We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Consumer Right Act 2015 Advice Needed
pgriffinuk
Posts: 4 Newbie
I am taking the local 10 pin bowling alley to small claims court for a lane that was unfit for purpose.
We bought 2 games but stopped after 1 as the lane needed constant repair and the first game took an unreasonable amount of time.
We were told refunds ‘were against company policy and not given’.
Having just had a read through of the legislation would this fall under a purchase of goods or a hire agreement?
I have pictures etc.... and feel I have a good case but is it likely that a full refund will be given or a partial?
We bought 2 games but stopped after 1 as the lane needed constant repair and the first game took an unreasonable amount of time.
We were told refunds ‘were against company policy and not given’.
Having just had a read through of the legislation would this fall under a purchase of goods or a hire agreement?
I have pictures etc.... and feel I have a good case but is it likely that a full refund will be given or a partial?
0
Comments
-
Paid for two games but only played one.
How much are you talking about?0 -
Did you ask to be moved to a different lane?0
-
Oh my days.0
-
BorisThomson wrote: »Oh my days.
Why???
Going out bowling is a treat to many people, so if you have paid for two games (and it isn't exactly cheap at peak times!) then why should you only get one game?
Regardless of how much someone has paid for something, you should still get what you pay for.
The bowling alley have clearly acknowledged that the lane was not working due to constantly having to repair it, and assuming that there were no other free lanes, then a refund is due.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
The way I read it they chose to stop after 1. I also don't see anywhere in the OP's post that they clearly acknowledged anything.0
-
This would come under Chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which deals with the provision of services. Among other things, services need to be provided with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable timeframe.
I doubt this is worth pursuing legally though.
Perhaps write a complaint to the company's head office if you are dissatisfied.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards