FOS is a Joke

waamo

Why are you wasting time arguing on the internet? Why not just issue a claim and tell us how it progresses?

KeithP

NoOne2 wrote: »

Incorrect

Consumer Contracts Regulations

For distance or off-premises sales Key information which the trader must provide includes:
a description of the goods, service or digital content, including how long any commitment will last on the part of the consumer

the total price of the goods, service or digital service or the manner in which the price will be calculated if this can’t be determined

how you will pay for the goods or services and when they will be provided to you
all additional delivery charges and other costs (and if these charges can't be calculated in advance, the fact that they may be payable)

details of who pays for the cost of returning items if you have a right to cancel and change your mind

details of any right to cancel - the trader also needs to provide, or make available, a standard cancellation form to make cancelling easy (although you aren’t under any obligation to use it)

information about the seller, including their geographical address and contact details and the address and identity of any other trader for whom the trader is acting

information on the compatibility of digital content with hardware and other software that the trader is aware of (or can reasonably be expected to be aware of).

Delivery of key information
Failure to provide the required information, or to provide it in the way set out in the regulations, could result in cancellation rights being extended by up to a year.

The information should be given in writing in a 'durable medium' such as on paper or by email.
Alternatively, it can be provided in a way appropriate to the means of communication, so verbally if the contract is made by phone.

You are also entitled to confirmation of the contract and if the information wasn’t initially provided in a durable form, the trader must provide it at the point of confirmation.

I'm not sure why you have copied and pasted all that stuff.
What is the relevance?
If there is a relevant point in there, please indicate which one.
Again, if the seller does not provide the right documentation, you have up to a year (or more) to cancel the order.

Cancelling an order is not the same as rejecting goods.

NoOne2 wrote: »

Also SoG deems

reasonable time, so it not for you to claim what a reasonable time is.

Also being a card, you would have to troubleshoot which was done, leading to the conclusion , it was a faulty product from day one and a £500 product should not have failed within 2 months.

Again , reasonable time to test a high end product can be deemed this is a reasonable time.

As I quoted earlier, SoGA also states that you are deemed to have accepted the goods when the buyer does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

You fitted the thing in your computer. That is "inconsistent with the ownership of the seller", and from that point onwards you have no right to reject the goods.
Your only right from that point is to seek a repair, replacement or refund from your CC Co. Note again that you can specify the remedy, you cannot force the seller, or the CC Co, to provide a disproportionate remedy.

Remember, you still haven't proved the problem is due to an inherent fault.

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post.

unholyangel

OP, you seem somewhat confused about your rights.

There is no requirement to exhaust all options with the retailer before s75 kicks in. The CC company have joint & several liability - meaning you can chase 1 party, the other, both or neither from day 1.

SoGA only gives you (where goods are delivered at a distant place and the good have not previously been examined) a reasonable time to ascertain whether they conform to contract. This was not a strictly defined period (like CRA with 30 days) as what would be reasonable for a wooden ruler might be a day or two whether other items might need longer. Once that reasonable time passes, you are deemed to have accepted the goods and if they are subsequently faulty, you can request a repair, replacement or refund (which can be partial to take into account use you had of it) but the retailer can refuse if your choice is impossible or disproportionately costly.

Only during the period of acceptance will the law look to put you back into the position you'd be in before you entered the contract. After that, the law will look to put you into as near a position as possible (as far as money can do it) to the position you would have been in had the breach of contract not happened.

Not fit for purpose means something cannot be used for its intended purpose - ie a chair that is physically impossible to sit on. If it does the job but is utter crap at it, then that is a satisfactory quality issue rather than fitness for purpose.

Yes you can claim a full refund, even past the 6 year mark. But you have no entitlement to one (in fact, under SoGA you have no right to a full refund after the acceptance period where under the current CRA, the refund cannot be reduced within the first 6 months).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the case worker at FoS rejected your claim, you asked for an ombudsman to review it and they have also rejected your claim? If not and this is just the first response you've had from them, appeal it.

NoOne2

unholyangel wrote: »

OP, you seem somewhat confused about your rights.

There is no requirement to exhaust all options with the retailer before s75 kicks in. The CC company have joint & several liability - meaning you can chase 1 party, the other, both or neither from day 1.

SoGA only gives you (where goods are delivered at a distant place and the good have not previously been examined) a reasonable time to ascertain whether they conform to contract. This was not a strictly defined period (like CRA with 30 days) as what would be reasonable for a wooden ruler might be a day or two whether other items might need longer. Once that reasonable time passes, you are deemed to have accepted the goods and if they are subsequently faulty, you can request a repair, replacement or refund (which can be partial to take into account use you had of it) but the retailer can refuse if your choice is impossible or disproportionately costly.

Only during the period of acceptance will the law look to put you back into the position you'd be in before you entered the contract. After that, the law will look to put you into as near a position as possible (as far as money can do it) to the position you would have been in had the breach of contract not happened.

Not fit for purpose means something cannot be used for its intended purpose - ie a chair that is physically impossible to sit on. If it does the job but is utter crap at it, then that is a satisfactory quality issue rather than fitness for purpose.

Yes you can claim a full refund, even past the 6 year mark. But you have no entitlement to one (in fact, under SoGA you have no right to a full refund after the acceptance period where under the current CRA, the refund cannot be reduced within the first 6 months).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the case worker at FoS rejected your claim, you asked for an ombudsman to review it and they have also rejected your claim? If not and this is just the first response you've had from them, appeal it.

Thank you for the reply

Yeah I agree with your point's but, like here and elsewhere (advice sites), it always says, take up with the seller and failing that, contact the CC.

And yes the argument is "Satisfactory Quality" and being the price for the product, and the nature of it, it's not an easy thing to diagnose.

I mean, it not like a Washing machine which fails to do something, this a PC part which you have to troubleshoot and test, then after a period of time decide it's not you Motherboard, PSU etc etc.

Only after that it was determined it is the item.

Yes, might have taken longer to send the 2nd letter but, life is what it is, things get in the way.

I also agree , I always say rejection and maybe it should be cancelling the contract/order but it the way I use words. To me it is the same rejecting a contract/order and goods.

You also needed to take into account medication affects me, so I don't have time to think before posting, but the basis of what I have said doesn't change the facts.

It case form it might read totally different as I took a while writing it.

Just to correct you though, Limitation Act is 6yrs so can't be over 6yrs.

Again, if the CC had picked up the card , sent it off when informed then only 6 or 7 months would have been lost of warranty, but they choose to drag it out.

The manufacturer warranty clearly stated that it is for the seller to contact them and the contract is with the seller.

Partial refund and so on was put to the CC but as said earlier, they just didn't want to accept anything.

I am wrong on some parts and right on other parts, but it doesn't take away the facts of the case, and clear process was followed and claim rejected on both FOS process.

Which was what the Original post was about.

The final outcome made no reference to any of the facts or material which was given to them.

It seems to be only based on what they got from the other party and the adjudicator already coming to there conclusion without our information.

neilmcl

NoOne2 wrote: »

Thank you, but incorrect

Has been explained

30 days is not SoG but the replacement Act

No, but acceptance within a reasonable time is, and 2 months is well over what would be classed as a reasonable period for rejection in this instance.

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

pmduk

NoOne2 wrote: »

It not for you to decide on reasonable time

BUt neither is it is for you solely to decide. As nobody else has agreed witth you so far, why not follow the many suggestionns on here and let a court decide? A tip: don't keep telling the judge s/he's wrong

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post