Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

saintscouple

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

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 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.

Clearly you know far more about car stereos than the firm which sells them.

That aside why do you think that any company will just let you keep the goods and refund you?

Why not stop messing around and send it back for a refund or replacement?

mdbarber

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Clearly you know far more about car stereos than the firm which sells them.

That aside why do you think that any company will just let you keep the goods and refund you?

Why not stop messing around and send it back for a refund or replacement?

As for refunding me, its the law, the law does not state i have to make it available for testing at my expense
have never expected at any stage to keep the goods, they are no use to me being faulty and when it became apparent they weren't going to do anything i bought another from currys, it was the mrs's xmas pressie after all,she waited 2 months for it
don't know where the impression i wanted to keep the stereo came from ?
As for sending it back i can't now as surely the court will want it for any independant reporting, if they settle wo too much hassle i shall of course make it available to them easily.

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

As for refunding me, its the law, the law does not state i have to make it available for testing at my expense
have never expected at any stage to keep the goods, they are no use to me being faulty and when it became apparent they weren't going to do anything i bought another from currys, it was the mrs's xmas pressie after all,she waited 2 months for it
don't know where the impression i wanted to keep the stereo came from ?
As for sending it back i can't now as surely the court will want it for any independant reporting, if they settle wo too much hassle i shall of course make it available to them easily.

Why would the court want to test it?

You told the supplier it was faulty and they asked you to return it.

I can't see why you think the court will find for you?

mdbarber

Because the soga act says if a product is faulty i can reject the goods as faulty and am under no obligation to return the goods, ie they are supposed to collect them
The reason you will always see the term "Your Statuatory Rights Are Unaffected" in companies terms and conditions is because they are not allowed to write anything in there that affects them, and must tell people that
There are other legal arguments as well but really those apparently are all the judge needs to know

mdbarber

So this morning i got my court date, 30th may we will find out once and for all who is right

deanos

I think its fair that the company has a right to test the item before they refund, but if its found faulty they should refund the postage costs, unfortunately alot of people say items are faulty when they are not just because they dont want it anymore, a small minority spoil it for the rest of us.

Browntoa

If goods develop a fault within the first six months of being sold,

the law presumes that the fault was there when you sold the goods –

unless you can show otherwise. You should not charge return costs

for goods that have been rejected because they are faulty.

The above is from teh OFT guide here http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ral/oft698.pdf

Mo_Money_4

The company won't be charging, Royal Mail will be.
And when found to be faulty the cost should be recovered.
Therefore the charge won't have been made?

Brooker_Dave

Browntoa wrote: »

If goods develop a fault within the first six months of being sold,the law presumes that the fault was there when you sold the goods

Obviously with car radios, people wire them up wrong and blow them up, so you can see why the company want to test before handing out refunds.

Hopefully the court will just strike this one out...