Hello, I'll try and keep this concise. Parents bought a pair (diamonds cut from the same rough stone) of wedding rings maybe 4 or so years ago. Last year my mother lost the diamond out of her ring, which was considered to be a manufacturing defect rather than accidental damage. After a bit of back and forth, jeweller agreed to replace the stone but this would detract from the idea of having 2 diamonds cut from the same stone. Some more back and forth and they agreed to replace the stones in both rings. About 9 months(!) after all this started, jeweller tells us they've lost the rings in transit. Frustrated to say the least and I'm sure I don't need to explain the sentimental value of these rings to my parents. We asked for money back and compensation (because it really has been an ordeal and a half going through all of this) because they don't want to re-invest in the same jeweller, but rather go elsewhere. Jeweller offered either the original cost of the rings (£600) plus £50 compensation, or £1200 in vouchers (the RRP) to spend in-store at the same place. They don't want to go for the latter option considering what I've mentioned in the previous paragraph, but £50 compensation is a bit of a joke, especially in light of their other offer. I have no idea where to go from here. I'd like to say my parents would be entirely reasonable to expect a greater amount, though I wouldn't want to put any number on that. So my question(s): would it be reasonable to pursue a greater amount of compensation and if so, how might we go about it? Any help would be much appreciated!

Hello, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - I didn't see the subscription email. The window is now boarded with trellis attached to the front of this board. The idea is to have climbers growing all down the side of my parents' wall. I don't have a current photo, but I have one showing the size of the structure: Thoughts are that if planning are notified of the >2m structure, he'll just cut it down to 2m and still block the window. Fighting on the grounds of right to light seems like the most sensible option, but everything is so expensive. I'm frustrated for my parents that it looks like they'll have to pay to fight for what's already theirs.

Valuable stuff - thank you very much. It certainly seems that the "right to light" is the right path to pursue in tackling this dispute. I know original kitchen window was in situ for many years (over 20) prior to my parents buying this house, but this was upgraded to a modern double-glazed unit which was bigger than the original window 2 or 3 years or so ago. This was done when relations with the neighbour were amicable. From what I understand this shouldn't hinder chances of successfully fighting this absurdity, and it is clear that this structure is serving no purpose other than to block the light to the kitchen window. Many thanks.

Hi HB, Thanks for the prompt reply. There has been communication with the local authority over other issues regarding the neighbour, but not this in particular. I'm not sure which department of the LA would be interested in this anyway, to be honest. Thanks.

Hello all, My parents live in a cottage, which is sandwiched in between two others. To cut a long story short, one of the neighbours is not happy with some windows overlooking his property (despite being frosted). My parents' kitchen window on the ground floor and bathroom window on the first floor overlook his garden. For the last few months, this neighbour decided to erect scaffolding in his garden to hold a wooden board again my parents' kitchen window. As the only kitchen window, it turned the room into a cave with very little natural light. He took this down a few weeks ago for reasons unknown, but has now opted for a more permanent solution. He dug down right underneath the kitchen window and concreted in a wooden post. It looks like he's erecting a structure only a matter of inches away from the kitchen window which no doubt will soon be boarded up. Is there any action which may be taken to prevent this going further? I believe a 'right to light' may play some part in this, and I wondered if the 'Party Wall etc act' would have restricted him from concreting in this post only inches from the side of my parents' house. We know the police don't want to know and believe that the way to go is some form of court action. Thanks

Thanks - but the level was certainly checked before buying the car. After viewing, however, it was put through service and MOT so naturally it wasn't my first thought to check the oil after the service... After all, shouldn't a garage be capable of filling to the correct level?

