Travel expenses for returning a faulty goods?

Zandoni

bris wrote: »

But do you also know those same people would fail their test for "failing to make proper progress" when its safe to do the national speed limit the examiners want you to do just that.


They probably cost more lives than they save, the stressed drivers get more stressed sitting behind Mr Magoo and recklessly overtake, the biggest killer on our roads is bad overtaking.


Back to the OP, yes you can claim reasonable expenses returning a faulty product, it's a genuine consequential loss. Time is not allowed just the actual loss, reasonable means you can't hire a limo to take you there and most big retailers will have a guideline on this.

Sadly most retailers don't have a clue and will look at you as if you are daft. The head office don't want their staff actually knowing the customers have rights so deliberately train them in their procedures, the staff then tell the customers what they have been trained to tell them thinking it's actual law and most customers believe them, but when pushed the manager steps in and hey you can have that refund "as a gesture of good will".

The national speed limit applies to many windy country lanes and it would be madness to drive at 60 on many stretches of them. Unsafe overtaking is the fault of the person doing it not the person driving slower.

It is not illegal to drive at 40 in a 60 zone and this shouldn't be implied.

The proper progress you talk of would be used more for people not keeping up with the flow of traffic in towns.

JReacher1

I love it how a question about whether a supermarket will refund a £7 flask has developed into a debate over who is the better driver (and the driving skills of most of he country).

Some people find driving in certain conditions stressful. They are perfectly legal drivers but would rather not drive on certain roads at certain times of the day, they wouldn't have an accident they would just rather not drive in these conditions. There is nothing wrong with that policy.

If you think that passing a driving test means that you should be happy to drive whatever the conditions then you are basically an idiot.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

I love it how a question about whether a supermarket will refund a £7 flask has developed into a debate over who is the better driver (and the driving skills of most of he country).

Some people find driving in certain conditions stressful. They are perfectly legal drivers but would rather not drive on certain roads at certain times of the day, they wouldn't have an accident they would just rather not drive in these conditions. There is nothing wrong with that policy.

If you think that passing a driving test means that you should be happy to drive whatever the conditions then you are basically an idiot.

Passing a driving test only means you've reached a capability level of driving unsupervised on that particular day. Nothing more and nothing less.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Passing a driving test only means you've reached a capability level of driving unsupervised on that particular day. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's also the day that learning to drive starts.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

It's also the day that learning to drive starts.

True! Only have your own judgement to rely on then.

minicooper272

Thank-you for all the comments guys, I appreciate the advise, and personal experiences and will call the store to see what the store itself says.

bris you're comment about reasonable expenses is what I have been told in the past, but it sounded 'too good to be true', which is why I thought I'd ask around.

I'm having a good little chuckle here at being called a bad driver for commenting that this city centre is stressful to drive in :rotfl: A lot of drivers find the city centre roads here quite stressful (just about every driver I ever speak to here) - it doesn't mean they can't drive on them, but like me, they try to avoid them if it's not necessary.

AJXX

Who in the right mind would drag out a complaint for 2.50 'expenses' on a 7 quid flask.... this is just taking petty to a whole new level.

If I was dealing with this complaint from a business point of view I'd flat out refuse it on the grounds of it being entirely ridiculous and laughable, I'd happily see you in court just to see how much time you'd waste chasing it up, no doubt the judge would give a huge rolleyes to the case.

hollydays

AJXX wrote: »

Who in the right mind would drag out a complaint for 2.50 'expenses' on a 7 quid flask.... this is just taking petty to a whole new level.

If I was dealing with this complaint from a business point of view I'd flat out refuse it on the grounds of it being entirely ridiculous and laughable, I'd happily see you in court just to see how much time you'd waste chasing it up, no doubt the judge would give a huge rolleyes to the case.

I see.............

Brummagem_Bertie

I agree with bris about being entitled to reasonable expenses for returning faulty goods: I believe that the technical terms is "compensation for consequential loss". As with all damages, there is a duty to mitigate losses, so you are not allowed to hire a chaffeur driven limo to take you to the store and claim that back.

As to the other issue being discussed, I agree that it is very often the case that traffic is travelling at 40 mph on a single carriageway road, when the national speed limit for cars on such roads is 60 mph. In my experience, this is invariably because there is a LGV at the front of the queue and, as any fule kno, the national speed limit for such vehicles on single carriageway roads is, ahem, 40 mph. (To be increased to 50 mph, allegedly, sometime in 2015.)

Brummagem_Bertie

AJXX wrote: »

Who in the right mind would drag out a complaint for 2.50 'expenses' on a 7 quid flask.... this is just taking petty to a whole new level.

If I was dealing with this complaint from a business point of view I'd flat out refuse it on the grounds of it being entirely ridiculous and laughable, I'd happily see you in court just to see how much time you'd waste chasing it up, no doubt the judge would give a huge rolleyes to the case.

I believe that judges have the power to disapply the limits on costs in small claims if a party has acted unreasonably. If a consumer has the right to recover consequential losses (and I believe that they do) the DJ may well be doing more than rolling her/his eyes at a company that rejected such a claim.