Mis-sold TV by local 'engineer' scam

eskbanker

screech_78 said:

MSE really needs to ban the use of the word “scam” on this forum. 

And "mis-sold"!

Aylesbury_Duck

eskbanker said:

screech_78 said:

MSE really needs to ban the use of the word “scam” on this forum. 

And "mis-sold"!

Which has become a substitute for buyer’s remorse.  And which is usually spelled “miss sold”.

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

screech_78 said:

MSE really needs to ban the use of the word “scam” on this forum. 

And "mis-sold"!

But then this site wouldn't have ever become what it did... was only the PPI "miss-selling" that catapulted it into the front and made Martin his millions. It needs the emotive words to whip the masses into the blood frenzy that gets it is rating, its air time, its money. If they were reasonable and sensible then the DCA thing would have been a totally different message and not been on TV of generating thousands of useless emails and creating new cultists to spread the message. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Bradden said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Patty_Odore said:

I can get you a brand new, up to date 50" Samsung TV by tomorrow for £699 and I'll set it up'.  We foolishly agreed to that,

Assuming you agreed there and then rather than after he had left this sounds like off-premises to me, right of cancellation would apply, presumably no terms given, if so 1 year and 14 days to cancel for a full refund OP.

From what you've said the issue might be enforcing that.

Would right of cancellation not be waived once the service had commenced? in this case the installation of the TV. 

For off-premises, if the trader gave the correct information and obtained the consumer's express consent on a durable medium for the service to begin in the cancellation period then yes if a service is fully completed the right to cancel then expires but without both the consumer can still cancel and isn't liable for any payment at all.

As above, that's on my assumption the trader doesn't have their paperwork in order   

eskbanker said:

And "mis-sold"!

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Which has become a substitute for buyer’s remorse.  And which is usually spelled “miss sold”.

Whilst scam is going too far, mis-sold is possibly somewhat subjective but ultimately the point of cancellation rights for off-premises is to cover the situation where a consumer feels they rushed into a decision.

If OP had a piece of paper in their hands that told them they had rights of cancellation this thread wouldn't exist   

eskbanker

There's certainly subjectivity when it comes to defining mis-selling, in that leading dictionaries use noticeably different versions:

Oxford - sell (something) to a customer on the basis of misleading advice

Cambridge - to sell something that is not suitable for the person who buys it

Collins - to sell it to someone even though you know that it is not suitable for them

Granted, the latter two are broadly similar, but it doesn't seem to me that any of these fits OP's scenario, where the sale doesn't appear to have been based on any misleading advice, and the product was suitable for their needs....

born_again

screech_78 said:

MSE really needs to ban the use of the word “scam” on this forum. 

I did ask if they can add it to the filter to block. But fell on deaf ears...🤦‍♀️

RefluentBeans

born_again said:

screech_78 said:

MSE really needs to ban the use of the word “scam” on this forum. 

I did ask if they can add it to the filter to block. But fell on deaf ears...🤦‍♀️

I guess it’s the issue of sometimes a scam is a scam, so blocking the word may just make it more complicated. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

There's certainly subjectivity when it comes to defining mis-selling, in that leading dictionaries use noticeably different versions:

Oxford - sell (something) to a customer on the basis of misleading advice

Cambridge - to sell something that is not suitable for the person who buys it

Collins - to sell it to someone even though you know that it is not suitable for them

Granted, the latter two are broadly similar, but it doesn't seem to me that any of these fits OP's scenario, where the sale doesn't appear to have been based on any misleading advice, and the product was suitable for their needs....

To be fair OP said 

the last one was from John Lewis and they set it all up for us. Engineer instantly said 'John Lewis don't offer that service anymore

but picking a random 50inch Samsung TV:

https://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue50cu7100-2023-led-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-smart-tv-50-inch-with-tvplus-black/p110271016

Set up and home demo is available for £44.99 or wall mounted for £125. 

When people come here for advice they are probably somewhat emotionally charged due to feeling wronged, they are very unlikely to use the kind of language present in the regs however if we do use that language that statement by the trader is a breach of the CPRs. 

Let's be generous and say it wasn't a lie but a mistake, that's only a defence against an offence, regardless the consumer still has the right to redress. 

If you use more colloquial language I think most people would tie that comment to mis-selling, that is unless I'm misunderstanding something and JL don't offer home set up.  

eskbanker

Fair enough, if JL do still offer a setup service then yes, asserting that they don't would indeed be misleading advice, but the point remains that the ill-defined term "mis-selling" isn't a particularly meaningful or helpful one (in the context of unregulated businesses), and so any reliance on misleading advice needs to be addressed under the actual wording used in the relevant legislation.

Wonka_2

@Patty_Odore what was the model of TV ? I've just bought a Samsung 50" and know that prices are all over the place between retailers as they offload 2023/wait for 2024 stock - and JL don't appear to have reduced theirs yet