Comet Help Refund

Blacksheep1979

no - but don't like to see people quoting complete bull to try get their own way. If you need more than a week to test if something works you must be a bit of a muppet.

kkpolobear

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

no - but don't like to see people quoting complete bull to try get their own way. If you need more than a week to test if something works you must be a bit of a muppet.

no always does a fault show it self in the 1st 7 days

Blacksheep1979

and that's why you're covered for up to 6 years...

looby-loo_2

Ring Traiding Standards to get good, correct and up to date information on this.

I rang them on Monday about my 6 month old CH boiler. They gave me a ref. number and then spent 20 mins explaining what to do/write. So helpful. I had a brand new boiler fitted on Friday - no more questions asked.

If you have a good case they will sort you out but you need to be clear of your facts first

poet123

We had a problem with our dell laptop which began 2 weeks after delivery. I refused to accept a repair under the terms of the SOG act i.e."reasonable timescale,and fit for purpose"

This period would be determined by the courts in the end if you and a seller could not agree, and in 9 out of 10 cases a small claims court would give the benefit of the doubt to a consumer, and rule that anything up to 3/6 months even longer for some items, is reasonable (taking into account the cost of the goods in question and their complexity).

So it is not complete bull,but fact. I have taken several firms to court for legimate issues which they were unwilling to resolve any other way. I have won on all occasions,even against one (well known furniture company)who were represented by a barrister.

So I repeat you are not obliged to accept a repair,and in the case of a computer I would never do so....and in my case Dell actually told me in the end that the screens were a faulty worldwide batch that they had known about but still sold,(on the basis that some of them would not fail until they were out of warranty I presume)

Blacksheep1979

it is bull because it's not a fact - the wording is reasonable period of time, this depends on the product and whilst they may find it's unreasonable to give a repair they are unlikely to give a full refund 6+ months down the line. As for them using a barrister, erm you probably mean solicitor as barristers wouldn't waste their time with the small claims court.

poet123

No I mean a barrrister,(I do know the difference actually)this was a major case with big implications for this company which set a precedent.

The issue is not a refund 6 months down the line but a replacement,which is a perfectly reasonable expectation. I have had several replacements at varying time periods from point of sale,that is a fact

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

it is bull because it's not a fact - the wording is reasonable period of time, this depends on the product and whilst they may find it's unreasonable to give a repair they are unlikely to give a full refund 6+ months down the line. As for them using a barrister, erm you probably mean solicitor as barristers wouldn't waste their time with the small claims court.

Neither is there anything that says it is less then 28 days!!!! It is up to the interpretation of the Judge at the time - so you are just as wrong telling people it is less time as they are saying it is 28 days/fixed time etc.

Blacksheep1979

poet123 wrote: »

No I mean a barrrister,(I do know the difference actually)this was a major case with big implications for this company which set a precedent.

The issue is not a refund 6 months down the line but a replacement,which is a perfectly reasonable expectation. I have had several replacements at varying time periods from point of sale,that is a fact

and your word here is losing all credability as you can't set a precedent in the small claims court....

smcaul wrote: »

Neither is there anything that says it is less then 28 days!!!! It is up to the interpretation of the Judge at the time - so you are just as wrong telling people it is less time as they are saying it is 28 days/fixed time etc.

that is the case but I think you'll find any judge will find that you will have accepted the goods long long before 28 days.

poet123

Look, I was in the court you were not,the case WAS used by other county court judges to give them some guidelines on how to judge subsequent cases which came before them. It was not used as precedent in the strict legal interpretation but certainly did set the tone for cases which came afterwards.

The company concerned knew that this case was important and that the outcome would be reported in the press, and the floodgate of claims would open. This is what happened. Not every claimant won,but every claimant that I came into contact with afterwards who presented their case from the angle I used, did win the day. The barrister was there to negate my argument,she did not manage to do so.

This is why they sent a barrister (who was introduced as such in court)and FYI this did not help their case, as as you will (of course):rolleyes: be aware that the remit of the SCC is to allow the layman to present his own case in an informal setting. To be faced with a barrister is not the way to ensure this happens,the judge made his feelings quite plain on this issue.

I apologise for using the word precedent but was trying to show the case was important enough to warrrant the company sending a barrister(which you obviously doubted for some reason)and of course I was unaware I was dealing with someone of such an August legal background as your own.:D Had I known this I would have been more careful to use a looser term. I stand corrected.

Have you any actual factual cases to cite which would show your interpretation of the SOG wording is correct ? i.e ones where a judge has stated a definite time period is outside a period deemed reasonable,a period less than 6 or 3 months?.........or as I suspect do you just believe it to be so?

In that case I am afraid that it is your comments which are being shown to be supposition and not based in actuality,not mine.