Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Brooker_Dave

dmg24 wrote: »

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

Anybody care to summarise in ten words or less?

Unreasonable dope loses case?

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

and will you please shut up and stay away you have already proved you know nothing on the subject

That's no way to talk to dmg 24.

Have some manners.

cavycrazy_2

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Unreasonable dope loses case?

Should have fitted it properly in first place?


Oh come on, you all know you've been dying to say it.

deklan99

Think I've got it now.
Return of faulty goods is not what OP is claiming, it's a refusal to accept? All now hinges on what "a reasonable time" is (Rejection of Goods) in which case OP has to make goods available for collection and doesn't have to send goods back?
Hmmm, might have to change my mind, again.

cavycrazy_2

deklan99 wrote: »

Think I've got it now.
Return of faulty goods is not what OP is claiming, it's a refusal to accept? All now hinges on what "a reasonable time" is (Rejection of Goods) in which case OP has to make goods available for collection and doesn't have to send goods back?
Hmmm, might have to change my mind, again.

But surely he accepted the goods when he fitted it and it worked.

I can't help thinking that as it did work, albeit briefly, he can't reject it but has to return it?

And not unreasonably, the car place want to check he fitted it correctly and it didn't just blow a fuse because he did it wrong?

deklan99

cavycrazy wrote: »

But surely he accepted the goods when he fitted it and it worked.

Well from what I can see the buyer can examine the goods to see if they are satisfactory. Does that cover actually installing the thing? No idea.

I can't help thinking that as it did work, albeit briefly, he can't reject it but has to return it?

Again not clear but as above.

And not unreasonably, the car place want to check he fitted it correctly and it didn't just blow a fuse because he did it wrong?

Agreed. Depends really on if you accept the OPs view he's Rejecting the Goods within a reasonable time or the shop's view that it's return of faulty goods.

Could go either way.

mdbarber

All you wise guys seem to be forgetting that the judge has had a statement of case on his desk for several months stating quite explicitly the above details and he hasn't thrown it out as is within his power!,
So all in all T.S. think I have a solid case, a judge doesn't think I don't have a case... any more inept comments? without substance

deklan99

Just joining in the debate mate, nowt personal.

Freddie_Snowbits

For the sake of a ten minute walk to the local Post Office, keeping the PO in business as well, OP jumps onto a high horse and asks this site for advice.

Post 2 on this thread muttered thus:

littlejaffa wrote: »

It sounds like you think your local trading standards have told you that you can report the item as faulty and keep it, paying nothing to the company. That's not right.

OP went straight on the offensive thus:

mdbarber wrote: »

Thats not what is being said at all,

Now one wonders that OP can go on ranting, still not having their money back?, when in fact a walk to the local Post Office, thus keeping the local PO in business, returning the goods to the supplier. Then they item would either be repaired or otherwise. If the goods were faulty, then OP would either have a replacement or their money back. One could suggest that as the OP has not returned the goods, whether the goods are indeed faulty, or is OP trying to pull a fast one.

grayme-m

deklan99 wrote: »

Agreed. Depends really on if you accept the OPs view he's Rejecting the Goods within a reasonable time or the shop's view that it's return of faulty goods.

Thus my 'bordering on the libelous' (without anyone being libeled) :rolleyes2 comment that the judge may apply common sense.Can mdb honestly say he would have sent the goods back if it was still working? If not, he's returning faulty goods....