Beko custromer service playing funny boggers.

frugal_mike

GlynD wrote: »

My main focus however is on Consumerline. I would surmise they will make their decision before the engineer calls on Wednesday afternoon and it's likely that their decision will be that the retailer is responsible and they'll be informing this company of that before the engineer reports what the fault is.

I may have missed something in all the posts, but how exactly do you expect Consumerline to decide the fault is inherent without them ever seeing the machine (or being experts in washing machines)?

Even ignoring the fact that you may have no SOGA rights because there is no contract between you and the retailer, Consumerline can't decide that an unseen fault is inherent. For all they know you overloaded the machine, or it's been tampered with and broken. That's the whole point of the engineers report.

shaun_from_Africa

GlynD wrote: »

You are incorrect. Title to the goods is in my name, regardless of who paid the invoice. The paperwork for the item proves this.

Check the actual act itself and you will find where you've gone wrong.

I've checked the act many times, and every consumer right always refers to the buyer.

This section applies if—
(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in
Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time
of delivery.
(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require
the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C
below—
(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in
question.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do
not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

wealdroam

GlynD wrote: »

You are incorrect. Title to the goods is in my name, regardless of who paid the invoice. The paperwork for the item proves this.

In the context of this thread, title is irrelevant.

As Shaun says, the Sale of Goods Act is only concerned with the seller and buyer.

Consider the oft quoted gift scenario:

I could buy a washing machine and give it as a Christmas present to you.

You now own that washing m/c, but you did not make the purchase and any statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act remain with me... the purchaser.

unholyangel

frugal_mike wrote: »

I may have missed something in all the posts, but how exactly do you expect Consumerline to decide the fault is inherent without them ever seeing the machine (or being experts in washing machines)?

Even ignoring the fact that you may have no SOGA rights because there is no contract between you and the retailer, Consumerline can't decide that an unseen fault is inherent. For all they know you overloaded the machine, or it's been tampered with and broken. That's the whole point of the engineers report.

More to the point, is consumerlines decision legally binding on the retailer? The answer is.....no.

They're NIs equivalent to CAB/consumer direct. Good for advice but no "teeth" so to speak (other than passing complaints on to trading standards). They can offer advice but can make no decisions. Only a court of law can decide how or if the law applies.

And any advice given by consumerline will only be as accurate as the details provided to them. In other words, if you have omitted that the association was the purchaser, the advice given may be completely (from a legal viewpoint) wrong.

frugal_mike

unholyangel wrote: »

More to the point, is consumerlines decision legally binding on the retailer? The answer is.....no.

Can't believe I forgot to put that in too. I got caught up in wondering how exactly anyone could make a decision before the engineers report without seeing the machine.

bris

Consumerline are nobody, they can help you with your rights but they can not make a decision on anything, how you got that idea I would really like to know.

You have been told all the information you need already but I expect you will just ignore it anyway as you know best.

munchpot

I've read the posts and re-read and as more information has become available I think it's obvious that this can only be classed as a business to business transaction - as the machine was purchased by the charity and even with title passing to the OP, the contract is between the charity and retailer.
Rather than threaten action against Beko surely it makes more sense to appeal to the charity to help to see if they can lever anything on your behalf.

SuperHan

As already said, be VERY careful!

When the engineer comes out, don't let him repair the machine, just get his report!
The retailer doesn't have to repair, they may have preferred to refund or replace or even repair with one of their engineers so that the cost is less. It's very unlikely, even more so if the retailer is a large chain, that getting a 3rd party Beko engineer out will be their preferred remedy. It's perfectly acceptable that they will see the report, send one of their own men out and if the machine is fixed when they get there just say that they have done their job and so have no obligation to foot any existing bill.


And as said above, this is all dependent on whether the sales of goods act applies. If they have preferred supplier status, it's most likely to be a business to business transaction and then there is no sales of goods act, so they really don't need to do anything!

While I think it's unlikely consumer line would tell you to go ahead and repair without the consent of the retailer, even if they do recommend this it is bad advice.

Much cheaper to go and use your local launderette in the interim and try to recoup those costs from the retailer, at least if it all goes wrong you will only be a few pounds out of pocket....

GlynD

There is some good advice here but I am very taken aback by some of the comments. I didn't think I would come across the type of nastiness I have seen in posts #10 and #27. It would appear that the posters in those two cases don't think I have a right to discuss anything or venture my own opinion.

jacques_chirac

GlynD wrote: »

There is some good advice here but I am very taken aback by some of the comments. I didn't think I would come across the type of nastiness I have seen in posts #10 and #27. It would appear that the posters in those two cases don't think I have a right to discuss anything or venture my own opinion.

Both posts make a valid point - no one has said you do not have a right to discuss, but you are unreasonably dismissing any advice that does not match your (misinformed) viewpoint.