Thanks for your help. I've drafted a notice before action that hopefully sets things out clearly. I'm going in quite hard on the basis that we're unlikely to get what we want. When we reported the initial fault, it is true we did not reference the Consumer Rights Act. But it was done via email so there is a record.

Back on the 28/8/18 we purcahsed a Ford Torneo Connect from Allen Ford Group. It was a 14 plate and had done 10k miles. We paid £10,000. Within 22 days of purcahse we reported thick black smoke bellowing from the exhaust, initially under acceleration but it now seems to do it all the time. It's been presented for repair on three occasions now, each time the problem is unresolved. Simple question, is our right to reject deminished by the passage of time? We reported the fault within 30 days, and have had numerous other issues, including it catching fire due to dodgy electrics.

Ok. Three things. 1. The point of this post is to not to establish to law. It's to warn others that if they make the vaguest of enquires with VM they will follow up with aggressive sales tactics and you will have a fight to get rid of an unexpected caller that a lot of people won't want. You would like that. Good for you. IF your elderly or just don't like salesman on your door stop you won't. 2. Even if you assume there is no legal substance behind it that does not make it silly or meaningless. Any human with the ability to read can establish the sentiment and come to the conclusion it's probably not a good idea to knock. 3. The precise wording/design of that particular sign is not a trading standards one - granted. But that wasn't what you said. You said there were NO signs that would be approved by TS when there are and the legislation I mention supports them. Again your wrong. My sign is very similar and contains all the right words. Would you ignore a “height restriction” sign just because it hadn’t been put up by the council? It doesn't NEED to be endorsed by them to have a meaning! Such signs are recommended by trading standards. Here is just one example of a sign provided by Coventry TS. http://www.coventry.gov.uk/info/30/trading_standards/1410/doorstep_sellerscallers/5 Plenty of other examples out there from councils and alike. It’s not about the legality. It doesn’t need to be. But if you still want to bark up that tree go and read the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading as indicated above. And anyway none of this is the point of this thread, I just wanted to make others aware of what would happen.

You absolutely shouldn't call something silly just because that's your personal opinion. You should be setting an example to others, maybe even the odd constructive post. Even if there were no legal standing to such a sticker does that make it "silly" or "meaningless"? No, because any decent human being would respect it regardless. If you see a ‘please keep off the grass’ sign do you think, ‘there is no legal standing behind that or anyone they can complain to ‘? – Therefore I’ll walk all over it? Trading standards actively recommend such signage and ignoring it is a breach of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 under Schedule 1, paragraph 25. Citizens Advice website asks people to report traders who ignore these signs to them and Trading Standards are also keeping track of firms that break the rules.

Seems pretty unambiguous to me...

I went on the Virgin Media website to see what I could get. I put in my address and postcode - nothing else. I found the information I needed and decided I'd think about it for a while. Within two days a Virgin media person was on my doorstep. I have a very clear no cold calling, no sales people sign. He knocked regardless. I was pretty agitated already by the arrogance and contempt for my no cold calling sign not to mention the principle of sending someone out to chase up the loosest of enquires. I assumed he would get the message as he could see us ignoring him through the living room window. He buggered off and I hoped that would be the end of it. I was mistaken, he called AGAIN tonight just as I sat down for dinner. With this I was LIVID. I opened the door and asked him why he was knocking, to which he said "Did you make an enquiry with us?". I pointed to my sign and said "Can you read" to which he replied "if you've made an enqury it's not a cold call!" What!!??? I asked him what my name was and he obviously stumbled and looked blank. "Have I invited you?" "Then you're a called caller" He made his protests and I got really furious "how dare you read that and disregard it, wilfully choosing to interrupt my evening" Things escalated and I threw several extremely strong insults his way and then told him to get off my property in 5 seconds or I would get physical. At some point I also recall telling him he could shove his fibre optic cable. I am absolutely shocked at the arrogance of this company. To come back AFTER you have read the sign and clearly been ignored. What was he expecting. Now i'm stuck. I don't want to pay BT prices and I don't want a company like Virgin in my life. Gah.

