• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Consumer Law.

So very true!

I have allowed MB to treat me like an idiot to the point that MB have contradicted themselves even in the Witness box, under Oath.

See; companycardriver.co.uk/news/artical/?_id412564719

Hadn't they seen you in Trainspotting. I wouldn't have argued.:D
 
I'm absolutely gobsmacked that, apparently, Mercedes-Benz Chelsea (ie Daimler-Chrysler Retail) stood up in court and said "it's not our fault" and pointed the blame at Mercedes-Benz UK.

Did Judge Hallon burst out laughing?

She did ask "why are we here?"

Yes, indeed, what were we doing there! :doh:
 
Small claims court is quick and painless if they want to play that game.
Last year my son purchased a vallance for his previous MkV Golf.. the thing arrived damaged... it was just not damaged it was split end to end.

He contacted the retailer.. They said, "Tough!"

They would not back down and refused to give my son a refund.

We contacted Trading Standards and they gave us all the relevant legislation that applied and also what this person was contravening.

We were told we had the right to a full refund and if the seller wanted the damaged item returned.. They had to pay the return postage. The seller refused to any type of refund so...

We went took our claim to the small claims court.

Trading Standards documented all the relevant acts, all the laws this trader had contravened, We documented the relevantlegislation, plus we also sent in all the relevant correspondance.

At the last minute the seller offered us a refund.... if we sent the item back by courier at our expense.

Trading Standards told us to tell the seller to take a hike... We did

The Small Claims Court threw out our claim because we had refused to send the item back at our expense!!

Trading Standards were aghast and said the court were wrong, they had not kept abreast of current law and their supervisor would have words with thejudge... Meantime we were out of pocket!!

Being right is not always the answer :(
 
The Small Claims Court threw out our claim because we had refused to send the item back at our expense!!

Trading Standards were aghast and said the court were wrong, they had not kept abreast of current law and their supervisor would have words with thejudge... Meantime we were out of pocket!!

Being right is not always the answer :(

Can you appeal in a case like this?
 
Can you appeal in a case like this?

I think this may be the other way around and Trading Standards are not keeping up with the guidlines given to judges and magistrates? If I understand this correctly a Valance was purchased from a seller either on line or over the phone? . If the seller then dispatches the goods via a courier and the goods are in good condition and fit for purpose when they leave the seller the onus then transfers to the courier company. So presumably these goods got damaged in transit and the seller is saying "Tough" not my fault blame the courier? Not helpful I know but it is correct. The seller then should have got the courier to collect the damaged valance, claimed off the courier for the damage and dispatched you a new one and that should have been the end of the dispute.

It would appear in this case he could not be bothered to contact the courier and just said tough to you, so you did take the correct action by going via the small claims route, did you detail all your costs on the claim i.e the cost of the item, the cost of returning the item etc as it is important to list every last detail and cost. When this got to court a judge will look at the case and make a call on the facts, they are told to look for signs of co operation between the seller and the buyer and for any unreasonable conduct by both parties.

What I suspect has happened here is the judge has looked at this seen the sellers offer of a refund if you return the damaged item and classed that as goodwill, he has then looked at your refusal to send it back at your own expense and interpreted this as unreasonable. I know this doesn't help but thats the way they work.

Ultimately the seller is at fault as he should have resolved it on your behalf with the courier company. Personally I would see of the offer of the return at your expense is still open from the seller take this and cut your losses but if he is had bad as you say he probably knows he has won and wont co operate anymore.

My final advice would be be very careful of advice given by Citizens advice Beareau or Trading Standards they are not always correct and it's the poor consumer that carries the can. At the end of the day it is one persons interpretation of the written word and we are all capable of interpreting things differently.

Finally I am sorry your son was fleeced like this by an unscrupulous seller they give people dealing in parts like that a bad name, I am not sure if you can appeal or not but Mrs F definitely will, I'll give her a call
 
Just spoke to Mrs F

You can only appeal a small claims ruling if you suspect there was a legal mistake or some kind of serious irregularity and you have 14 days in which to appeal after the ruling.

