Faulty training shoes : refuses to change because I used it

Hintza

malchish wrote: »

Perfectly put. It is up to the OP to decide what she needs, not Hintza to examine .

If you are going to have a go at me, surely you should quote a post with some relevance to something I might have said, instead you quote a post that idiophreak was discussing the use of English, which had nothing to do with me.

But of course Malchish you are one of these people that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

iammumtoone

Jessica9 wrote: »

I suffer from severe chronic headache and it is only fitness and running that decrease his intensity/frequency (in addition to not miss a meal or drink a coffee etc.).Now, some will say that severe chronic headache is a lie but only people really suffering from it what i am talking about.

ok in that case I go back to want I originally said, ask you doctor to write a letter regarding this and enclosed a copy along with your own letter to the manufacturer.

OlliesDad

malchish wrote: »

sales of Goods Act very clearly states that the retaier must not cause any significant inconvenience. Here, clearly, the significant inconvenience has been caused.

As already stated, the retailer is within their rights to get the item checked.. your suggestion that they get a local report completed would result in a cost with the OP if no fault was found.

I personally, do not think 2 weeks is unreasonable anyway. The general guideline is that a refund must be made within 30 days (I appreciate this is for distance sales but I can't see any reason why it would be different for face to face sales).

iammumtoone

Op it is understandable that you want a receipt for your goods but do you need it as evidence at this stage?

Is the retailer denying they have your trainers?

How long have they had your trainers?

They are allowed a reasonable amount of time to investigate but as you have a genuine reason you need them back quickly get that letter from the doctor and show them. If you don't feel you want to go into the shop write or email (might be better to put it in writing anyway) and ask them to give you a date advising when the report on your trainers will be completed.

malchish

OlliesDad wrote: »

As already stated, the retailer is within their rights to get the item checked.. your suggestion that they get a local report completed would result in a cost with the OP if no fault was found.

I personally, do not think 2 weeks is unreasonable anyway. The general guideline is that a refund must be made within 30 days (I appreciate this is for distance sales but I can't see any reason why it would be different for face to face sales).

Local inspection is advised when a consumer is practically certain that the fault is there. Manufacturers inspection are very often unfair and have a goal to hide the fact of the fault.
If I were the OP, i would take the risk, if they agree to pay for inspection in the event of the fault proven. However, I would even mot bother with looking for local inspection. I woukd make a video of a pressure response check in a bike shop, and write letter before action , to headoffice. 2 weeks later the money will be refunded.

malchish

Sorry for typos - my ipad hides part of the post from edititng...

OlliesDad

malchish wrote: »

Local inspection is advised when a consumer is practically certain that the fault is there. Manufacturers inspection are very often unfair and have a goal to hide the fact of the fault.

I disagree, I think that a manufacturer would rather admit it was a one off issue rather than the poor quality being the usual standard.

malchish wrote: »

If I were the OP, i would take the risk, if they agree to pay for inspection in the event of the fault proven. However, I would even mot bother with looking for local inspection. I would make a video of a pressure response check in a bike shop, and write letter before action, to head office. 2 weeks later the money will be refunded.

While I agree that it is likely that the retailer will refund in the face of such evidence (it is in no way guaranteed as your post suggests), I still highly doubt any judge would award costs for a 3rd party report when a free option was available if this did go to court. In addition, your suggestion would take several weeks to complete.. how is that any better than the current situation?

malchish

A manufacturer's inspection which claims "no fault" won't bew admissible in the small claims court. A manufacturer inspection which does admit the fault won't need the judge - the issue will be resolved before.
Therefore the consumer needs to understand - if the company is likely to behave unfairly, do not give the evidence to them. They already proved unfair and partial - they refused to see the evidence of the pressure check.
The judges only trust the evidence ordered by the court , or an independent report by the agreed expert.
Most likely, the OP just bringing the video to the hearing (and the shoes) will have everything to make the judge not bother with ordering inspection - the situation will be very simple.
I have had many instances in my experience as a consumer and as a person who helps consumers, that retailers' inspection can be a sham. I would never advise to give your evidence away.

And, by the way, nothing in this life is guaranteed. However, a £60 pair of shoes is worth trying - in the event of losing the OP loses virtually nothing. In the event of winning the OP will have great fun!

OlliesDad

malchish wrote: »

A manufacturer's inspection which claims "no fault" won't bew admissible in the small claims court. A manufacturer inspection which does admit the fault won't need the judge - the issue will be resolved before.

Have you got a link to back up this claim. The small claims court works on a basis of the balance of probabilities. If a retailer has a report from the manufacturer to say the item conforms to contract, the judge is more likely to back them against a customer with no evidence.

malchish wrote: »

Therefore the consumer needs to understand - if the company is likely to behave unfairly, do not give the evidence to them. They already proved unfair and partial - they refused to see the evidence of the pressure check.

I may have missed this, but where does it state the OP has had a pressure check?

malchish wrote: »

The judges only trust the evidence ordered by the court , or an independent report by the agreed expert.

Any links to back this up?

malchish wrote: »

And, by the way, nothing in this life is guaranteed. However, a £60 pair of shoes is worth trying - in the event of losing the OP loses virtually nothing. In the event of winning the OP will have great fun!

Except the SCC fees.. which represent a large proportion of the cost of the shoes.

Much more sensible is to allow the retailer just to follow their procedure and get a refund after inspection.

Jessica9_2

OlliesDad wrote: »

I may have missed this, but where does it state the OP has had a pressure check?

Definitively, I had not made the pressure check before giving back the trainers based on advise receive in the thread : I had told the retailer that in case the manufacturer will deny that they trainer are faulty I could later make this pressure check with certainly a certificate for a claim.

I have sent an email to the retailer yesterday providing my complaint (to the police) reference number (copy of email sent to the metropolitan police) : few hours later, one of the manager of the shop replied to me an email [(not using the store official email but using his personal email address that appears to be his personal one)] saying this :

to provide the report from my advisor who allegedly inspected the shoes and said they were faulty.


Also please provide them the details of the police office investigating this alleged matter.

I believe, this will be enough as writing proof that I gave them back the trainers.