were do i stand

taxiphil

dmg24 wrote: »

I really don't see your problem here taxiphil. You need to step away and read your posts, as you are beginning to make yourself look very silly.

All I have said is that I have studied the Act, and therefore I am confident in my assertions. If you disagree with them, then by all means show me where they are incorrect.

My problem is the subjective nonsense you're spouting which has absolutely no basis in fact, and your arrogance and rudeness.

So, to summarise, dmg24 is automatically right in every situation and has no need to prove a word of what she says.

However, anyone who disagrees with her must prove she is wrong! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Best laugh I've had so far in 2008 - thanks!

(If you knew the first thing about law you'd know it's a nonsense to demand that someone proves a negative without the opposing positive already having been proven)

dmg24

taxiphil wrote: »

My problem is the subjective nonsense you're spouting which has absolutely no basis in fact, and your arrogance and rudeness.

So, to summarise, dmg24 is automatically right in every situation and has no need to prove a word of what she says.

However, anyone who disagrees with her must prove she is wrong! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Best laugh I've had so far in 2008 - thanks!

(If you knew the first thing about law you'd know it's a nonsense to demand that someone proves a negative without the opposing positive already having been proven)

Oh dear ...

I do find it concerning that you only address your comments to me, even though every other person that has posted on this thread has agreed with me.

Maybe they are all wrong too?

mountainofdebt

I have a similar story.

I ordered a game from Tesco and becuase of previous problems I got the delivery charge refunded.

When it actually arrived I decided it wasn't suitable afterall and took it back to a store for a refund.

No problem in getting the refund but the lady is searching the cupboards for something and it turns out she is trying to find the code to refund the delivery charge (didn't know they did that!)

Don't worry say I - I had the delivery charge refunded separately so I don't need you to refund it as well.

To me I it would have been dishonest to have knowingly taken the second refund and I think it the OP has a nerve to now expect the sofa for free.

everythingblogcast

From the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. Since the OP did have contact with the company over a faulty product one can take that the person that came out and said it was they in the act can be refered to the

on their behalf

it was a mistake on the companies part.

Some people are getting confused over the 6 months this only when the good(s)/service(s) came up before

1 November 2000

must contact the company within 30 days. The act does not state when way the person should contact the company, that being said I would use email but charge the company for me time (the act again does not say that the person can not do this, plus the person can charge the company for having to wait in for collection) if the company does not do anything then after 6 months they can then keep it.

If the OP can provide more details on this event we can be able to help better, maybe of us do believe that its a joke by a Troll trying to get some flaming going on.

taxiphil

katiekittykat wrote: »

http://www.moneymatterstome.co.uk/8-Consumer-rights-responsibilities/Sub1/BuyingGoods-AdditionalRights.htm#UnsolicitedGoodsAct


Unsolicited Goods Act
It is illegal for a trader to threaten you for payment of goods that you have not ordered. It is this Act which protects you.
If you receive unsolicited goods, then you can:

Keep them for six months before disposing of them
Contact the seller and tell them about delivery. The retailer then has one month to recover the goods.
Always keep a note of all communication with the trader.


Just found this and the Op didn't contact the trader did they?

I have highlighted the key words in green. You CAN contact the seller. It doesn't say you MUST. This is just advising people on good practice, not the law.

I reiterate what I said on the first page of this thread: there's no obligation for you to contact the seller.

http://www.oliverfisher.co.uk/cms/catsection/unsolicited_goods_and_other_scams.html

It is widely thought that if you receive unsolicited goods which are addressed to you, followed by a demand for payment for the goods, you are required to return the goods or make them available to be collected. This is not the case. The law was changed from 1 November 2000. Prior to that time, you were required to give notice to the sender, requiring them to collect the goods within 30 days, or otherwise to wait for 6 months, before being able to treat the goods as your own property. As the law stands now, you have no obligation to return unsolicited items or to pay for them and can treat them as your property on receipt.

katiekittykat

taxiphil wrote: »

I have highlighted the key words in green. You CAN contact the seller. It doesn't say you MUST. This is just advising people on good practice, not the law.

I reiterate what I said on the first page of this thread: there's no obligation for you to contact the seller.

http://www.oliverfisher.co.uk/cms/catsection/unsolicited_goods_and_other_scams.html

The OP had already had contact with the company and has previously ordered goods from them (which were sent back due to being faulty) the warehouse forgot to cancel the replacement order- so it hardly counts as unsolicited goods does it?

katiekittykat

katiekittykat wrote: »

Didn't the OP's friend sign for it? if so then i don't think that classes as being unsolicited goods?

No one made her sign for them - she could have declined delivery.

taxiphil

katiekittykat wrote: »

The OP had already had contact with the company and has previously ordered goods from them (which were sent back due to being faulty) the warehouse forgot to cancel the replacement order- so it hardly counts as unsolicited goods does it?

The item in question was unsolicited. It doesn't matter if she'd had previous dealings with the company. Nor does it matter whether the company claims to have sent the 2nd sofa by mistake (one could easily argue that it wasn't a mistake at all - they were taking a liberty and hoped she'd cough up for it after delivery - this is exactly the reason the law on unsolicited goods exists!).

No getting away from it - it was unsolicited.

katiekittykat

It was human error!!!

Would you keep money that was put in your bank account?

What about the person who's sofa it is? Hardly fair on them is it?

taxiphil

katiekittykat wrote: »

It was human error!!!

Would you keep money that was put in your bank account?

What about the person who's sofa it is? Hardly fair on them is it?

You don't know that it was human error. Like I said, it might have been sharp practice to sell another sofa. This kind of thing goes on in certain industries where people are trying to meet sales targets etc.

If any company was stupid enough to send me an item worth hundreds of pounds without me asking for it, I'd have absolutely no sympathy for them, and I'd use the law to my full advantage.