Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Freddie_Snowbits

Here is what happens normally when goods go faulty. My remote trigger for my studio lighting failed. Changed batteries, still not working. I had used item for about 13 months, so contacted retailler (Internet based). They gave me a return number and I posted (AT MY COST) item back to them. They sent it back to manufacturer, who issued me direct with replacement and refunded my postage. Freddie happy and a couple of freebies as well.

Customer orders car stereo and fits this to car. As customer had accepted the goods, this does not apply.

mdbarber wrote: »

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

Now, here is what happens when someone cannot fit a car stereo! Customer rings up and says 'My car stereo does not work'. 'Ok Sir, please return goods to us and we will sort it out'

Customer does not want to pay postage!

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.

Then claims some artefact about Distance Selling and does not understand terms and conditions. Perhaps because Customer cannot read (imo), therefore cannot read instructions to fit said car stereo!

mdbarber wrote: »

TBH i didnt even read the terms and conditions so i cant have agreed to anything but i did check to see if they had the statutory notice, thats all

I wonder if he has every bought a house or signed a contract for work. Or, has OP reached this stage of life without being able to read.

Or has OP now ready to put in a medical claim as well!

mdbarber wrote: »

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

If OP could be bothered, that is. I await the court case with abandonment!

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

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

From my limited legal knowhow, it is seen as a good thing by the court that one party tries to resolve the issue without the need to go to court; the respondent has to be careful how they act to avoid damaging their position.

Are the conditions really that silly, or just not to your liking?

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

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

I thought the (initial) date for the court case wasn't until the 30th...?

mdbarber

Oh freddie you are so wrong on every count, please go back and read the full thread i know its hard work because of the trolls but then you can comment with authority.

thats right grayme-m, the 30th and they picked 4 working days before the event to request chance to settle, nearly 6 months after they were informed of my intention to sue.
quite obviously they have now taken legal advice from the terminology used in the letters and i suspect now realise they don't have a leg to stand on.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

Oh freddie you are so wrong on every count, please go back and read the full thread i know its hard work because of the trolls but then you can comment with authority.

thats right gray-me, the 30th and they picked 4 working days before the event to request chance to settle, nearly 6 months after they were informed of my intention to sue.
quite obviously they have now taken legal advice from the terminology used in the letters and i suspect now realise they don't have a leg to stand on.

Think about it from their point of view, they are in Cambridge and you are far from there. They could be bang on to win, but is it worth all the effort and cost of attending for the value involved in the case?

With the law, nothing's obvious.

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Think about it from their point of view, they are in Cambridge and you are far from there. They could be bang on to win, but is it worth all the effort and cost of attending for the value involved in the case?

With the law, nothing's obvious.

Surely its worth more to them than the cost of a few gallons and some legal fees, which are probably tax deductible to win this case now they are aware of this thread?, hence why they have rejected a counter offer of settlement over 7p, and some people call me a cheapskate?

My quote concerning "obvious" was not about the law but about the change in tone of communication indicating a professional legal input.

And sorry i missed yor earlier question;

grayme-m wrote: »

Are the conditions really that silly, or just not to your liking?

They are actually just silly, they present the reason for the offer to settle as linked to meesters post on DSR , implying that because of that failing they accept to take the item back now as they should have done then,, but then state that if they don't find the item to be faulty they will, blah blah blah.
So yes silly, they are either accepting it back under DSR in which case it does not need to be faulty, or they are accepting it back under the SOGA which is an admission that i was right all along.
As neither has been made clear and they rejected my counter offer of settlement for the sake of seven pence (their words not mine) we shall see how the courts view that.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

My quote concerning "obvious" was not about the law but about the change in tone of communication indicating a professional legal input.

Maybe there's another thread on MSE with advice being given?

mdbarber wrote: »

They are actually just silly, they present the reason for the offer to settle as linked to meesters post on DSR

Hmmmm, to me this seems to contradict your point in my previous quote, is that fair?

mpython

mdbarber wrote: »

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

Have you made a counter offer to settle or just rejected theirs?

mdbarber

mpython wrote: »

Have you made a counter offer to settle or just rejected theirs?

yes i made a counter offer it was higher than theirs by 7p and it was rejected on that basis lol,
wonder if i can drop this and get my money back from a newspaper story, i have very good documented evidence

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Maybe there's another thread on MSE with advice being given?



Hmmmm, to me this seems to contradict your point in my previous quote, is that fair?

sorry graym-me i am lost completely there, how do you read that paragraph?