What ever happened to the ICE Fitter?

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

Just exactly what I want?, no I think the statement of case was that I want my money back. my interpretation of the law says I am entitled to it.

Later today, I am going to take my couple of 81tches to the pub and with these two hounds in tow, I am sure to get to the bar, and I will get a lager for them, and watch them lap it up. Beside, the current personal trainer, Lady Freda will come along as well, and if I offer enough monies, I am sure that mes and a few boys could pop round their place and get your money back, as that is what you want. I will just call it part of the service, it would save you legs from getting hurt as you raise up from the seat and the time it would take to get down the post office.

Please do not worry about my expenses, my boys would take sufficient to cover theirs. If you pm me with you address, I will send on your refund in stamps! This way, you can save face, get your money back and ...

cavycrazy wrote: »

I see your dilemma. Wouldn't it be good if Royal Mail did some kind of tracking service whereby you could send a parcel and the folks at the other end had to sign for it, thereby proving what you sent?

As for tracking, no problem, as I have my own media company, we will have it up on YouTube within minutes!

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Is it just me, or do your arguments just keep going around in circles?

You believe it is faulty, otherwise you wouldn't want a swap (now refund), what is your problem with them wanting it returned under the faulty goods return procedure?

ICE don't know until they see the item so want to see it to find out it is faulty, how can they be sure anything is faulty until they see it?

So you want them to just refund you when as the consumer, you hold all the legal aces (e.g. SOGA, etc.) and then trust you to send it back to them afterwards?

My arguments do keep going round in circles yes, whilst people are asking the same questions where else can they go?

I mean no one asks new questions like;

Why didn't incarexpress just exchange the damm thing, as any decent company would do?

Why didn't incarexpress mention their goods in transit insurance when mdb complained about the high post office charges back in January

Why did it take them 6 months and a impending court hearing to even offer to pick it up?

How come their supposed offers contain loads of request for me to do stuff without offering me anything other than I consider I am entitled to

AFAIK, they already know its faulty, they have been reading the threads!, as for legal aces, the SOGA protects them as well, it says I must make the goods available for collection! and duty of care applies.

As far as why I can't trust them, I just don't, and I think I have good reason, Obviously they don't trust me either and there is a big crunch, why?? so I guess on that score we are even. Is that important in court?,
You should know you've been there enough lol

Sssssss

ok I'll ask

Why didn't incarexpress just exchange the damm thing, as any decent company would do?

Why didn't incarexpress mention their goods in transit insurance when mdb complained about the high post office charges back in January

Why did it take them 6 months and a impending court hearing to even offer to pick it up?

How come their supposed offers contain loads of request for me to do stuff without offering me anything other than I consider I am entitled to

grayme-m

Sssssss wrote: »

ok I'll ask

Why didn't incarexpress just exchange the damm thing, as any decent company would do?

Maybe because it seems he wanted to do a swap whereby he kept both items?

Sssssss wrote: »

Why didn't incarexpress mention their goods in transit insurance when mdb complained about the high post office charges back in January

Why didn't mdb spend 8 quid on a courier?

Sssssss wrote: »

Why did it take them 6 months and a impending court hearing to even offer to pick it up?

Perhaps before this time, all other customers had just returned the item and they were trying to avoid court action?

Sssssss wrote: »

How come their supposed offers contain loads of request for me to do stuff without offering me anything other than I consider I am entitled to

Perhaps you're greedy and the only person that does consider you are?

The judge may consider you to be right, but have you even thought of the possibility he won't?You've even posted you're enjoying this, are you just looking for a fight?

Sssssss

forget SOGA, I think TPSOGA applies in this case.

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Maybe because it seems he wanted to do a swap whereby he kept both items?

anyone can make up ridiculous answers! shall I have a go at that?

"Ummm maybe incarexpresss.co.uk have a nice little side earner going sending out faulty kit time after time and charging people "testing fee's" say £30.00 a pop and they never actually need to sell a stereo?"
You see if they had sent a courier to exchange the items that simply wouldn't be possible! now would it?

grayme-m wrote: »

Why didn't mdb spend 8 quid on a courier?

oh thats easy, because he had already paid for one to carry working goods to him!

grayme-m wrote: »

Perhaps before this time, all other customers had just returned the item and they were trying to avoid court action?

Personally, If some one had told me I was breaking the law and had threatened court action, I would attend the hearing to clear my name and not try all ways to wriggle out of it!

grayme-m wrote: »

Perhaps you're greedy and the only person that does consider you are?

Well I think we have already established that is not the case!
Have I ever asked for anything that was not due to me ie my money back and court fees?
Oh yes I made the mistake of rounding the figure up by 7p when asked to package and post the item back,, sorry but that would have been seven pence well spent and they rejected that.

grayme-m wrote: »

The judge may consider you to be right, but have you even thought of the possibility he won't?You've even posted you're enjoying this, are you just looking for a fight?

At all times I have been very clear on this, incarexpress.co.uk give me my money back + court fees then we can forget hearings etc. there would be no case, childishly simple really!
I think they seem to have forgotten that fact, that whilst I filled in the paperwork they are the ones insisting on a hearing,
By refusing to refund me as the SOGA says they should!!

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

"Ummm maybe incarexpresss.co.uk have a nice little side earner going sending out faulty kit time after time and charging people "testing fee's" say £30.00 a pop and they never actually need to sell a stereo?"

I love the smell of libel on a Saturday afternoon!

But see, if ICE were actually carrying out what you suggest above, then surely this site would be full of threads complaining, and people would be all over this thread saying "yes, they had me over too" and the internet in general would be flooded with posts/blog entries etc from people saying "don't buy from ICE". But none of that is the case which suggests that despite their rather unfair t's and c's, they are an honest and legit company.

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

I love the smell of libel on a Saturday afternoon!

But see, if ICE were actually carrying out what you suggest above, then surely this site would be full of threads complaining, and people would be all over this thread saying "yes, they had me over too" and the internet in general would be flooded with posts/blog entries etc from people saying "don't buy from ICE". But none of that is the case which suggests that despite their rather unfair t's and c's, they are an honest and legit company.

lol actually it would take the full context and because you have used those words without any disclaimer, I think it is you who has just libelled them, this just gets better and better!

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

this just gets better and better!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
No! It is long and drawn out. And ooops, what has happened to the nice signature that MB had?

Hope that was not libellous!

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

lol actually it would take the full context and because you have used those words without any disclaimer, I think it is you who has just libelled them, this just gets better and better!

Oh don't be a pillock. Anyone with the ability to read can see that I was actually pointing out, given the lack of complaints on the internet about them, the likelihood that they are a reasonable company.