On 27/01/2013 19:20, Onetap wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:13:20 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:

I did try this, they just replied they met their legal obligations by

issuing a credit note with T&Cs printed on it.

Aye; but the T&Cs have to be made known to you before you agree to the contract/accepting a credit note. Handing you the T&Cs on the credit note is a fail; the contract has already been made.

Did they tell you of the T&Cs before? If not, then they don't apply. Amateurs.


I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....

The gist of which is:
--------------------------------------------------
"In any event as the goods were not fit for purpose (the reason for
return) then under the sale of goods 1979 - I can insist on a refund
(I would accept a Credit note you would honour)


If I do not receive satisfactory result from yourself I will sue through
the Small Claims Court and that this will entail you having to pay court
costs on top of the money you will have to refund to you.


It is clear case in Law that your representative (Store Manager) should
have clearly explained the time limit, not wait for me to find out when
I present it.

A contract was formed when I agreed to accept a credit note.
You didn't tell you about the terms and conditions before I agreed to
take the credit note, therefore the conditions do not apply.

It is clear case in Law that you cannot impose conditions after the
agreement/ contract/bargain has been made.
Your comment that the expiry date is printed on the credit note is
invalid in Law; I could not have read that until I had received it,
which is after you had entered into the contract.


I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
.... lets see what they come back with

On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:39:26 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:

I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....

I expect they'll ignore it.
Don't assume they'll act with any integrity, as most traders would; the whole credit not has been carefully designed to trap the unwary customer. You'll have to sue or abandon your money.

The simple fact is that you were unaware of the expiry date since they had not advised you of the T&Cs in tiny print on their credit not. They're trying to impose additional, unfair terms on a done deal.

On 28/01/2013 17:39, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 27/01/2013 19:20, Onetap wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:13:20 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:

I did try this, they just replied they met their legal obligations by

issuing a credit note with T&Cs printed on it.

Aye; but the T&Cs have to be made known to you before you agree to
the contract/accepting a credit note. Handing you the T&Cs on the
credit note is a fail; the contract has already been made.

Did they tell you of the T&Cs before? If not, then they don't
apply. Amateurs.


I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....

The gist of which is:
--------------------------------------------------
"In any event as the goods were not fit for purpose (the reason for
return) then under the sale of goods 1979 - I can insist on a refund
(I would accept a Credit note you would honour)


If I do not receive satisfactory result from yourself I will sue through
the Small Claims Court and that this will entail you having to pay court
costs on top of the money you will have to refund to you.


It is clear case in Law that your representative (Store Manager) should
have clearly explained the time limit, not wait for me to find out when
I present it.

A contract was formed when I agreed to accept a credit note.
You didn't tell you about the terms and conditions before I agreed to
take the credit note, therefore the conditions do not apply.

It is clear case in Law that you cannot impose conditions after the
agreement/ contract/bargain has been made.
Your comment that the expiry date is printed on the credit note is
invalid in Law; I could not have read that until I had received it,
which is after you had entered into the contract.


I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
... lets see what they come back with






It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited
Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time of
issue"

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

On Jan 21, 10:00*pm, usenet2012 wrote:
In message , ARW
writes







Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:01:36 +0000, Rick Hughes
wrote:

I bought an item from Machine Mart (magnifier & Fl light) it was
useless, quality of magnifier lens was so poor everything was out
of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' *would only
give Credit Note.

That's where you went wrong, by accepting that.
Foot down firmly and refuse anything but a refund.

+1

Not fit for purpose. You could only discover that by opening the box &
trying it.

+1



The trouble is, he has lost his evidence.

On 01/02/2013 16:25, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 28/01/2013 17:39, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 27/01/2013 19:20, Onetap wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:13:20 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:

I did try this, they just replied they met their legal obligations by

issuing a credit note with T&Cs printed on it.

Aye; but the T&Cs have to be made known to you before you agree to
the contract/accepting a credit note. Handing you the T&Cs on the
credit note is a fail; the contract has already been made.

Did they tell you of the T&Cs before? If not, then they don't
apply. Amateurs.


I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....

