Please Help - DSR / Consumer Rights? Trying to charge me?! Long :(

vixiepoo

Dogger69 wrote: »

You are confusing two distinct laws here. You are rejecting the order under the Sale of Goods Act because the item is not of satisfactory quality. The seller needs to put you back to the position you were in before the contract was formed, which would mean he needs to cover all postage costs.

But do the DSR's supersede the SoGA? Because that's all they kept quoting at me?

Plus they claim that the pole IS of satisfactory quality and is as described (which as you can see by the pictures, it isn't) so with my word against all of their staff, I can't even quote the SoGA at them if they are saying it IS of satisfactory quality Which was why I fell back onto the DSR, of which they said it was exempt.

:huh:

Dogger69

vixiepoo wrote: »

But do the DSR's supersede the SoGA? Because that's all they kept quoting at me?

Plus they claim that the pole IS of satisfactory quality and is as described (which as you can see by the pictures, it isn't) so with my word against all of their staff, I can't even quote the SoGA at them if they are saying it IS of satisfactory quality Which was why I fell back onto the DSR, of which they said it was exempt.

:huh:

No, they do not supersede SoGA, they are entirely distinct provisions.

You need to stick to your guns. It is up to a court to decide if the item is satisfactory, not the seller.

unholyangel

vixiepoo wrote: »

What's an LBA? *blush*

Letter Before Action

vixiepoo wrote: »

But do the DSR's supersede the SoGA? Because that's all they kept quoting at me?

Plus they claim that the pole IS of satisfactory quality and is as described (which as you can see by the pictures, it isn't) so with my word against all of their staff, I can't even quote the SoGA at them if they are saying it IS of satisfactory quality Which was why I fell back onto the DSR, of which they said it was exempt.

:huh:

Neither overrules the other. They both apply.

From SoGA:

(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.

vixiepoo

unholyangel wrote: »

It wont go through trading standards, they're never interested in single cases - they usually only act when there has been lots of complaints and they wouldnt act on your behalf, more in public interest. If paypal wont help you, send a LBA to their address (personally I'd also look up their registered address on companies house website and send a copy of the LBA to that address too - by recorded delivery).

If they dont play ball after the LBA, file against them in small claims.

According to Companies House, this is them:

Name & Registered Office:
PLATINUM STAGES (UK) LIMITED
CHARTER HOUSE
103-105 LEIGH ROAD
LEIGH-ON-SEA
ESSEX
ENGLAND
SS9 1JL
Company No. 07860366


According to PSUK website, this is them:

34 The Vintners,
Temple Farm Industrial Estate, SS2 5RZ,
Southend, Essex


:huh:

MamaMoo_2

LBA = Letter Before Action. Template here http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_taking_action_e/consumer_legal_actions_e/consumer_going_to_court_e/before_you_take_someone_to_court/letter_before_action.htm

vixiepoo wrote: »

Plus they claim that the pole IS of satisfactory quality and is as described (which as you can see by the pictures, it isn't) so with my word against all of their staff, I can't even quote the SoGA at them if they are saying it IS of satisfactory quality Which was why I fell back onto the DSR, of which they said it was exempt.

:huh:

Of course they will say that. However, if they don't play ball, you can take them to court. Their opinion is then irrelevant and it will be for a reasonable, unbiased judge to decide.

vixiepoo

unholyangel wrote: »

Letter Before Action



Neither overrules the other. They both apply.

From SoGA:

Ah right, thank you.

So, even if they DID admit it wasn't of satisfactory quality (which they claim it isn't), would I still have to lose original shipping, pay a 10% restocking fee, and pay for return postage, as that's apparently their 'contract'? That's the same as what I'm trying to dispute now as I will end up significantly out of pocket. I could get over just having to pay the return postage, but the rest takes the mick.

unholyangel

vixiepoo wrote: »

According to Companies House, this is them:

Name & Registered Office:
PLATINUM STAGES (UK) LIMITED
CHARTER HOUSE
103-105 LEIGH ROAD
LEIGH-ON-SEA
ESSEX
ENGLAND
SS9 1JL
Company No. 07860366


According to PSUK website, this is them:

34 The Vintners,
Temple Farm Industrial Estate, SS2 5RZ,
Southend, Essex


:huh:

Going by the street view, their registered address may be that of their accountants.

MamaMoo_2

vixiepoo wrote: »

Ah right, thank you.

So, even if they DID admit it wasn't of satisfactory quality (which they claim it isn't), would I still have to lose original shipping, pay a 10% restocking fee, and pay for return postage, as that's apparently their 'contract'? That's the same as what I'm trying to dispute now as I will end up significantly out of pocket. I could get over just having to pay the return postage, but the rest takes the mick.

No, you won't. They are liable for refunding all costs including postage both ways. Restocking fees are illegal if you're returning in line with your statutory rights.

unholyangel

vixiepoo wrote: »

Ah right, thank you.

So, even if they DID admit it wasn't of satisfactory quality (which they claim it isn't), would I still have to lose original shipping, pay a 10% restocking fee, and pay for return postage, as that's apparently their 'contract'? That's the same as what I'm trying to dispute now as I will end up significantly out of pocket. I could get over just having to pay the return postage, but the rest takes the mick.

No, because the item doesnt conform to contract, they're responsible for the charges incurred (ie return postage charges).

Dogger69

unholyangel wrote: »

Going by the street view, their registered address may be that of their accountants.

You are right - I know someone who uses them (and he is pretty dodgy as well)!