Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

Freddie PLEASE stop babbling

Babbling? I am babbling am I. Oh well, you see at first I thought that you were going to win hands down, but now it appears the other party has put in a defence. And again you seem to ignore this fact and your own confession that you did not read the T&Cs.

As I have said this saga has gone on too laong, or in the words of a former statesman, it is better to Jaw Jaw than War War.

I am still waiting with bated breathe the out come of this case, as I do, like others find it illuminating at the very least.

mdbarber

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Babbling? I am babbling am I. Oh well, you see at first I thought that you were going to win hands down, but now it appears the other party has put in a defence. And again you seem to ignore this fact and your own confession that you did not read the T&Cs.

As I have said this saga has gone on too laong, or in the words of a former statesman, it is better to Jaw Jaw than War War.

I am still waiting with bated breathe the out come of this case, as I do, like others find it illuminating at the very least.

well yes you are babbling why don't you understand that the T&C's have nothing to do with this case?
I quite agree it has gone on too long as well, you think i like having to wait 6 months+ to get my money back?
The fact that this has gone on too long is because this company failed to comply with the law and
1.give me goods fit for purpose, of appropriate quality etc.
2. when informed of the rejection of goods they failed to refund my money
They have made every lowlife effort in an attempt to stop me getting what is due me under law.
I fail to see why anyone can consider this anything other than despicable and beneath contempt?
It really is quite simple, no hidden agenda.

Wayne3765

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Halftime at the ICE Fitter match of the Century

ICE Fitter Nil, Defendants 1

A difficult first half this has been, although ICE Fitter seems to have laid all his cards on this forum, including the admission that he cannot read terms and conditions, nor return goods to the shop he bought them from for a refund. Still, the crowd has gone quiet as we wait with bated breathe what is holding up this case. I cannot see any substitutions though at this stage.

Join us after the interval, when ICE Fitter puts his elementary reading skills to the test!

What is a bated breathe ? :rolleyes: I'd check over my own posts before taking the **** out of someone else's reading skills if I were you.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

mute_posting

mdbarber wrote: »

well yes you are babbling why don't you understand that the T&C's have nothing to do with this case?
I quite agree it has gone on too long as well, you think i like having to wait 6 months+ to get my money back?
The fact that this has gone on too long is because this company failed to comply with the law and
1.give me goods fit for purpose, of appropriate quality etc.
2. when informed of the rejection of goods they failed to refund my money
They have made every lowlife effort in an attempt to stop me getting what is due me under law.
I fail to see why anyone can consider this anything other than despicable and beneath contempt?
It really is quite simple, no hidden agenda.

But surely if THOSE (fit-for purpose, quality etc) are the reasons, then you were (at the time) rejecting under the SOGA, in which case the 6+ months delay in getting your money back is your own making?
Haven't others confirmed already that ICE were well within their rights to request you send the item back and refund the cost of doing so to you when it was confirmed faulty?

It is only some months later that you are now going for a technicality on DSR

Freddie_Snowbits

Wayne3765 wrote: »

What is a bated breathe ? :rolleyes: I'd check over my own posts before taking the **** out of someone else's reading skills if I were you.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Err?

It is a remark akin to being G0b-smacked at the outcome of something astonishing, like this case. Or in other words, I will withhold my laughter just in case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kamensky

mdbarber

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Err?

It is a remark akin to being G0b-smacked at the outcome of something astonishing, like this case. Or in other words, I will withhold my laughter just in case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kamensky

he means your spelling "breathe" deeply or "bated breath"

mute_posting wrote: »

But surely if THOSE (fit-for purpose, quality etc) are the reasons, then you were (at the time) rejecting under the SOGA, in which case the 6+ months delay in getting your money back is your own making?
Haven't others confirmed already that ICE were well within their rights to request you send the item back and refund the cost of doing so to you when it was confirmed faulty?

It is only some months later that you are now going for a technicality on DSR

Where did you get this info??, I rejected the goods under the SOGA, this is entered as the statement of case as received by the courts.
The DSR's have been mentioned on this thread as yet another failing of DAP Cambridge T/A incarexpress, but not the basis of my claim.
Suppose if this case fails on any technicalities they are trying desperately to find, then maybe I can pursue a claim under the DSR lol.

mpython

mdbarber wrote: »

..... I rejected the goods under the SOGA, .....

Apologies if I missed where you've already stated this. Could you share whether it was for 1) not as described, 2) not fit for purpose or 3) not of merchantable quality? And whether you determined this before or after you attempted to fit it to the vehicle?

mdbarber

mpython wrote: »

Apologies if I missed where you've already stated this. Could you share whether it was for 1) not as described, 2) not fit for purpose or 3) not of merchantable quality? And whether you determined this before or after you attempted to fit it to the vehicle?

yeah it's been so long heres the original post

Got both sides telling me they are right??

Buying A car Stereo Online?

On 12/12/07 a Sony mex2500 car cd player was purchased form incarexpress.co.uk for a christmas present.

This cost approx £86 incl delivery.

This was installed a couple of days after xmas and worked fine, for less than 10mins then it died and failed to respond with any more than an occasional beep.

Contacting the support department I was given no help/support other than instructions to complete the on-line returns form and return the unit at my expense insured to the correct value is nearly £20.00 Surely this suggests they think it's faulty

I am an experienced IT field engineer and was able to test wiring voltages and continuity with a multi-meter, also luckily a friend of mine had received the same unit as a christmas present.
His was professionally fitted, so i was able to remove his unit swap the connector over to my unit in his vehicle (eliminating any wiring or car issues), still not working.
The unit remained unresponsive, yet my friends unit worked fine when replaced and refitting the original stereo to my car (a very similar unit wo bluetooth) worked ok as well.

Despite many emails and telephone calls to this firm, including management, they stand with the original instructions it was up to me to pay for return with no assurance of compensation.
This was backed up with the claim that 95% of units returned to them were not faulty on testing contradicting their instructions?, but still no suggestion as to what I might be doing wrong.

Now its bad enough receiving a faulty product, but with this companies policy of penny pinching and not caring how much distress it causes to their customer i then have to ask to what lengths will this go?

Will they take the unit back and claim its not faulty?, perhaps holding it till further payment is made "for testing"?
i have heard stories of these firms making more money from this than actual sales.

My local trading standards says i can reject the goods under the sale of goods act and am under no obligation to return goods but they say their T&C's state i must pay for this, who is right?

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

My local trading standards says i can reject the goods under the sale of goods act and am under no obligation to return goods but they say their T&C's state i must pay for this, who is right?

You agreed to pay for returns under the site's T's and C's. It's an unfair condition, but you agreed to purchase under those conditions. They will refund you postage if the unit is faulty. If you are 100% sure it's faulty, I still don't get why you haven't returned it!

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

he means your spelling "breathe" deeply or "bated breath"

ICE Fitter euqailises with that one. Apologies, firewall at work only gives me 15 minutes at lunch to compile replies!
:beer:
Oh and thanks for the summary for late comers!