The gist of which is:
--------------------------------------------------
"In any event as the goods were not fit for purpose (the reason for
return) then under the sale of goods 1979 - I can insist on a refund
(I would accept a Credit note you would honour)


If I do not receive satisfactory result from yourself I will sue through
the Small Claims Court and that this will entail you having to pay court
costs on top of the money you will have to refund to you.


It is clear case in Law that your representative (Store Manager) should
have clearly explained the time limit, not wait for me to find out when
I present it.

A contract was formed when I agreed to accept a credit note.
You didn't tell you about the terms and conditions before I agreed to
take the credit note, therefore the conditions do not apply.

It is clear case in Law that you cannot impose conditions after the
agreement/ contract/bargain has been made.
Your comment that the expiry date is printed on the credit note is
invalid in Law; I could not have read that until I had received it,
which is after you had entered into the contract.


I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
... lets see what they come back with






It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited
Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time of
issue"

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Rick Hughes
writes
I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
... lets see what they come back with

It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited
Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time
of issue"

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

I will indeed drop in to the new branch when I am next passing. Is 'Rick
Hughes' the name for you that they have?

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

On 01/02/2013 16:25, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 28/01/2013 17:39, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 27/01/2013 19:20, Onetap wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:13:20 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:

I did try this, they just replied they met their legal obligations by

issuing a credit note with T&Cs printed on it.

Aye; but the T&Cs have to be made known to you before you agree to
the contract/accepting a credit note. Handing you the T&Cs on the
credit note is a fail; the contract has already been made.

Did they tell you of the T&Cs before? If not, then they don't
apply. Amateurs.


I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....

The gist of which is:
--------------------------------------------------
"In any event as the goods were not fit for purpose (the reason for
return) then under the sale of goods 1979 - I can insist on a refund
(I would accept a Credit note you would honour)


If I do not receive satisfactory result from yourself I will sue through
the Small Claims Court and that this will entail you having to pay court
costs on top of the money you will have to refund to you.


It is clear case in Law that your representative (Store Manager) should
have clearly explained the time limit, not wait for me to find out when
I present it.

A contract was formed when I agreed to accept a credit note.
You didn't tell you about the terms and conditions before I agreed to
take the credit note, therefore the conditions do not apply.

It is clear case in Law that you cannot impose conditions after the
agreement/ contract/bargain has been made.
Your comment that the expiry date is printed on the credit note is
invalid in Law; I could not have read that until I had received it,
which is after you had entered into the contract.


I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
... lets see what they come back with






It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited
Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time of
issue"

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

Something makes me think they won't be around for long

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:25:30 +0000, Rick Hughes
wrote:

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

Well, that's them struck off my suppliers list.
**** them right between the eyes.

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:03:03 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:25:30 +0000, Rick Hughes
wrote:

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

Well, that's them struck off my suppliers list.
**** them right between the eyes.

I've never had any problems with Machine Mart. Quite knowledgeable and
helpful staff in my local store.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

On 2 Feb, 00:36, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:03:03 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon

wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:25:30 +0000, Rick Hughes
wrote:

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

Well, that's them struck off my suppliers list.
**** them right between the eyes.

I've never had any problems with Machine Mart. Quite knowledgeable and
helpful staff in my local store.

let's hope you never have to experience the "conniving corporate
****s" section of their management "training" scheme.

I once visited two of their branches to try & get spares for a MIG
welder, first lot were crap - had me waiting about even though I was
the only customer in - "are you being served sir" "I think so but it's
taking rather a long time", after all that they couldn;t answer my
questions.. 2nd smaller store - older chap - very helpful....but I've
never been back to any of their stores.

sloppy standards would seem to be the order of their day, I wonder how
long they'll be about too, too many branches, lots of stock, prices
too high, customers getting ****ed off - you got to wonder....

Jim K

On 01/02/2013 17:38, usenet2012 wrote:
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to
honour the credit note or issue a refund.
Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "

--------------------------------------------------
... lets see what they come back with

It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited
Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time
of issue"

So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

I will indeed drop in to the new branch when I am next passing. Is 'Rick
Hughes' the name for you that they have?

