MSE in court,,,

dmg24

So at which court is the hearing to be held mdbarber, or shall we just ask ice? :T

As I have said to you numerous times, I am more than willing to assist other MSEers with legal arguments, but only those that are willing to take on board the information given, and not such an arrogant (insert chosen word) as yourself.

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

So at which court is the hearing to be held mdbarber, or shall we just ask ice? :T

As I have said to you numerous times, I am more than willing to assist other MSEers with legal arguments, but only those that are willing to take on board the information given, and not such an arrogant (insert chosen word) as yourself.

I guess thats why you have the time to" assist" others, simply because "NO ONE" in their right mind would pay for or heed your advice

grayme-m

Is this case Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk (as per your initial thread) or Mad Dog Barber vs incarexpress.co.uk?

jeannieblue

mdbarber wrote: »

I guess thats why you have the time to" assist" others, simply because "NO ONE" in their right mind would pay for or heed your advice

Now that last post of yours is well written. There is no bad grammar - there is no 'lol' and plenty of punctuation.

Are there two of you writing these posts OP?

Its not at all consistent.

Anyone else spotted this?

dmg24

jeannieblue wrote: »

Now that last post of yours is well written. There is no bad grammar - there is no 'lol' and plenty of punctuation.

Are there two of you writing these posts OP?

Its not at all consistent.

Anyone else spotted this?

I just assumed that most are written when he has had a few shandies ...

jeannieblue

dmg24 wrote: »

I just assumed that most are written when he has had a few shandies ...

Aaah :rolleyes:

Now it makes sense... well, actually, no, none of it makes sense to be honest :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The whole thread leaves me bewildered.......

Bamber19

It's going to be based on the SOGA and other Acts if necessary (what do you actually mean by that, surely you want to put forward your strongest case possible from the off)... what part? I honestly can't find any part that suggests you have the right you think you have. There'd be no disadvantage of posting your argument here, without being rude there's no chance you're going to be creating a brand new, fresh, succesful argument that has never been used before so if you actually believe you have a strong case on the back of the SOGA and other acts then regardless of their legal representative having your argument in full then they'd have no real way of defending it succesfully, again, that is if they actually have breached a right that you have under the SOGA, but, that's where there's a disagreement between you... and everyone else.

Of course there's always the distinct possibility you're going to make the big mistake and start creating law that doesn't exist in court.

As far as I can see it is going to go like this.

mdbarber: They should have paid for the return of the faulty item up front, the law says so, honest.

incar: the law doesn't say that, and all we wanted to do was ascertain that the item actually was faulty before refunding for the item and the cost of postage

and unless you can actually provide the court with the relevant law that says you have this right to postage upfront before an item has been found to be faulty you're going to be shaking hands with a friend called failure.

meester

Bamber19 wrote: »

As far as I can see it is going to go like this.

mdbarber: They should have paid for the return of the faulty item up front, the law says so, honest.

incar: the law doesn't say that, and all we wanted to do was ascertain that the item actually was faulty before refunding for the item and the cost of postage

and unless you can actually provide the court with the relevant law that says you have this right to postage upfront before an item has been found to be faulty you're going to be shaking hands with a friend called failure.

All this stuff about faulty goods is barking up the wrong tree.

The OP had the right to return the item within 7 working days under DSR, faulty or not.

The retailer failed to inform him of this right prior to sale. Therefore he is actually given 3 months to return the item.

He asked the retailer to collect the item (under the DSR, unless it is properly notified up-front, the retailer must pay this cost), but he refused to do so.

So basically the OP wanted to return the item, the retailer illegally
(a) didn't notify him of his right to return
(b) refused to accept the return, spouting nonsense about testing whether it was faulty

The fact that it is months later and the item is still with the OP is irrelevant: he asked to return it in plenty of time, and the retailer has not yet collected it.

He should be paid his money in court and the retailer should make arrangements to collect the item.

The OP needs to lose the attitude and explain in court that he wasn't informed about his Distance Selling rights by the seller. The small claims procedure is very informal and it's quite normal for the judge to ask the parties questions to get the facts out (it's not barrister vs. barrister facing off cross-examining!). I wouldn't worry too much about what the OP has put on his claim form, things are not that formal.

Quite clearly the OP had NO IDEA about his Distance Selling rights, yet the law states that the seller must inform the buyer of them, this kind of scenario when you get into arguments about faulty goods is exactly what it's supposed to protect against. If the seller had acted correctly and told the OP the rules, he would have simply tried to fit the goods within 7 days, and just returned them for a no questions asked refund, as his right. As the seller didn't do this, the OP has much extended rights.

uktim29

mdbarber wrote: »

This truly is the funniest thread EVER

I think many will agree with you.

But it's one of those cases of people laughing at you not with you.

Gods knows what your laughing at?

Bamber19

meester wrote: »

All this stuff about faulty goods is barking up the wrong tree.

The OP had the right to return the item within 7 working days under DSR, faulty or not.

The retailer failed to inform him of this right prior to sale. Therefore he is actually given 3 months to return the item.

He asked the retailer to collect the item (under the DSR, unless it is properly notified up-front, the retailer must pay this cost), but he refused to do so.

So basically the OP wanted to return the item, the retailer illegally
(a) didn't notify him of his right to return
(b) refused to accept the return, spouting nonsense about testing whether it was faulty

The fact that it is months later and the item is still with the OP is irrelevant: he asked to return it in plenty of time, and the retailer has not yet collected it.

He should be paid his money in court and the retailer should make arrangements to collect the item.

The OP needs to lose the attitude and explain in court that he wasn't informed about his Distance Selling rights by the seller. The small claims procedure is very informal and it's quite normal for the judge to ask the parties questions to get the facts out (it's not barrister vs. barrister facing off cross-examining!). I wouldn't worry too much about what the OP has put on his claim form, things are not that formal.

Quite clearly the OP had NO IDEA about his Distance Selling rights, yet the law states that the seller must inform the buyer of them, this kind of scenario when you get into arguments about faulty goods is exactly what it's supposed to protect against. If the seller had acted correctly and told the OP the rules, he would have simply tried to fit the goods within 7 days, and just returned them for a no questions asked refund, as his right. As the seller didn't do this, the OP has much extended rights.

Havign never bought from them I can't tell you what is or isn't displayed at the point of purchase so what they have or haven't told the OP is completely unknown to me, but what I would say is that they are not denying the OP their right to return the item under DSR, in fact, they are allowing the return, just saying that they are not going to pay for it, unless proven to be faulty. Not sure the DSR requires the seller to pay for the return of the item, I'll ahve a look but what comes to mind is that they must meet the cost of returning an item that is sent as a substitute (if it isn't wanted) not sure about the scenario where the correct item is sent whether they or the consumer meets the cost of the return, but I will check (out of mere curiosity)

Edit: Just checked, the regs say that the cost of returning an item is incurred by the buyer where this is included in the terms, as I said above, having never bought from them i don't know what is included in the pages that appear during the formation of a contract, but perhaps if they've failed to do this then between our posts mdbarber might actually make herself/himself a case... however i suspect they're just going to run in quoting an unrelated part of the SOGA and sticking their fingers in their ears if anyone dares tell them it's irrelevant.