Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

mdbarber

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

You managed to find the time to whine on here and take them to the small claims court....

The court might wonder why you did not just return it as requested...

How i spend my time is down to me and my boss who pays me so unless u are prepared to put your money where your mouth is go away and be quiet

Browntoa

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

How i spend my time is down to me and my boss who pays me so unless u are prepared to put your money where your mouth is go away and be quiet

Can I ask what you'd do if you got a dodgy chicken from Sainsbury's or a pair of jeans from your high street that fell apart on the first wash? Would you demand that Sainsbury's came round and collected the chicken or just give you your money back on your say-so without ever having seen the chicken? Or would you do what most people would and take it back? The way things stand, the courts are going to laugh at you. "I have a faulty item and want my money back but I have consistently refused to let the shop look at the item to determine if it is faulty or if I am trying it on." As far as I am aware, small claims don't have all manner of experts standing by on a second's notice, so how are the magistrates? going to be able to determine whether it's faulty or not, or whether you screwed up fitting it or not? If you have an independent report from someone reputable that knows about and has qualifications in these things, fair enough, they might buy that. But as it stands, no. You'll lose.

Look, from the shop's point of view, you might have the car stereo and just not like it. So you've made out it's faulty and ask them to send you your money back AND the postage. Then when you send it back, there's nothing they can do because you have your money and they are out of pocket to the tune of postage and have a possibly now used stereo.

Would it not be simpler to say to them "Look.. Send me a reply paid slip or the postage. I will return the stereo. If you find I am trying to have you over, then just refund me what remains owing on the stereo, (cost of stereo less the postage costs.). IF it's faulty, then refund me the cost of the stereo or send me a new one (whichever your preferred solution is.)"

Or is that too much like common sense?

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

Can I ask what you'd do if you got a dodgy chicken from Sainsbury's or a pair of jeans from your high street that fell apart on the first wash? Would you demand that Sainsbury's came round and collected the chicken or just give you your money back on your say-so without ever having seen the chicken? Or would you do what most people would and take it back? The way things stand, the courts are going to laugh at you. "I have a faulty item and want my money back but I have consistently refused to let the shop look at the item to determine if it is faulty or if I am trying it on."

Look, from the shop's point of view, you might have the car stereo and just not like it. So you've made out it's faulty and ask them to send you your money back AND the postage. Then when you send it back, there's nothing they can do because you have your money and they are out of pocket to the tune of postage and have a possibly now used stereo.

Would it not be simpler to say to them "Look.. Send me a reply paid slip or the postage. I will return the stereo. If you find I am trying to have you over, then just refund me what remains owing on the stereo, (cost of stereo less the postage costs.). IF it's faulty, then refund me the cost of the stereo or send me a new one (whichever your preferred solution is.)"

Or is that too much like common sense?

Sure its common sense and for the record i did ask to actually return the stereo if they agreed up front to refund postage costs and they refused to do that.
btw the argument about sainsbuys is nonsense as i dont have one within 70 miles and if u read the soga that is exactly what i am entitled to.
i didn't make the law but i stick to it why should they be exempt just because they dont like it?

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

Sure its common sense and for the record i did ask to actually return the stereo if they agreed up front to refund postage costs and they refused to do that.
btw the argument about sainsbuys is nonsense as i dont have one within 70 miles and if u read the soga that is exactly what i am entitled to.
i didn't make the law but i stick to it why should they be exempt just because they dont like it?

Well Tesco then, or Asda, or Patel's corner shop - wherever. Hardly nonsense just because I don't have your exact address nor a list of all the shops in your locale.

Did you put it to them that you would accept refunding their postage if they found that you were at fault or just trying it on? BTW, I think you should read the Sale of Goods act in full. The relevant part is:
"6 CANCELLATION AND RETURNS
6.1 The Buyer shall inspect the Goods immediately upon receipt and shall notify the Seller
within 5 days of delivery if the Goods are damaged or do not comply with any of the Contract.
6.2 Where a claim of defect or damage is made then it shall be the responsibility of the Seller to collect faulty Goods if the items are large, otherwise the Goods shall be returned by the Buyer to the Seller and the Buyer shall be entitled to replacement Goods or a full refund (including delivery costs, if applicable) plus any return postal charges if the Goods are in fact defective. "

I realise that this (my bolding) is not very definitive but in most people's minds, "large" applies to washing machines, cookers, TV's, beds and the like, not a car stereo.
My italics seem to state that your postage costs are returnable IF the goods are deemed faulty. To trigger the postage refund, therefore, the goods have to be declared faulty. To do this the seller has to inspect the goods. He cannot do this because you have refused to return them. He does not have to pay initial return costs because the item is not large.



I hope you win your case and don't get stuck with their costs but I really can't see it because the company are entirely in the right.

mdbarber

dont know where u got this info from dude but ref this SOGA 1979 in particular paragraph 36, straight from the horses mouth so to speak
Seems you are getting a little confused between the soga and dsr regs

As an afterthought you really should remove all that rubbish, it is some companies t&cs not the soga at all

cavycrazy_2

Much as I hate to perpetuate the stupidity....

Your SOGA:
36. Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

The car shop's terms and conditions: ( http://incarexpress.co.uk/page.php?content=terms )

The warranty does not cover incidental or consequential losses, the cost of return for testing or the cost of removal and reinstallation

When purchasing from the site, you AGREED to the terms and conditions set out on the stereo website. You AGREED you weren't covered for the cost of returns.

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

Much as I hate to perpetuate the stupidity....

Your SOGA:
36. Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

The car shop's terms and conditions: ( http://incarexpress.co.uk/page.php?content=terms )

The warranty does not cover incidental or consequential losses, the cost of return for testing or the cost of removal and reinstallation

When purchasing from the site, you AGREED to the terms and conditions set out on the stereo website. You AGREED you weren't covered for the cost of returns.

Why is it perpetuating stupidity, you don't think people will want to know this?
This i think is where it all actually went wrong for the company, if u look elsewhere in the t&c's it also states (as it should) that "your Statuatory Rights Are Unaffected" so doesn't that strike you as contradictory?

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

Why is it perpetuating stupidity, you don't think people will want to know this?
This i think is where it all actually went wrong for the company, if u look elsewhere in the t&c's it also states (as it should) that "your Statuatory Rights Are Unaffected" so doesn't that strike you as contradictory?

Your statutory rights are:
36. Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

Those are the statutory rights that apply in this instance, that is what they are sticking to, how are your rights being affected by the company sticking by your rights?

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

Those are the statutory rights that apply in this instance, that is what they are sticking to, how are your rights being affected by the company sticking by your rights?

sorry m8 not sure i understand that?