I think Citizens Advice have a page about this - my recollection is yes, you can. You will likely need to prove your earnings and potentially issue a small claims action as I doubt they will be forthcoming...

Email to AO.com this evening:

So today it was warm again (24c) and it's thown a wobbly. Alarm is going off and it's indicating -8 but a thermometer indicates it's actually -2c in the freezer.

Thanks, I do intend to raise it with the retailer. The only reason I hadn't so far was because I assumed it would be a simple parts replace. I will make them aware of the issue and continue to monitor.

Thanks for the advice. The freezer is usually full of stuff... no kids it only gets opened at meal times. and in any event it doesn't entirely explain away that it remained room temperature after being on for 5 hours. My view point is a freezer at this point shouldn't require special treatment in order to do it's job. Not when a Beko at 1/3 the price soldiers on regardless. General consensus on food safety is that freezers should be at -18. I know that ours has hovered around -2 and possibly warmer for extended periods. As pointed out, it will likely be difficult to get even an independent engineer to witness it misbehaving if it does correlate with hot weather and that's obviously when you need a freezer to be freezing! Hence I'm wondering if non-expert witness evidence is admissible in the form of temperature logs - how much specialist training do you need to conclude that if a freezer doesn't keep things frozen it's not fit for purpose!?

If I were to keep a eletronic temperature logger in the freezer, and another outside monitoring ambient temps could I present this as evidence for the judge to draw their own conclusion or does it HAVE to be derived from an independant source?

Thanks for replies I understand that if I am to pursue under sale of goods I will need to evidence a fault, but that is the problem, the fact that it doesn't perform on hot days is a result of it being under specified for the climate for which use is intended. The sum of all parts working correctly means it doesn't keep food frozen on hot days! How do I substantiate that!?

After a little bit of advice at the moment… I am concerned our integrated Neff Fridge Freezer may not be fit for purpose (as opposed to faulty). I purchased it from AO.com roughly 18 months ago and paid via credit card. For the moment I have been following the manufactures warranty claim procedure. I am aware my contract is with the retailer but elected to contact the manufacture as I deemed this the path of least resistance and quickest route to a working fridge freezer. To their credit, they have been very quick in despatching engineers and overall I am pleased with their response. Unfortunately however it hasn’t necessarily resolved my concern. To put it into context, last Wednesday was the hottest day for several years, I believe temperatures peaked around 34c in the hottest parts of the country, and that’s when problems started. I came downstairs at roughly 10PM and heard the fridge freezer alarm sounding. I went to check and the freezer was at -10 (it should be -18). I attributed it to what had been a hot day (though by this point it was obviously much cooler), put the freezer on to ‘super’ mode and assumed it would be back to normal in the morning. By the morning it was still alarming, this time at -2! That’s despite being on ‘super’ freezing all night! I contact Neff who advise me to do a manual defrost (turn it off for 8 hours). Once I had done this (pretty inconvenient) I turned it back on. The fridge very quickly reached its set temperature of 4c. The freezer did absolutely nothing for at least 5 hours until we went to bed. I contact Neff who arrange an engineer visit. Annoyingly, at some point during the night the freezer miraculously started working and by breakfast time it was at -7. By evening it was back to -18. At this point I prepared to put it down to ‘weirdness’ and hope that it’s just a one off. Not wanting to end up paying for an engineer to find “no fault” I cancel the visit. Saturday comes and it’s also a pretty warm day. Early afternoon the freezer alarm sounds again, its back at -7. I clear the alarm and reside myself to the fact it really is faulty. I did not monitor the temperature beyond this but noted the alarm light was on until my last observation in the evening. I call Neff once again and schedule an engineer visit. But, once again come the next morning it’s back at -18. Being quite convinced there is something wrong with it I see through with the engineer visit. The engineer has today visited and whilst being helpful and thorough, unable to isolate any particular fault putting it down to a “glitch with the weather”. I attempt to clarify this, but don’t really get anywhere – the freezer is rated for ambient conditions up to 38c – even in the hottest parts of the country it’s only touched 34c. To my mind a £1000 Neff fridge freezer should be the best of the best, I shouldn’t get nonsense like this just because it gets a bit warm – a freezer should by definition keep food frozen (within its rated environment). If no individual component is faulty yet the system as a whole does not meet specification surely this renders the device not fit for purpose? My question is; if I ever wanted to bring a claim against the retailer under the sale of goods act how would I substantiate this? Even an independent engineer may not be able to document a specific fault - It appears to be a result of an under specification in the units design. As I mentioned earlier, it’s not like this is a cheap and cheerful fridge freezer – it really should be able to cope with the extremes of a British summer, as indeed significantly cheaper models do.

