (or should that be pedantly) he is correct as at 9m50s into the prog she was introduced as a consumer contract lawyer so did not advertised herself as such. The incorrect statement starts at 10m30s

edit .......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tcw7

Comet


In tonight's programme, we featured a film about a customer who bought a faulty item from Comet once the company had gone into administration. We said that the customer in question would probably not be covered by his credit card lender under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, as he had only spent £70 towards the goods on it - not over £100. This information is incorrect.
The total price of the GOODS a customer has purchased has to be over £100 (and under £30,000) in order for it to be covered, but any amount can be spent towards it on a credit card. For example, a customer could buy a £200 item, and pay £190 in cash and just £10 by credit card, and would still be covered by section 75.
We should also point out that being 'covered' by section 75 is not an automatic entitlement to a refund. It simply means that the consumer has the same claim against the credit card lender that they would have against the supplier of the goods.
The One Show would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by this error.
* * *

Flyboy152

It seems that maybe my e-mail to them has done the trick, although I suspect it may have been someone else's.