I don't know what reason you were given by the court as to why the claim was not upheld, apparently appeals are very rarely granted.

Not sure if there is any mileage in the advice given by the Trading Standards that would constitute grounds for appeal or not? Difficult to comment without knowing the full facts but just thought the above might help in your quest to seek justice against the seller.
 
With the very greatest of respect... Could it possibly be you that is not keeping up with the legislation?

I was just the bloke on the end of the phone but I see you have not included any of the distance selling regulations and countless other legislation that Trading Standards Provided. I was speaking to an expert and they were posting me all the very latest legislation.

Spinal
I have no idea if we could appeal, (I think we could) but good money after bad comes to mind... From memory, I think we could have appealed but it was our money and Trading Standards were only offering advice... They did contact the Leeds Trading Standards Office with a request to visit this outlet.
 
With the very greatest of respect... Could it possibly be you that is not keeping up with the legislation?

I was just the bloke on the end of the phone but I see you have not included any of the distance selling regulations and countless other legislation that Trading Standards Provided. I was speaking to an expert and they were posting me all the very latest legislation.

Spinal
I have no idea if we could appeal, (I think we could) but good money after bad comes to mind... From memory, I think we could have appealed but it was our money and Trading Standards were only offering advice... They did contact the Leeds Trading Standards Office with a request to visit this outlet.

It could well be, but I can only comment on guidelines given to Judges and Magistrates. You are quite correct the distance selling act and numerous other acts do come into this equation but without knowing the full facts its difficult to comment and the reason I did not mention them and Mrs F is the expert on this not me.

Trading Standards do not always get it right is all I am saying . There have been many cases brought by Trading Standards kicked out of court particularly in the Garage motor trade areas.

I'm on your side John and hope you get this resolved, but sometimes Judges get it wrong too or interpret the facts differently.

On a separate note which company was it in Leeds as the Motorsport outfit I work for gets its VW panels from Leeds and I work in Leeds so if It's one of the big ones I'll know them, If you don't want to post it then PM me or if you dont want to say thats also fine but if its one we know I'm quite happy to have a go at them on your behalf if you want.

I'm here to try and help not criticise :)

regards
Ian
 
If the seller then dispatches the goods via a courier and the goods are in good condition and fit for purpose when they leave the seller the onus then transfers to the courier company.

Absolutely no way. It's entirely the sellers responsibility to ensure that the goods are delivered in good condition.
 
Absolutely no way. It's entirely the sellers responsibility to ensure that the goods are delivered in good condition.

I thought the same myself, as I think the contract is between the consumer and the vendor, not between the courier and consumer.
 
Absolutely no way. It's entirely the sellers responsibility to ensure that the goods are delivered in good condition.

How can the seller possibly guarantee that? Thats why the Royal Mail et al all have insurance so you can claim off them if they stuff it up and damage the goods. Have you never dealt on e bay and seen on Listings " Seller is not responsible for good damaged in transit"

The onus is quite clearly on the courier but it is the responsibility of the seller to resolve or claim this from the courier and then reimburse the buyer.
 
How can the seller possibly guarantee that? Thats why the Royal Mail et al all have insurance so you can claim off them if they stuff it up and damage the goods. Have you never dealt on e bay and seen on Listings " Seller is not responsible for good damaged in transit"

The onus is quite clearly on the courier but it is the responsibility of the seller to resolve or claim this from the courier and then reimburse the buyer.

That's the way the law is. Some sellers no doubt do see it as onerous.

And it really doesn't matter what it says on eBay - assuming the seller is a business, of course. Even if they're not, eBay almost automatically always sides with the buyer in any dispute (another big bone of contention for eBay sellers).
 
From the distance selling act:
If the consumer has received the goods before cancelling the contract, the consumer will be under a duty to restore those goods to the supplier and, in the meantime, to keep them and take reasonable care of them. This duty to take reasonable care ends if the consumer (at his own expense) sends the goods to the supplier. The consumer is under no obligation to deliver the goods to the supplier except at the consumer's own premises and in pursuance of a written request by the supplier.

