Done, thx.

Sky offers a way of managing your account online and if you click on "My Packages" on your Sky account it gives you details of everything you have with Sky. A few months ago I went to look at the phone package to see exactly which 08 numbers are free on the package (generally 08 numbers are mostly avoided but sometimes it just isn't possible). When I went to the phone section on "My packages" the phone package was listed as "Sky Anytime" but with no details and an option to click for details, which I did. It then brought up a screen with some features of "Sky Anytime" and then a link to click for more details about "Sky Anytime". I clicked then link and was taken to a page with the details of 3 Sky Talk packages, one of which was "Sky Anytime UK"(there were no details for Sky Anytime on the page), which I assumed to be the right package. This package includes free calls to 0845 numbers and I assumed this was the package and that these numbers were now covered. They in fact are not because Sky Talk Anytime and Sky Talk Anytime UK are two separate packages and the former is no longer an option for new customers. This change happened in the last few months. So there are now a whole load of call charges to 0845 numbers for these last few months which has caused an obvious spike in the phone bill. I am requesting a refund of the 0845 numbers during this period on account that the website was misleading, Sky have offered a few months half price line rental which doesn't cover the cost. The advisers I've spoken to most recently while trying to a refund have insisted the website was not misleading and this is in fact my error alone. If anyone can offer any advice, it would be most appreciated. Thx L.

Thanks, yeah I bought it from Habitat online. L.

Update: I emailed back the company citing the Sales of Goods Act requested a refund on account of it being faulty and not fit for purpose. Received an apology and am now getting a refund. It makes me wonder if staff are aware of the store's obligations regarding things like this from the start and try to avoid giving refunds when they can, or if some of them just genuinely don't know... Thanks for the help, L.

BazzaS, To assume that someone needs psychological help based on the limited information you had would be seen as ignorant to any reasonable person. To suggest that anyone needs psychological help, particularly a stranger who you don't know, particularly one you're arguing with and lack real concern with for, the way you did is offensive. It would be a touchy subject even between friends or family and would need to be brought up tactfully. You then took use his natural offense as evidence of some kind of hang up. Let me give you an example: a girl at work I dislike has put on a slight but noticeable amount of weight, emphasis on slight, one day I choose to ask her in front of everyone if she's pregnant. If this happened she would have every right to be offended and my motives would be clear to her and everyone else in the office who knew I don't really like her. If I then tried to make the argument that there's nothing wrong with pregnancy and therefore no need for her to be offended I would look even worse, you don't have to have an issue with pregnancy to be offended for someone suggesting you look pregnant. You had no basis to bring up his mental health, even if for some reason you felt it was true you should have known it would offend and kept it to yourself - after all you didn't honestly think he'd be receptive to the advice of an unqualified stranger? I actually think the reverse is true, that you make a mockery of mental illness by bringing it unnecessarily into this argument. You have been critical of his behavior and obviously have a low opinion of him - is this just how you think all mentally ill people are? Petty? Irrational? Ruminative? Is there even a mental illness which primarily consists of these symptoms? Those sound like character traits. Being mentally ill doesn't make someone unpleasant (many people can be nasty and unpleasant all by themselves)neither does simply having a mental illness mean someone can't be objective and will exhibit their symptoms in every situation. A depressed person can make valid negative conclusions about a situation which any other other non depressed would make without their depression being the driving factor. And mental illness isn't something anyone wants to have, try asking someone with it. It doesn't make someone weak but it is a weakness, like a physical impairment- if you can't get this then I don't know what else to tell you. To answer the rest of your questions I would guess he reacted defensively because of how you came at him, your tone. As for the the lawyer thing, that isn't necessarily what he was saying - it was specific to you because I'm guessing he found your opinions unhelpful, rude and off topic. The bringing up the old thread issue well it just happens from time to time in forums for various reasons, sometimes people don't even realize it's old and will ask the OP a question- sometimes it's a good thing, newbies get to see something interesting they otherwise wouldn't have, if not it's easy to just ignore the thread. I don't have any major issues with Asda but for people who are having problems with them it is helpful to know that even escalating to the Chief Executive isn't straightforward. That's all I have to say, I have no interest in pointless e-beefing, all my questions are rhetorical. Tbh I feel like this comes under trolling and it makes for a better forum when the users responsible for it are banned.

"I still suggest you look at how resurrecting years olds threads and then reacting defensively, only wanting 'replies from lawyers', and viewing psychological support as an indicator of weakness makes you appear. You claim not to be bothered by what people think, but your posts suggest otherwise ...." This is gas lighting in action and it's why I try not to use certain forums anymore, I had hoped this place would be different.

There is a part in the Sales of Goods Act regarding acceptance and rejection of faulty goods. On the OFT site it states: "Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description, are not of satisfactory quality, or are not fit for purpose) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods. Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a reasonable time." And also this: "Faulty goods that have been accepted If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance..." I'm not sure which one applies to my situation tbh.

Could my delay void those rights?

Hi Everyone, I wonder if anyone can give me some advise on this issue: I bought a picture frame in April as a gift for my mom. As the picture to go in it hadn't been ordered yet when it arrived I looked at it but didn't take it out of it's packaging. When I decided to have a good look at it I was a bit perplexed by the set up. It's slightly unusual and there were no instructions at all. Attempting to remove some of the fixtures at the back was pretty awkward endeavour because they were very rigid and scraped against the board. The wood beneath one of the fixtures was slightly splintered and I didn't know how to get that one out without causing more damage so I stopped and contacted the company for advice/instructions. However they couldn't give me any at all; but as I explained it also had some damage they offered to send a replacement. Now, the frame is quite beautiful and I didn't necessarily want to get rid of it and thought about getting someone to put it up. I didn't request the replacement because I considered the major issue to be the set up. I've been quite sick during this period, (more so than usual, I have a chronic health condition) and to be honest put it on the back burner. There are things I should have returned during this period that I just kept or that have broken and I haven't bothered to send back because it was too difficult to deal with. Now the company is refusing to refund citing their 30 day money back guarantee. I've explained everything above and that I had held onto it thinking I might get someone to fit it but then decided I didn't want to pay what is cost to buy the frame itself to do so. Other than the 30 day money back guarantee which I can't obtain a refund under do I have any other rights or do I just have to suck it up and cut my losses? Thanks L.