Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

dmg24

Is this still going on? Doesn't surprise me really.

Anybody care to summarise in ten words or less?

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

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!

can you please point to me in those terms and conditions where it states, "if customer rejects goods under soga they must pay for return of goods for testing"?

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

Is this still going on? Doesn't surprise me really.

Anybody care to summarise in ten words or less?

incarexpress.co.uk sells faulty goods, refuses refund, attempts evasion SOGA.

*go on, count incarexpress.co.uk as one word

dmg24

mdbarber wrote: »

incarexpress.co.uk sells faulty goods, refuses refund, attempts evasion SOGA.

*go on, count incarexpress.co.uk as one word

Can I now have a more balanced view of what has happened please, not one from lala land?

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

incarexpress.co.uk sells faulty goods, refuses refund, attempts evasion SOGA.

*go on, count incarexpress.co.uk as one word

Libel definitely is one word.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

can you please point to me in those terms and conditions where it states, "if customer rejects goods under soga they must pay for return of goods for testing"?

How about this for the legal eagles?

http://www.incarexpress.co.uk/page.php?content=warranty

Warranty

Unless stated, all product we supply is brand new and comes with 12 months return to base manufacturer's warranty.


On the payment options page it also requires this to be ticked to proceed:

"I have read and accepted the Terms and Conditions of Sale."

mdbarber

so none of you can actually point to the part i requested?,
why don't any of you understand that their warranty and the SOGA are two separate things, in reality and in law.

Bamber19

grayme-m wrote: »

Warranty

Unless stated, all product we supply is brand new and comes with 12 months return to base manufacturer's warranty.

It continues "The warranty protects the original owner and is not transferrable unless stated otherwise at the time of purchase. It covers all defects in materials and manufacturing, but does not cover damage caused by accident, misuse, modification or damage caused by neglect. Damage caused by failure to follow instructions contained within the product packaging is also not covered. The warranty does not cover incidental or consequential losses, the cost of return for testing or the cost of removal and reinstallation."

This is where the suggestion is that mdbarber has messed up, that suggestion being that he/she has damaged it themselves during the installation.

I still don't understand it to be honest, unless one had something to hide, i.e that they caused the damage, why not send it back, ahve it looked at and then get a refund, plus the cost of sending back which the SOGA provides for if an item is faulty (again it makes no provision that this must be paid up front, as obviously at that stage one cannot determine that an item is faulty.) The part you quote from mdbarber is what annoyed me from the outset, he or she seems to be suggesting that a right exists provided the act dsoesn't say that it doesn't exist, this is ludicrous, the act creates rights, it doesn't tell you things that are not rights. If it doesn't say that a company must pay for the return of goods for testing (it doesn't) then the right does not exist, not vice versa where it must state all rights that don't exist, otherwise they would still be drafting the bloody thing.

The worst of it all is that despite being completely in the wrong in terms of SOGA, mdbarber is still adamant that's what they are going with when, as pointed out by another poster, this company have acted in breach of DSR by not displaying that you have rights under the regs. It's one of those situations where a consumer will win a case for a completely separate reason to their complaint, a bit of luck if you want...but only if they actually bother to base their case on the DSR. As it stands, with mdbarber adamant they will base their case on the SOGA this wont happen, although i suspect the DSR will creep in towards the end of the case when it's obvious she/he has embarrassed themselves by suggesting to a court that they have certain rights which simply do not exist.

Bamber19

mdbarber wrote: »

so none of you can actually point to the part i requested?,
why don't any of you understand that their warranty and the SOGA are two separate things, in reality and in law.

Why can you not udnerstand that the act creates rights, it doesn't nullify other potential rights, which would be a ridiculous starting point. It's not for anyone to point out a section of an act that says you don't have a right, there wont be one...it's for you to point out a section that says you do have the right you claim you have, and you simply cannot because nowhere in the act does it state that the company must refund you carriage costs up front when you are returning an item that you believe to be faulty.

Can you not see that if acts were set up to state rights you do not have (which is what you're asking us to provide for you) they would be never ending pieces of legislation. What the act does is lists rights you DO have and the right that you claim to have is not included in it.

dmg24

I'm completely lost - am I correct in assuming that mdbarber is no further forward than he was weeks ago?

incarexpress must be having such a laugh following this thread.

Can anyone tell me when/ if the case is going to be heard?

(Sorry for the questions, but you can understand why I don't want to read the reems of people giving good advice, only for mdbarber to spout the same old stuff back?!) x