Consumer Police. See if you can get your heads around this?

Ron1e

Thanks Lunatic, your thoughts are the same as mine. Obviously the court has been made aware of the manner in which these good are advertised. So come the hearing it's down to the judgement.

Ok, regarding an offer, the original offer was for £3500.00.
Then it went to mediation and the offer was increased to £3650.00. But I had by this paid £200.00 court fees.
His last offer was today. He has offered to sell the goods for £2500.00, but still give me £3500.00.
Saying he is willing to lose £1500.00 Which is a nonsense because I only these good for 5 days, and the latest price he is asking form them is £4800.00. So why sell them for £2500.00?
you may remember in a previous post I said this retailer has problem with the truth.
Just give you an update on that. He has serious problem with the truth.

To date I have not received any money, just the offers.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to two things. 

I am exercising  my rights under the consumer rights act 2015 in these circumstance by returning the goods and expecting a full refund of the original purchase price?
And is he meeting his legal and contractual obligations under the act by not refunding the full amount.
I still don't know the legitimate reason he  thinks he has for withholding  £500.00?
Originally it was because he says I have tampered with them. However he hasn't got a single shred of evidence to support this and seems to have put this excuse on the back burner.
I paid by debit card.
  
  

user1977

You're not exercising any statutory rights, you're exercising your rights under the additional terms he's made part of your contract (I say "he", is this actually an individual sole trader or is it a limited company?).

Though if a court action is already in play then it might be a bit late to change who you're suing and why!

Ron1e

He's a sole trader, not a limited company.
I named him on my court documents as. Xxxxxx trading as Xxxxxxx

Okell

I was going to suggest something that you might have found helpful, but having read the rest of the car battery thread I can't be bothered.

PHK

Okell said:

I was going to suggest something that you might have found helpful, but having read the rest of the car battery thread I can't be bothered.

I agree, very disappointing that someone would waste everyone's time like that and casts doubt on this thread as well. 

Ron1e

I'm not wasting anybody’s time, I have a lot on money in this.
Okell, Let me ask you this question. If you returned something and they kept fobbing you off, and three weeks later they said, “sorry mate you’ve tampered with this, I'm knocking £500.00 off your refund”
With no evidence whatsoever, how would you feel? Would the three week delay affect how you approached the situation? 

user1977

Ron1e said:

I'm not wasting anybody’s time, I have a lot on money in this.
Okell, Let me ask you this question. If you returned something and they kept fobbing you off, and three weeks later they said, “sorry mate you’ve tampered with this, I'm knocking £500.00 off your refund”
With no evidence whatsoever, how would you feel? Would the three week delay affect how you approached the situation? 

What's that got to do with your amplifiers? Are you just making up different fictional stories now?

Ron1e

I'm not making anything up. I was just trying to get the views from the forum members what is acceptable in law from the retailers point of view and the consumers.. With the battery I'm the retailer, with the amplifier, I'm consumer. With the amplifiers I had to wait three weeks before a false accusation was made that I had tampered with them No one is going to wait three weeks for a battery to be tested and given that this guy makes these himself, I see no reason why it took three weeks for him to make this bogus claim that I had tampered with them. My understanding before I made this post was that unless the retailer could prove on the spot that any returned items were NOT FAULTY then a refund or replacement should be given there then. I go back a long way in retail and to be honest, I'm still working off the sale of goods act 1979. 
The amplifier is an on going case that is due to be heard before court next Tuesday. at 10am, it is expected to last 30 minutes.
I will of course post the outcome on here, together with the name of the retailer, then you can check what I have said for yourself.  

So, given all I have said, If the retailer in this case goes to court and his reason for withholding £500 from the purchase price is because he says they have been tampered with them and he has had to make adjustments to them. Do you think he will win this case?
Bearing in mind he has had the goods for three weeks and hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support the claim that they have been tampered with.

So, straight  question to all that have read this post.

Who is mostly likely to be the winner. Retailer or consumer?

 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ron1e said:

Ok, regarding an offer, the original offer was for £3500.00.
Then it went to mediation and the offer was increased to £3650.00. But I had by this paid £200.00 court fees.

  

Apologies I didn't notice you'd already begun the small claims process.

In that case I would stick to the very straightforward argument of 60 day guarantee offered and you haven't tampered with the amp.

60 days is on the website and, I think, it's the trader's job to prove (on the balance of probability) someone tampered with the goods in the manner they are suggesting  

Ron1e

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ron1e said:

Ok, regarding an offer, the original offer was for £3500.00.
Then it went to mediation and the offer was increased to £3650.00. But I had by this paid £200.00 court fees.

  

Apologies I didn't notice you'd already begun the small claims process.

In that case I would stick to the very straightforward argument of 60 day guarantee offered and you haven't tampered with the amp.

60 days is on the website and, I think, it's the trader's job to prove (on the balance of probability) someone tampered with the goods in the manner they are suggesting  

Thanks Lunatic, yes I started the court proceeding last September. 

Personally I don't think he has any chance of winning this case because he makes this claim three weeks after he has had goods in his possession, and  without a shred of evidence to support it.

Also given the fact that he has tried with two previous court statements to refuse a refund for different reasons to the tampering one.

I know there are two sides to every story and anyone reading post must think there is more to this than meets the eye.  But there isn't, everything I have said is a 100% true account of my situation.

Having spent over 50 years in retail I thought I had seen it  all. This situation has shocked me, genuinely shocked me. 

Like you said Lunatic, the balance of probability  

What is the most probable?

That this guy is making things up as he goes along, and he has shown little or no regard for UK consumer law during this process and wants to come out of this making a profit?

Or that I have just paid over £4000.00 for electrical good and have tampered with them as soon as I got them home?

Unless he settles out of court we will find out next Tuesday.