Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

dmg24

mdbarber wrote: »

How would i know, but thats another question we will get answered on the 30th lol

Can't find anybody to agree with you again mdbarber? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mute_posting

Just realised OP doesn't have much luck in their dealings involving car stereos!

If they're not buying faulty ones they are embroiled in miss-priced battles.

Perhaps they should just ask somebody else to buy them on their behalf - they seem to be jinxed.

MP

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

Can't find anybody to agree with you again mdbarber? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

omg can't u even read dude this was a question thread, i didn't really express any opinions other than retaliation to the flamers like you who only gave guff without backing it up

mdbarber

mute_posting wrote: »

Just realised OP doesn't have much luck in their dealings involving car stereos!

If they're not buying faulty ones they are embroiled in miss-priced battles.

Perhaps they should just ask somebody else to buy them on their behalf - they seem to be jinxed.

MP

hey mp how ya doing, now u can see where i get my interest in consumer rights from

mdbarber

sorry had started discussing an extention to this in another thread by accident and focus on the actual problem is being lost now as OT has moved into whether the DSR would be applicable which is unfortunately not the case due to dates etc handy to let the judge know, if the defendant can muddy the waters so can i

mdbarber

Well people been picking up my email over last 2 days and there is an offer on the table, rejected due to silly conditions.
Also believe there is a recorded delivery letter at my home so step son informs me.
Can't believe they are nit-picking over the hearing fee and have made the conditional offer so convoluted and complex i can barely understand it.
I will be home shortly so go over the details then if i can be bothered been a very hard week and am not feeling too well, stress from this probably

mdbarber

The dirty rotten cowards have now applied to the judge to have the hearing deferred so they can reach a settlement, will keep everyone posted.

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

am not feeling too well, stress from this probably

Boo hoo....

mdbarber

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Boo hoo....

aww are you bitter because you were once again proved to be totally incorrect?

jdh488

I cant believe that after all this time this thread is still going on, why hasn't Incar Express looked at this and thought, Ok the Stereo isnt working, otherwise it wouldnt have got to this stage.
I would have thought that they must have a postage deal with some company that would allow them to collect the Stereo for a few quid, as is the correct way legally, they would not be out of pocket to refund, as surely they return it to their supplier/manufacturer.
It is about time that somebody took a stand against companies who operate in this way in general, where consumers buy goods that are found to be defective, many companies get away with the fact that they state somewhere in small print that goods must be returned at purchasers expense if defective for refund or replacement, a lot of companies offer a free collection service for defective goods, which as i said above costs a little for them, and provides consumer confidence and good customer service, which is in full the principal in this whole thread and should be essentialy the theory behind any internet based business ethos.
The way i see it, and others will agree and disagree, is MD has purely asked them to arrange collection and refund for the item which is defective, which appears to be legally correct, he hasn,t done it for any financial gain, he has purely asked for the item to be dealt with as per what the law says.
Good luck with this and hopefully when the Judge makes the ruling at court and awards for you, others will draw inspiration from this and stand for there rights as you have done, pushing companies who try and get away with it to sharpen up and provide the basics of good customer service.