Thanks for the replies No smoking or burning smell, It is a 500cc shoebox (well, 998cc!!), Already checked for mayo under the filler cap - nothing. Will check the filter as soon as I can, Going to try get it drained this morning. To be fair it hasn't shown any signs of damage. I guess I'm just annoyed more than anything that a garage can make such a fundamental error and not seem to care about it. Thanks

Hi there, Just bought a car privately, which was serviced and MOT'd a couple of days before the change of ownership. Had no reason to check the oil level since it had just been serviced, but did so today, a week after buying the car. To my horror, the oil level was as follows: I rang the garage that did the service to explain the problem, and he showed little concern or urgency. Indeed he said he would not be able to book the car in for at least 2 - 3 days. Obviously I don't want to be driving around with it at this level (but have already, unknowingly done 300 miles), so I am going to take it to a local garage first thing tomorrow to get the problem sorted. Can I hold the garage that did the service liable for the cost of rectifying the problem? Or if worst comes to worst and permanent damage is caused to any part of the engine, can I hold this garage responsible? Thank you and will keep this post updated. Stuart

Hello, I'm looking to buy a car and have come across one on autotrader. It is listed as a trade seller but the pictures are taken outside of a house (strange). The company have their own website here (sorry if I'm not allowed to link). Despite this, I cannot find them listed in the companies house website. Does this mean they are impersonating a trader when actually they are a private seller? I wouldn't like to buy a car from them and realise I have no rights if anything should happen. Many thanks Stuart

Could have been worse than £30! I wish I didn't, though... I prefer Linux. Back to the point - when ordering Windows 7, I never saw one dollar sign. Everything was quoted in sterling right through to the invoice email I received afterwards. And with the Cafepress website, I bought off their .co.uk website and again didn't see one reference to American dollars. It was all in GBP and the only link to America visible to me as the consumer is that the products are printed and shipped from over the pond. Thanks

Hello all, I've recently made a couple of purchases online, both of which have had an additional £1.25 charge added on by Natwest. The transactions are as follows: Windows 7 electronic download purchased from Microsoft through the e-commerce company they use, Digital River. Cost £30 + £1.25 charge. Calendars bought from cafepress.co.uk, though they do ship from America. Cost £33.50 + £1.25 charge. Naturally I'm annoyed at the charges, though only amounting to £2.50, but would like to know if these are legitimate. I got in touch with Natwest, who claimed the charges were from 'using my card abroad'. After looking through their website, I found this page, which states the following: OK so both companies are based in America, but both websites offered the product in GBP so there was no conversion from USD (I could understand the charge for that). The cafepress website was even their .co.uk one, and not their american .com website. The Natwest page states the charges are applicable when you use your card abroad or for currencies other than sterling. As explained above, both purchases were in sterling. Regarding the 'using your card abroad', that isn't technically true as both purchases were made whilst sat in my living room! I have a Natwest student account with a Visa debit card. Whilst trying to research the issue, I came across many, many threads by other Natwest customers claiming they are now being charged £1.25 for every eBay / PayPal purchase they make with their Visa Debit, as the transactions are processed overseas! Do I have a leg to stand on to claim these charges back? Many thanks, Stuart

Ahh, I see. But look at this. When you click on the 'free delivery' banner, you are re-directed to a page full of bikes. As you pointed out, the Viking Vantage does show on the list. How deceptive is this? It is shown in the list as £177.25, but when you click on the bike, it changes to the seller with the price tag of £194.99 with free delivery on that. If they're going to offer free delivery on this company, why not on the cheaper one?

A link to the banner is in my first post, on the words 'cycling section'. A link to the bike on the text 'Viking Vantage'. I can't find anywhere that says the promotion only applies to goods sold by Amazon themselves. Thanks

Hi there, A relative of mine has just purchased a bicycle from Amazon.co.uk, under the impression it would have free delivery because of a banner shown on the cycling section of the website. The banner states 'Free Delivery on all Bikes | Save up to 40% on selected adult bikes' I cannot see any small print or terms and conditions relating to the offer, so I assume free delivery on all bikes means free delivery on ALL bikes sold on Amazon.co.uk The bike in question, a Viking Vantage, is actually sold by 'Y Frame Discounts Ltd', and upon purchase, my grandfather was charged £16 for shipping. Obviously the free delivery does not apply to ALL bikes. Does he have a leg to stand on? Thanks

I've never come across that piece of legislation before - so thanks for that! Just out of curiosity, article 5 states that "the seller shall be held liable where lack of conformity becomes apparent within 2 years as from the delivery of goods." Who becomes liable outside of these two years?