It is ... doubt any branch would know me though :-)

On Friday, February 1, 2013 4:25:30 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 28/01/2013 17:39, Rick Hughes wrote:

On 27/01/2013 19:20, Onetap wrote:

On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:13:20 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:



I did try this, they just replied they met their legal obligations by



issuing a credit note with T&Cs printed on it.



Aye; but the T&Cs have to be made known to you before you agree to

the contract/accepting a credit note. Handing you the T&Cs on the

credit note is a fail; the contract has already been made.



Did they tell you of the T&Cs before? If not, then they don't

apply. Amateurs.





I have now sent another mail to them mail to them ....



The gist of which is:

--------------------------------------------------

"In any event as the goods were not fit for purpose (the reason for

return) then under the sale of goods 1979 - I can insist on a refund

(I would accept a Credit note you would honour)





If I do not receive satisfactory result from yourself I will sue through

the Small Claims Court and that this will entail you having to pay court

costs on top of the money you will have to refund to you.





It is clear case in Law that your representative (Store Manager) should

have clearly explained the time limit, not wait for me to find out when

I present it.



A contract was formed when I agreed to accept a credit note.

You didn't tell you about the terms and conditions before I agreed to

take the credit note, therefore the conditions do not apply.



It is clear case in Law that you cannot impose conditions after the

agreement/ contract/bargain has been made.

Your comment that the expiry date is printed on the credit note is

invalid in Law; I could not have read that until I had received it,

which is after you had entered into the contract.





I trust that you will find it simpler and good customer service to

honour the credit note or issue a refund.

Plus keep me as a long standing customer. "



--------------------------------------------------

... lets see what they come back with













It got nowhere .. reply form them that their policy is a time limited

Credit Note, which cannot be re-issued and "was signed by me" at time of

issue"



So they have my money & goods .... SO BE WARNED ABOUT MACHINE MART

You didn't mention that you'd signed something.
It is still an unfair contract term which they've managed to impose by stealth. They did not inform you of the T&Cs before you agreed to accept the credit not and they are not allowed to impose penalties for a breach of the T&Cs, they are not a court.

I'd still sue them, but then I'd have taken note of what I was signing and I would not have accepted a credit not in exchange for defective goods in the first instance.

On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:01:36 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:
I bought an item from Machine Mart (magnifier & Fl light) it was

useless, quality of magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.



Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' would only give

Credit Note.

Replying to the older thread as this is where you mentioned the original circumstances.

Just looking at the SOGA on Trading Standards website and saw this:

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

"Customers do have a legal right to a refund, repair or replacement if an item they purchased

- does not match the description
- is not of satisfactory quality
- is not fit for purpose ."

"You cannot remove a customer's legal rights, for example by displaying a notice saying 'we do not give refunds under any circumstances' or 'credit notes only in the case of faulty items'.

It is also against the law to mislead consumers about their legal rights - this could lead to a criminal prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008."

I think someone mentioned that you'd effectively played into their hands by accepting the credit note, and on the basis that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" that might seem true.

But since they used the "opened the box" excuse to refuse a refund, aren't they liable to criminal prosecution?

On 21/08/2013 16:39, mike wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:01:36 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:
I bought an item from Machine Mart (magnifier & Fl light) it was

useless, quality of magnifier lens was so poor everything was out
of focus.



Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' would only
give

Credit Note.

Replying to the older thread as this is where you mentioned the
original circumstances.

Just looking at the SOGA on Trading Standards website and saw this:

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

"Customers do have a legal right to a refund, repair or replacement
if an item they purchased

- does not match the description - is not of satisfactory quality -
is not fit for purpose ."

"You cannot remove a customer's legal rights, for example by
displaying a notice saying 'we do not give refunds under any
circumstances' or 'credit notes only in the case of faulty items'.

It is also against the law to mislead consumers about their legal
rights - this could lead to a criminal prosecution under the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008."

I think someone mentioned that you'd effectively played into their
hands by accepting the credit note, and on the basis that "ignorance
of the law is no excuse" that might seem true.

But since they used the "opened the box" excuse to refuse a refund,
aren't they liable to criminal prosecution?


Well done that man. One would have thought the small claims court would
be aware of SOGA.....

