247spares is a rip off

cg574

I ordered parts from24/ 7 parts

It took three weeks for the delivery of a bonnet and when the mechanic received it, it was bent on the corners and also had a large dent and could not fit it onto my car, i emailed them the photos that is Alex paredes, whenever replied, however a week later when i rang to ask , Patrick who replied to my emails informed me that i should have informed them within 48 hours of the dents and should have sent them photos, so that they would have taken my claim seriously,he said he cannot help me because i sent the photos late
however i explained to him the bonnet was received on Monday the 3/8/2014 and i sent the photos on the 10/8/2014, and i did not have any information regarding the 48 hour period for delivery, after all it took them 3 weeks to deliver a used bonnet

email sent to Alex Paredes.....

Good Morning Alex

I am a bit mystified and frustrated because i don't seem to understand 24/7 parts


I also requested you to send me a return note, 2 weeks on am still waiting for the jet wash, bonnet pulls and front panel returns note

You seem not to understand the anguish you are causing me at the moment, my car is at the garage needing parts you cannot deliver nor money you don't want to refund

I am expecting the following refunds from you

Front Bumper - reason faulty
Front panel + slam panel ( slam panel yet to be 4 delivered, 4 weeks later)
Bonnet- faulty has got a large dent and corners are bent
Bonnet pulls and jet wash - 2 weeks on still waiting for a return note
Radiator coolant bottle that was never delivered
Fog lights plate - awaiting refund 2 weeks today
Headlights - awaiting refund for 2 weeks



I would suggest that you please try and get a courier company to collect your faulty items- front bumper and bonnet

Every time you call them they bully me on the phone and state that its the customers fault and they don't want to pay up, their consumer rights page does not exist

what can i do as a customer? as my rights have been violated ?

can somebody help?:mad::(

unholyangel

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

2.4.2 The OFT is likely to object to a term that frees the supplier from his
responsibilities towards the consumer where the consumer does not make a
complaint immediately or within an unduly short period of time. This applies
particularly where:
(a) a time limit is so short that ordinary persons could easily miss it
through mere inadvertence, or because of circumstances outside
their control, and
(b) faults for which the supplier is responsible which could only become
apparent after a time limit has expired.

2.4.3 Prompt notification of complaints is desirable because it encourages
successful resolution and is therefore to be encouraged. But taking away all
rights to redress is liable to be considered an over-severe sanction for this
purpose. Where goods are supplied, use of such a term is legally incapable
of producing that effect and may amount to an offence, because it serves
to restrict the consumer's statutory rights – see paragraph 2.1.1.

2.4.4 Any fault found in goods within six months of the date of sale is assumed to
be the supplier's responsibility unless he can prove otherwise. It is therefore
particularly misleading for contract terms to seek to exclude or limit the
consumer's right to redress for faulty goods during the first six months
after purchase. As noted above (page 11) the use of misleading terms may
give rise to enforcement action as an unfair commercial practice.

2.4.5 A statement that statutory rights are unaffected, without explanation, will
not make such a term acceptable to the OFT– see paragraph 1.5. A better approach is to insist on prompt notification in such a way as not to restrict
consumers' legal rights. One way to do this is to require notification of a
complaint within a 'reasonable' time of (or promptly after) discovery of a
problem.

2.4.6 There is similarly no objection to a term warning consumers of the need to
check to the best of their ability for any defects or discrepancies at the
earliest opportunity, and take prompt action as soon as they become aware
of any problem. Concerns do not arise so long as there is no suggestion
that the supplier disclaims liability for problems which consumers fail to
notice.

2.4.7 Any kind of term which is designed to encourage consumers to act
promptly is more likely to be fair, and to be effective, if clear language is
used, and it is given appropriate highlighting.

The annexes (which give examples of terms real companies had that OFT made them change or delete due to being unfair terms)
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/view/ncc061159

Original term
… the Customer shall … give Maples written notice of such loss or
damage with reasonable particulars thereof within 3 days of receipt of the
Goods.
Action taken
New term: … You must tell us about any fault or damage as soon as is
reasonably possible.

Original term
Faulty goods will be exchanged if returned or notified within 7 days from
the date of invoice and returned in original, clean and full packaging.
Action taken
Term deleted.

Original term
Written notice of any defect in the goods when delivered shall be served
upon the company within 7 days of delivery. The Customer shall be
deemed to have accepted the goods 7 days after delivery.
Action taken
New term: The Customer is asked to examine the goods as soon as
reasonably possible after delivery and notify the Company of any fault or
damage as soon as reasonably possible.

As you can see, companies have been made to change/delete even when 7 days was the time limit - which is much longer than the 2 days your cowboy retailer is trying to enforce.