Charged due to small print rule

unholyangel

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, 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....

Which is why I said they might be able to charge for the 2nd appointment!

You may have thought my post was taking sides but I was replying from the view of common law breach of contract. The law does take into account rights of both parties (as i've said myself many times) but it is also weighted in favour of consumers because out of the two, they are the vulnerable party that requires more protection. Also, it is the consumer that is here asking for help, not the retailer so of course I'm going to be looking for ways to help the consumer. You should know by now I'm not a poster that blindly blames the retailer regardless of circumstance.

As for the OP being negligent, thats yet to be seen.

I didn't reply to your post (sorry, didnt realise you'd take it so personally) because the only scenario i can think of where that is possible is where the supplier of the warranty has contracted a third party to carry out the repair. If the third party only gets paid upon completion, the supplier of the warranty hasnt lost out anything at all since they would have paid for the engineer had it been performed correctly.

I could complicate matters even further by then saying what if the OP's breach then meant that the company could see an extra person that day that they would not have had time to see otherwise (due to the other appointments taking longer than expected) or if it allowed them extra time to fix a problem that otherwise would've taken them a 2nd visit?

But imo, the first thing to establish (which is why I focused on it originally) is whether a contract exists. If not, all the ins and outs of their potential losses is irrelevant.

Money-Saving-King

Zandoni wrote: »

I don't think I have any friends here

What about me?

unholyangel

pendragon_arther wrote: »

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

I'm not here to make friends lovey. I'm here to try and help people become more familiar with their rights.

I know I've pointed out a few mistakes in your previous posts, but don't take it personally. I've probably done the same with most posters at some point or another - and had it done back to me. We all make mistakes and some good has often came from the debates that ensued - by perhaps reminding us of something we forgot or teaching us something new. Other times, it just goes round and round in circles and descends into mud slinging :rotfl:

Zandoni

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

What about me?

I forgot about you, you're my BFF.

agrinnall

27col wrote: »

Exactly the point that I was going to make.

It's a bit late to make it after the OP has already explained how it happened though.

daytona0

frugal_mike wrote: »

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

You don't need to be in a contract with someone to be liable for loss of earnings!!!

Could you not apply that to this situation, in a purely hypothetical case (much like unholyangel)?

If I am wrong here then I apologise, but that is the bottom line of what I was saying.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

You don't need to be in a contract with someone to be liable for loss of earnings!!!

Could you not apply that to this situation, in a purely hypothetical case (much like unholyangel)?

If I am wrong here then I apologise, but that is the bottom line of what I was saying.

You don't need a contract to be liable but where the loss is purely economic, there are very limited circumstances in which it can be claimed.

The courts (in caparo v dickman) said this in their judgement:

. It is one thing to owe a duty of care to avoid causing injury to the person or property of others. It is quite another to avoid causing others to suffer purely economic loss…

ami66

Just to clarify a few points that seem to have become confused, missed or not answered be me.

• 1. The warranty was direct with the manufacturer.
  
  
• 2. The initial time slot of 9am to 5pm was given in a phone call to my husband approx. 2 weeks before the appointment during discussions about the faulty item. No terms or conditions were referred to during the call and no confirmation by post or email with said terms was sent.
  
  
• 3. The updated appointment slot was sent to us via a text message the evening before at about 7pm. At that time it was too late to change my husband’s existing appointment or for me to arrange a late arrival for work. The text contained no contact details to make the company aware we now had a problem due to them moving the time slot forward.
  
  
• 4. The engineer knew my son’s age as the honest numpty confirmed he wasn’t 18 when asked. :rotfl:

Update -

After phoning every day for the first week and being told ‘someone will call you back’ or ‘the person who deals with that is on holiday/out/in a meeting/not at their desk’ my husband started calling twice a day in the second week.

By Wednesday, the day before the additional charges were going to be added he called 8 times and no one would talk to him.

The next morning after his first attempt got nowhere he emailed them instead but now with two complaints. Firstly against the charges and secondly for the fact that no one would talk to him or call him back to discuss the charges.

He received a reply the following day apologising for not dealing in a timely manner with our issues and having considered the facts had decided to wave the charges as a ‘gesture of goodwill as it appears the companies standards in dealing with their customers were not met in this instance’.

Now we need to make a new appointment at a time when an over 18 year old will be present, either that or teach my youngest son to lie about his age!

pendragon_arther

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm not here to make friends lovey. I'm here to try and help people become more familiar with their rights.

I've been called a few things in my time but never lovey. I feel quite touched. I think I'm in love. Can I count this as a first date?