I agree with the principle of your argument, PayPal and eBay are a law to themselves and jointly offer very little in the way of seller protection preferring to always protect the buyer in disputes. However, I think someone needs to point out that eBay haven't necessarily given you incorrect advice, and neither for that matter have PayPal. Paying for items via PayPal and collecting them in person is a legitimate way to conduct a transaction and there would have been no reason for eBay to suspect a fraud attempt at that time. At that point you are already contracted with the buyer to proceed with the transaction so they can hardly say to you "No it's fraud, or risky" because this is often the way people like to perform a transaction. However, I do feel they should have highlighted the particular risks rather than broadly saying the PayPal Seller Protection applies. Yes the 'transaction' is covered is covered by PayPal's protection policy but not unless you dig into the terms and conditions of that will you actually realise how exceptionally limited it is and how many there exceptions there are to this. To my mind it represents nothing more than a marketing gimmick designed to infer the impression of protection. The reality is it just provides PayPal with various 'get outs' and leaves you exposed to fraud in certain situations like this. Collection/PayPal fraud like this is extremely common and easy to do. All the buyer need to is open a bogus dispute and they get their money back. Fraudsters know this. To be honest even if you use registered delivery services you can still be had as the buyer will request to return the item and simply send you and empty package - signed for. Buyer wins again. It's a crap situation but I really don't know on what basis you could mount a claim against eBay. Technically, the advise they gave you was accurate and appropriate at the time. Perhaps they should have expanded on the implications of allowing a collection but they weren't to know fraud was impending... Personally when ever I have a high value item to sell I insist on collection only with either cash or bank transfer accepted.

I'm afraid I don't agree. 1. I've tried to provide something helpful/constructive in a yet to be resolved thread. 2. Yourself and Labrat rats posts have not been constructive or helpful to anyone and have only served to undermine my willingness to contribute. 3. You allege that by posting I've broken the forum rules. 4. You are unable to state where the forum rule that I have broken is documented. 5. When the above is pointed out you declare the whole thing "silly, pointless and not worth it". Ironically, the only thing I consider pointless and not worth it are the follow up posts from yourself and labrat. They are punitive and attempt to enforce a non-existent (or at best) undocumented rule. When I’ve only put forward a constructive point your follow-ups seem completely draconian and unnecessary. If it is a rule I genuinely don't want to break it again, hence request for clarification. As you haven't clarified the rule and I can't find it any mention of it then I don't believe such a rule exists. I don't want to appear unduly aggressive but no other forum (at least that I'm a member of) would seek to supress a constructive contribution to an open thread. Otherwise you have to ask yourself why have a forum? Overzealous enforcement of undocumented rules is something that as a forum we should wholeheartedly oppose (PPCs, unfair T&C’s etc)…

Well, I can't see it in the rules - can you show me where exactly? It's certainly not mentioned at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?9-Forum-rules.-Please-read-these-before-posting By virtue of the fact it's not a closed thread it has to be live and clearly it is unresolved. If there were such a rule [daft] what would the timescale be for deciding when a thread should be considered dead - just so I'm better informed for next time? As an aside I don't understand why you would ever seek to discourage constructive discusson on a forum - it exists for that very reason... what harm is being caused? Providing it's constructive the only risk is that you help somone at a later date or provide a different point of view that may be applicable to a similar situation in the future...