On Wednesday 21 August 2013 20:43 stuart noble wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 21/08/2013 16:39, mike wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:01:36 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:
I bought an item from Machine Mart (magnifier & Fl light) it was

useless, quality of magnifier lens was so poor everything was out
of focus.



Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' would only
give

Credit Note.

Replying to the older thread as this is where you mentioned the
original circumstances.

Just looking at the SOGA on Trading Standards website and saw this:

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

"Customers do have a legal right to a refund, repair or replacement
if an item they purchased

- does not match the description - is not of satisfactory quality -
is not fit for purpose ."

"You cannot remove a customer's legal rights, for example by
displaying a notice saying 'we do not give refunds under any
circumstances' or 'credit notes only in the case of faulty items'.

It is also against the law to mislead consumers about their legal
rights - this could lead to a criminal prosecution under the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008."

I think someone mentioned that you'd effectively played into their
hands by accepting the credit note, and on the basis that "ignorance
of the law is no excuse" that might seem true.

But since they used the "opened the box" excuse to refuse a refund,
aren't they liable to criminal prosecution?


Well done that man. One would have thought the small claims court would
be aware of SOGA.....

Perhaps the defence (ie the OP) would have had to present that argument
explicitly? Not ideal I know, but I wonder how the court operates.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 21/08/2013 16:39, mike wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:01:36 PM UTC, Rick Hughes wrote:
I bought an item from Machine Mart (magnifier & Fl light) it was

useless, quality of magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.



Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' would only give

Credit Note.

Replying to the older thread as this is where you mentioned the original circumstances.

Just looking at the SOGA on Trading Standards website and saw this:

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

"Customers do have a legal right to a refund, repair or replacement if an item they purchased

- does not match the description
- is not of satisfactory quality
- is not fit for purpose ."

"You cannot remove a customer's legal rights, for example by displaying a notice saying 'we do not give refunds under any circumstances' or 'credit notes only in the case of faulty items'.

It is also against the law to mislead consumers about their legal rights - this could lead to a criminal prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008."

I think someone mentioned that you'd effectively played into their hands by accepting the credit note, and on the basis that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" that might seem true.

But since they used the "opened the box" excuse to refuse a refund, aren't they liable to criminal prosecution?



I tried that, but Machine Mart head office said they issued Credit Note
as I no longer wanted the item.
Whereas I took it back as unfit for purpose ....

Unfortunately no proof, the judge ruled that as I had accepted the
Credit Note, then that was the end of my rights to a refund.

He did clearly say that if I had pushed issue at time and insisted on
refund they by Law should have provide such.

There is no 'duty of care' on Machine mart to inform me of my rights.


I asked about description not matching item, again he would not change -
the fact I accepted the Credit Note, meant I accepted all the t&c's that
go with them, irrespective of whether I read then or not.

Rick Hughes wrote:

I asked about description not matching item, again he would not change -
the fact I accepted the Credit Note, meant I accepted all the t&c's that
go with them, irrespective of whether I read then or not.

I'm surprised that the legislation on unfair terms & conditions (which is
what I would have expected a very small expiry date that no-one points out
to you would be) were not applicable.

And to me that would suggest that whether you 'accepted' them or not is
immaterial.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

On 23/08/2013 21:38, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

I asked about description not matching item, again he would not change -
the fact I accepted the Credit Note, meant I accepted all the t&c's that
go with them, irrespective of whether I read then or not.

I'm surprised that the legislation on unfair terms & conditions (which is
what I would have expected a very small expiry date that no-one points out
to you would be) were not applicable.

And to me that would suggest that whether you 'accepted' them or not is
immaterial.



Judge said immaterial ... I asked if MM had a duty of care to explain
any time limit - Judge said no as they were printed T&C's

Judge held that while he was disappointed in the position MM had taken,
and they should have offered the refund initially, as I had accepted the
Credit note, legally had accepted t&c's that go with them.

Rick Hughes wrote:

Judge said immaterial ... I asked if MM had a duty of care to explain
any time limit - Judge said no as they were printed T&C's

That's odd, because it's normal for unfair T&Cs to be in print.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".