Charged due to small print rule

Zandoni

Isn't £63 a bit excessive and can they fine someone £30 if they don't pay within 14 days?

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

As for the not getting paid part...behave. Or if you prefer phrasing of your own....

Yea, I think that this sentences sums it up for you.


I actually replied to one of your posts saying that the company may not have been paid in regards to this visit, and you didn't reply to me. Now I find you replying to another poster with the above statement..

You are a bit trigger happy to be honest, because you came on and laid down a very detailed (and well written post) which just took one line: namely to try and support a consumer who has been negligent in two+ aspects of arranging a warranty repair (not being present, leaving a minor in charge and not reading the smallprint etc). Why can't you consider taking the side of the contractor, whom may be out of pocket for this failed 1st visit? I'm not saying that they are ENTITLED to claim back money, but they haven't done anything wrong here and shouldn't be punished unnecessarily for this issue. Always remember, there are two sides to consumer law.... without concrete facts then all we can do is speculate so I won't bash anyone for doing so, but you have seemingly supported the consumer without giving consideration for the losses incurred. Then when people bring it up, you dismiss it straight away (as you did in the quoted part). Hardly fair....

Zandoni

daytona0 wrote: »

Always remember, there are two sides to consumer law.... without concrete facts then all we can do is speculate so I won't

The problem with place is that practically every regular poster is usually against the consumer. People come here for advice and they get set on, it can be a terrible place.

frugal_mike

daytona0 wrote: »

Yea, I think that this sentences sums it up for you.


I actually replied to one of your posts saying that the company may not have been paid in regards to this visit...

If we were to assume the scenario you describe is true then I don't see any way that the contractor could charge the OP for anything. If the contractor is being paid by a third party then they are not the warranty provider, and as such there is no contract between the OP and the contractor. If the contractor agreed to contractual terms with the warranty provider such that they don't get paid if the consumer isn't there then that's their own problem. They should have negotiated more favourable contractual terms if they don't like this.

If instead it is the warranty provider that is making the charge then it will depend on the terms of the contract (and whether the terms are unfair of course).

pendragon_arther

Zandoni wrote: »

I know one thing for sure unholyangel is far more knowledgeable than most on this site.

Ironically I find JReacher1 more knowledgeable than your friend.

pendragon_arther

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

I can imagine a form needs to be signed at the end by the owner or at least an adult so the age was probably announced by the son at the time.

I was always taught assumptions can be dangerous. I really wanted the op to answer.

27col

pendragon_arther wrote: »

How did he know your son was 16 and not 18? Most 16 yos look older.

Exactly the point that I was going to make.

Zandoni

pendragon_arther wrote: »

Ironically I find JReacher1 more knowledgeable than your friend.

I don't think I have any friends here, but I do find some peoples posts more knowledgeable than others.


I don't think you hardly ever have to have extreme legal knowledge, I find that a bit of good will gets far better results.

pendragon_arther

Zandoni wrote: »

I don't think I have any friends here

Ahhh, bless. maybe your non-friend doesn't either and it would warm my heart if the first romance blossomed here on the forums.

stugib

stugib's classification of posters on Consumer Rights board:

1. Those who think consumers are always in the right and will ignore any answers that don't give them what they want.

2. Those who take a balanced view and try to apply their knowledge and experience in good faith to the situation described.

3. Those who think companies can do no wrong and will chip away at the OP's honesty and integrity, and whatever category 2 posters say making all sorts of assumptions and guesses until everyone just gives up.