| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
andyhat
Occasional Visitor
Joined: May 09, 2006
Posts: 25
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Lost_Property"] | Quote: |
Nothing like a good wind up when they are acting thick. :P |
he might not just be acting stupid, 
_________________
tt go510.
n70. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peterc10
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 1761
Location: Kent, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing to add
Head the letter "LETTER BEFORE LEGAL ACTION" in big bold letters at the top.
Send a copy of it to your credit card company with a seperate letter telling them that you hold them jointly liable and quote Consumer Credit Act (see my previous post). Tell them you will "join them with Halfords" in any legal action you are forced to take.
That wakes em up
_________________
Peter
HTC Sensation
Sygic GPS for Europe (No more TT "support"!)
Copilot for USA
Bury CC9060 bluetooth car kit & Brodit mount |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alsone1
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peterc10 wrote: | | They are not strictly "breaking the law". They are in breach of an implied term of the contract you have with them, but that is not the same. |
No they are breaking the law.
The law is quite clear and the civil aspect is strict liabilty under statute not an implied term - covered by the Sale of Goods Act as amended by the later Sale of Goods and Services Act.
The goods must be of reasonable quality, fit the description and be fit for the purpose for which they were intended (read usual purpose unless you specifially asked about their suitability for another purpose).
Any attempt to restrict the scope of the above is covered under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and this renders any terms that attempt to do that unenforceable.
It is also specifically a criminal offence to attempt to exclude the terms of the Sale of Goods Act as against a consumer.
Al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alsone1
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to find their head office address, go to here and do a company search (its free):
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
Under Web Check, select a free search and search for Halfords.
The search should reveal a lst of companies with this or similar names. Find the right one then double click the name. The basic details including the registered office will be displayed.
PS Please no search only possible between 7am and 12pm.
Al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterc10
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 1761
Location: Kent, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alsone1 wrote: |
It is also specifically a criminal offence to attempt to exclude the terms of the Sale of Goods Act as against a consumer.
Al. |
Can you point me to that part of the Act, or for that matter the regulations, that makes that so please, because I have never found it.
The Act and regulations follows the same format as many other consumer regulations in that it implies, by statute, a term into the contract. The contract itself does not need to have the term in it, and is not a criminal act of any sort not to have the term in. That can be seen from the fact that many consumer contracts have no written terms at all - try asking for a written contract next time you buy a newspaper!
The 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act invalidates any attempt to exclude the implied terms as to fitness for purpose, quality, correspondence with description and title to goods set out in the Sale of Goods Act. However it does not make it a criminal offence to include such exclusions, it just makes them invalid.
I am also having some difficulty with your term "strict liability". That is a term used in Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 relating specifically to the safety of a product and the manufacturer's liability should a defect in the product (as defined by S3) cause death or personal injury. It does not impose an implied contractual term in order to do so because in most cases there is no direct contractual link between the manufacturer and the consumer. In any event this liability does not relate to economic loss and is not directly related to the terms of the cotract implied by the Sale of Goods Act.
There are some Acts that protect the consumer by the imposition of criminal penalties. Sadly the Sale of Goods Act and the Supply (not Sale) of Goods and Services Act are not one of them.
_________________
Peter
HTC Sensation
Sygic GPS for Europe (No more TT "support"!)
Copilot for USA
Bury CC9060 bluetooth car kit & Brodit mount |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alsone1
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Peter under Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 The Order makes it a criminal offence to restrict the consumer's statutory rights by means of a notice, statement or documents, e.g. a notice that states 'No Refunds'.
Also the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is strict liability. Don't get confused by the fact that the act uses the term "implied term". It may imply a term into the contract of sale between the parties as to the fitness of the goods etc. But at the end of the day liability under that term is strict.
All that an aggreived party needs to show is that the contract is one which is covered by the Act (ie they are dealing with a retailer as a consumer) and that a breach of the implied term has occurred. There is no need to prove any damage or loss as a result. It is the lack of a need to prove loss, damage or blame, or satisfy any further requirements, that classifies liabilty as strict.
Al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldfogy
Frequent Visitor
Joined: May 08, 2006
Posts: 252
Location: West Midlands. UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if this might help, and apologise if on the wrong track as I have not read all of this thread.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm
_________________
(If it ain't broke, I can soon fix it) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyhat
Occasional Visitor
Joined: May 09, 2006
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
reply at last.
Thank you for your recent emails regarding your TOMTOM. I can confirm that
you are eligible for an exchange/refund on this product as we have
experienced problems with this product that you have described, at least
you should have been offered a repair on the unit. If you print this email
and return to the store and explain that you are allowed an
exchange/refund.
If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards
Richard Waters
Halfords Customer Services
_________________
tt go510.
n70. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
