Which? safety alert on children's car seat

powerful_Rogue

flowerapplerabbit said:

As a first time visitor to this forum, it's not at all what I expected. I thought the point was to support consumers, hadn't expected so many people to side with the company and focus on the tiny details. I guess noone has any tips for encouraging good will gestures when you're not legally entitled to something! I've been on to Chicco's website today and the branding is all about "listening to parents", "specialists in safety using the most advanced technologies ensuring perfection to the smallest detail", " the highest safety standards" - so I think I'll appeal to that philosophy as the basis of my request. 
Legally compliant does not always equate to safe in a country run by a government who believes in reducing red tape and in individual responsibility rather than regulations. It's not a brand new innovation in testing that has found this seat unsafe, it's just a test at a slightly higher speed which in some other countries would be what it's expected to pass. Of course, I realise that means the company is under no legal obligation, but hopefully I can appeal to their company values and hope that it isn't just empty marketing slogans. As noone else has any other suggestions, I'll go with this and see how I get on.

You've posted on a consumer rights forum and been told that you have none in this situation. If you wanted answers that only agreed with you, but are totally incorrect, maybe you should have tried mumsnet.

powerful_Rogue

flowerapplerabbit said:

flowerapplerabbit said:

As a first time visitor to this forum, it's not at all what I expected. I thought the point was to support consumers, hadn't expected so many people to side with the company and focus on the tiny details. I guess noone has any tips for encouraging good will gestures when you're not legally entitled to something! I've been on to Chicco's website today and the branding is all about "listening to parents", "specialists in safety using the most advanced technologies ensuring perfection to the smallest detail", " the highest safety standards" - so I think I'll appeal to that philosophy as the basis of my request. 
Legally compliant does not always equate to safe in a country run by a government who believes in reducing red tape and in individual responsibility rather than regulations. It's not a brand new innovation in testing that has found this seat unsafe, it's just a test at a slightly higher speed which in some other countries would be what it's expected to pass. Of course, I realise that means the company is under no legal obligation, but hopefully I can appeal to their company values and hope that it isn't just empty marketing slogans. As noone else has any other suggestions, I'll go with this and see how I get on.

Useful to hear there is a precedent for it though @jjjggg333, I'll mention that too

As previously explained in this thread, that is not a precedent.

flowerapplerabbit

Yep already knew I don't have any legal rights. Put that in the message above. Like I said, not what I expected

jjjggg333

I'll update with how I get on. Plenty of instances I can recall where I haven't had a legal right but a company has shown understanding and good will - I might get lucky, I might not. It's all seemingly quite black and white / simplistic on here.

powerful_Rogue

flowerapplerabbit said:

Yep already knew I don't have any legal rights. Put that in the message above. Like I said, not what I expected

Not sure what you expected then.

flowerapplerabbit

Lol ok, sorry not a "precedent", just something that could be useful to include in my email to them. Helpful clarification, thanks

jjjggg333

powerful_Rogue said:

flowerapplerabbit said:

Yep already knew I don't have any legal rights. Put that in the message above. Like I said, not what I expected

Not sure what you expected then.

Lol in 8 pages I think they and I have explained that....over...and over.

powerful_Rogue

flowerapplerabbit said:

Lol ok, sorry not a "precedent", just something that could be useful to include in my email to them. Helpful clarification, thanks

Absoutely, however because one company went above and beyond and legal requirements, just don't expect the same. Especially as someone else has already highlighted that fact and they have said no.

jjjggg333

powerful_Rogue said:

flowerapplerabbit said:

Lol ok, sorry not a "precedent", just something that could be useful to include in my email to them. Helpful clarification, thanks

Absoutely, however because one company went above and beyond and legal requirements, just don't expect the same. Especially as someone else has already highlighted that fact and they have said no.

Oh yes, I remember now, this discussion got going after you calculated that persisting following an initial refusal reduces the odds of securing a goodwill gesture...

powerful_Rogue

jjjggg333 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

flowerapplerabbit said:

Lol ok, sorry not a "precedent", just something that could be useful to include in my email to them. Helpful clarification, thanks

Absoutely, however because one company went above and beyond and legal requirements, just don't expect the same. Especially as someone else has already highlighted that fact and they have said no.

Oh yes, I remember now, this discussion got going after you calculated that persisting following an initial refusal reduces the odds of securing a goodwill gesture...

Indeed, as you want to be able to return your car seat to the retailer for a refund. Not going to happen.