What ever happened to the ICE Fitter?

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

Excellent.

So - why are you still bleating on about it?

As for my posting the wrong t/cs, yes, I've explained that. I had the SOGA page open and the t/cs of a site I was looking at open (see, I read t/cs before buying; I've found I run into fewer problems that way) and I copied the wrong page. It still doesn't exempt you from not reading the t/cs in the first place.

I don't need exempting from reading anything, as stated many time it's not relevant yet you still bleat on about it even now!!
I have never read the chronicles of narnia either and that's as relevent to this case as incarexpress.co.uk's T&C's so why do you keep mentioning them?

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

I have never read the chronicles of narnia either and that's as relevent to this case as incarexpress.co.uk's T&C's so why do you keep mentioning them?

If you can't see why reading ICE's terms and conditions is relevant to what happens when a purchase from ICE goes wrong, then you're beyond all help!

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

If you can't see why reading ICE's terms and conditions is relevant to what happens when a purchase from ICE goes wrong, then you're beyond all help!

and if you can't see that even taking ice's T&C's are irrelevant then the same applies!
The T&C's state quite explicitly that if you return an item under their warranty, then and only then are you expected to pay for the return.
It also says that "Your Statutory Rights remain unaffected"
It does not say "If you reject goods under the SOGA" you must pay for return.
The law is well established that a warranty is a distinct separate entity that you do not have to accept!! it is a gift so to speak and is not legally binding to you in any way unless you claim under it
So even if I had spent a month reading the T&C's they would not apply in this case and are therefore irrelevant!
any further forward?

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

and if you can't see that even taking ice's T&C's are irrelevant then the same applies!
The T&C's state quite explicitly that if you return an item under their warranty, then and only then are you expected to pay for the return.
It also says that "Your Statutory Rights remain unaffected"
It does not say "If you reject goods under the SOGA" you must pay for return.
The law is well established that a warranty is a distinct separate entity that you do not have to accept!! it is a gift so to speak and is not legally binding to you in any way unless you claim under it
So even if I had spent a month reading the T&C's they would not apply in this case and are therefore irrelevant!
any further forward?

But as you have clearly admitted, it initially worked - therefore this is seen as claiming under the warranty, when you are expected to pay for the return.

Now, feel free to keep repeating the same lines back at me till you're blue in the face but it ain't gonna change the facts.

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

But as you have clearly admitted, it initially worked - therefore this is seen as claiming under the warranty, when you are expected to pay for the return.

Now, feel free to keep repeating the same lines back at me till you're blue in the face but it ain't gonna change the facts.

So you have a reference or source which says that says if a item appears to work ok for a small amount of time it is then a warrenty claim?
I hate to bring something "new" to the table but if you had actually read the window you had open on the SOGa you would have seen this
"(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability."

Sort of knocks you're theory on the head no?

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

Things of moved on somewhat, they are now offering to pay me my money and pick the damm thing up, but as the judge ordered the terms of settlement must be met by the 28th lets see if they actually do it.

Doesn't that worry you?

I'd be worried if they were to come around my house after I'd been typing all sorts about them.

Some of these car technicians can be quite big.

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Doesn't that worry you?

I'd be worried if they were to come around my house after I'd been typing all sorts about them.

Some of these car technicians can be quite big.

If I were a wallflower I would have let this die a long time ago, threats?? that's what bullies count on! not respectable business people!

Sssssss

what happened to the poll and did you get your money back?

mdbarber

Sssssss wrote: »

what happened to the poll and did you get your money back?

Have no idea what happened to the poll guess it was removed but contacted abuse address and got only auto reply.
Nope still no sign of my money, they still seem to want for this to go to a hearing! (or 2 or 3 considering some communications)

mdbarber

well there is some small news and possibly progress at last, incarexpress have confirmed in an email that they are definitely refusing to pay me, so i have now contacted the courts with a statement of my position.
Should get real interesting now!
never before heard of anybody ignoring the law because they feel it's not "fair and reasonable"