Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

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

You've not won yet.

mdbarber

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

You've not won yet.

TBH I don't think anyone will win here, even if i got paid twice over the amount this is about, I would still feel cheated due to the hassle I have had over it.
I will feel justified in my actions if it saves some poor kid being abused(in a customer service way) as I know many young lads like my stepson would have just had to kiss goodbye to the £87.00
I suppose that will have to suffice.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

TBH I don't think anyone will win here, even if i got paid twice over the amount this is about, I would still feel cheated due to the hassle I have had over it.
I will feel justified in my actions if it saves some poor kid being abused(in a customer service way) as I know many young lads like my stepson would have just had to kiss goodbye to the £87.00
I suppose that will have to suffice.

I'm confused, I thought this whole thing was over whether the customer should have to pay to send the (faulty) item back, and should it be refunded if they did?

Why would anyone lose all their money?

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

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

The first line queried if ICE's legal advice was on MSE too rather than a paid proffessional.

The second that if they had got 'real' legal advice, was it really likely to quote a poster in an online forum?

I don't think you're mistyping my name on purpose?

deanos

mdbarber wrote: »

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

Have i got this right they made you an offer and you said no i want 7p more

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

The first line queried if ICE's legal advice was on MSE too rather than a paid proffessional.
The second that if they had got 'real' legal advice, was it really likely to quote a poster in an online forum?

Sorry yes i got that bit, it was the mention you made about contradiction pointing to the line wherei used the term silly, which was in response to a question " are they silly or or just not to my liking" and that i didn't understand.(post78)

Sorry bout the name thing will try to be more careful in future

As for the statement bout losing the full amount my SS would not have had the confidence to argue on technical points, to spend money to return item or seek legal advice when being threatened with extra charges etc so would have kissed the lot good bye and i'm sure this would apply to many youngsters
My reference to the "meester scenario" was not a direct quote, but their offer contained a statement along those same lines ie they admitted they had failed in that respect in failing to give adequate notice etc

mdbarber

deanos wrote: »

Have i got this right they made you an offer and you said no i want 7p more

lmao

Close but slightly more complex, will try and map out but pls don't hold me to quibbles bout pennies.

1. Offer from them, £144.93 + loads stupid conditions.

2 My counter offer, this i must add was made very quickly to appease their request that things were expedited so as to avoid the impending hearing and in it made several important concessions but in essence was

drop all the crap mumbo jumbo terms i don't understand and give me a full unconditional refund of £145 and i will take time to package, go to po/depot and return the item., this is what they rejected and i quote

"we are unable to enter into further prolonged discussion of this
matter, and are unable to meet your request for an increased settlement
amount"

Brooker_Dave

mdbarber wrote: »

TBH I don't think anyone will win here, even if i got paid twice over the amount this is about, I would still feel cheated due to the hassle I have had over it.
I will feel justified in my actions if it saves some poor kid being abused(in a customer service way) as I know many young lads like my stepson would have just had to kiss goodbye to the £87.00
I suppose that will have to suffice.

All you had to do was send it back.

Difficult customers are why everything here in the UK costs far more than it does elsewhere....

mdbarber

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

All you had to do was send it back.

Difficult customers are why everything here in the UK costs far more than it does elsewhere....

Sorry m8 but that is absolute bloody nonsense, the reason prices are so high here is because consumers are less well informed and can't just nip over the border to obtain lower prices.
You are so obviously biased in favour of retailers it sickens me

Bamber19

mdbarber wrote: »

lmao

Close but slightly more complex, will try and map out but pls don't hold me to quibbles bout pennies.

1. Offer from them, £144.93 + loads stupid conditions.

2 My counter offer, this i must add was made very quickly to appease their request that things were expedited so as to avoid the impending hearing and in it made several important concessions but in essence was

drop all the crap mumbo jumbo terms i don't understand and give me a full unconditional refund of £145 and i will take time to package, go to po/depot and return the item., this is what they rejected and i quote

"we are unable to enter into further prolonged discussion of this
matter, and are unable to meet your request for an increased settlement
amount"

Did you consider asking someone who would understand the terms what they meant?