Please don't pretend to be a mod when you're not. The thread is open and unresolved, furthermore it still appears towards the top of the section of the sub forum and is therefore very visible. My comments are constructive and may assist anyone researching a similar situation or the OP himself should he choose to review his thread.

The fact is both the charger and the tablet worked. The charger now has bent pins and doesn't work. When sold the charger was working and the pins were straight.. Clearly someone has bent the pins - it's not PC World! I would speculate that you would have a very hard time convincing a judge that this is a 'defect'. Your best option might be to pursue a not fit for purpose case, on the grounds that the charger is poorly designed to withstand the stresses/strains of normal use... otherwise PC World are going to say you have damaged/misappropriated it...

Unless the TV is actually faulty PC World don't have to do anything.. . Not liking the picture doesn't mean it's faulty - it's just your perception and therefore subjective. You can quickly establish if it's faulty by comparing it with the in store model. Also be aware the default TV settings are usually not optimal and require tweaking to get a decent picture. Distance selling regulations don't apply because you purchased in store. If you didn't view the TV prior to purchase and have decided that you just don't like it's picture then I think PC World are very entitle to charge a restocking fee - the law doesn't require them to do anything at all. You need to establish if the TV is performing to specification. really. LED refers to the back light. and only the back light. It's still an LCD display... to say it doesn't look up to LED quality really doesn't make sense...

Don't be fobbed off by terms and conditions that they may try and use to limit your compensation. You don't need insurance if they have been negligent - if they try to claim T&C's to the contrary there is a more than good chance it's an unfair contract. For specific details see the thread I made at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433696-Courier-Liability-and-unfair-contract-terms

Huh? You can sue anyone you like... whether the action is successful or not is another matter. People can and do sue couriers, most often than not the defendant opts for an out of court settlement at the last hour...

You may find my thread here useful http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433696-Courier-Liability-and-unfair-contract-terms Really, you don't need insurance - they have a duty to perform there job with reasonable care and skill. They have not - no amount of small print/terms and conditions can absolve them of this (see my thread) but you will need to fight them all the way and it won't be easy I suspect. There is one slight sticky point with this if you are admitting that you did not adequately package the items... None the less, they were given an opportunity to inspect and always had the option to refuse to accept them - the fact they did not implies the the goods were adequately packaged. Good luck with this one...

This is true, though the points should still be valid or at a minimum helpful until equivalent guidance is produced by the CMA or FCA. In the first instance yes contact the trader and escalate as required. Given the high number of posts on here where the supplier is seemingly pre-disposed to reject claims for compensation (or make it as painful and drawn out as possible) I felt something meaty was required to combat their default attitude and reliance on terms & conditions which are for the most part unfair. If people use this information in support of their claims it can't do any harm.

I’ve been researching into ‘typical’ courier terms and conditions, with a particular interest in liability clauses. I’ve long been of the opinion the majority constitute unfair contracts and a shirking of responsibilities at the expense of consumer rights. What annoys me more than anything is the tendency for couriers to imply consumers require (and should pay for) additional insurance against loss, theft and damage. In my opinion if any of these eventualities occur it is as a result of negligence and (or) failure of the supplier to exercise reasonable care and skill. It is for the supplier to arrange their own liability insurance for such eventualities and neither fair nor reasonable to expect the consumer to be made responsible for supplier negligence. To this end I am particularly fond of point 18.2.3 in the OFT, which among other things states that “The supplier should not make the consumer his insurer”. For the purposes of this post I have analysed CityLinks terms and conditions which I assume to be typical of most. I have highlighted each clause which I believe to be at odds or at least questionable according to the OFT Unfair Contract Guidance. Please note the following are not the FULL terms and conditions provided by Citylink, they are merely the ones I deem relevant or dubious: The corresponding sections from the guidance are: I also felt the following section was useful for when the supplier tries to push toward the subcontractor (perhaps if you used a parcel broker service) I hope people find this useful when taking these organisations to task.