Note that failure by a consumer to return goods will not permit the supplier to delay in making a refund. Similarly, if a consumer returns damaged goods he or she does not necessarily lose the right to cancel. The supplier can only rely on the right of action against the consumer for breaching the statutory duty to take reasonable care of the goods.

I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to imply that the seller needs to pick up the goods (or arrange to have them picked up) from the consumer's premises...

M.
 
From the distance selling act:


I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to imply that the seller needs to pick up the goods (or arrange to have them picked up) from the consumer's premises...

M.
Let's not forget that according to the distance selling rules; broken or not you have every right to send something back if it has not been used within 14 days of purchase. You don't even need a reason. You might have to pay to return it if there is nothing wrong with it.
 
I hate having to ask my wife to get me out of things when I get out of my depth:doh:

The legal position in UK law is

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that if an item isn’t fit for the purpose for which it was intended, you can return it for a replacement, refund or repair – the option is yours.


It doesn’t matter whether you purchased it in the High Street or on the Internet, you still have the same rights (just as you would if you’d bought it over the phone or by email).


A guarantee doesn’t really enter into the equation here at all either, as you’re covered under the Sale of Goods Act.


Because it was damaged in transit, the retailer is responsible for supplying you with either another item, or you could reasonably ask for a refund or replacement. However, it’s fair for them to ask you to return the item before doing anything in order to examine the damage that happened and be sure it actually exists. That’s no reflection on your honesty, just simple and sensible business practice.

On matter in question she points out most courier companies have in the small print you are signing to say you received the items in satisfactory condition. Items should be unwrapped and checked before signing, not very practical I know but thats the terms and conditions of carriage.

The retailer is within his rights to ask you to return your goods at your expense but most reputable sellers will then refund this.

If you have not complied with the 2 points above then your chances of legal redress are slim.

Her opinions not mine and although I hate to admit it she knows a lot more than I do on this subject
 
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that if an item isn’t fit for the purpose for which it was intended, you can return it for a replacement, refund or repair – the option is yours.

Guidance for business's on Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 states: (note "you" is the supplier)

3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will
have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf
 
I think we mustall take a very deep breath and I for one RESPECT and appreciate all of flanaia1'sexcellent input.

He has very tactfully, and very politely pointed out that he was not in posession of all the facts. I threw in the distance selling regulations as just one actwhich this person was in breach of... there were countless other acts and the Trading Standards OfficerI spoke to wasextremely helpful, all the advice they gave was run through their department before I got it.

The seller was NOT connected to any of the names mentioned by flanaia1.. Thery are an accessory 'shop' which we found out was run from a private house... They sold items on e-bay and that was where my son purchased this vallance... PLEASE note I said sold... It was NOT an auction, the item was sold as new and at a fixed price. It was also a Ltd company and VAT
registered

We would also state the item was not fit for purpose and not fit to do what it was designed for.

Me being me would suggest this outfit obtained damaged parts from a skip, sold them over the Internet and then tried blaming everyone and their dog if a customer dared to complain. We tried complaining to the courier but my wife had signed for the sealed package and we had not complained within two hours of delivery? Just becausre my son was ta work and did not open the package for several hoursis irrelevant.

I will ask my son the name of this so called company as I attached several identical complaints to our claim.. Complaints from other customers who were also told the exact same thing.

This company posts parts and if the recipiant signs for the package then the seller refuses to accept ANY responsibilty
 
Guidance for business's on Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 states: (note "you" is the supplier)

3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will
have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

I think that is what she is saying but most sellers get you to send the good back at your expense to check the damage and then remimburse your courier costs if the goods are faulty, until the seller has inspected the goods he has no way of knowing if they are faulty or not. Some unscrupulous sellers will not refund the cost knowing most people wont take it any further. Some company's and Ebuyer is a good example of this arrange collection with their courier to return the goods to them this ensures customer satisfaction in my opinion.

Mrs F has also just come up with another good point.

John

If the goods were purchased on a credit card then you could get the card company to dispute the transaction and may be covered under the terms and conditions of the card, which means the card isuer would refund the money and then take up the matter with the supplier, might be worth a thought?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom