Ok, this is a bit confusing but here goes. In June 2012 I ordered an electric trike, that is a normal Viking cargo trike with motor etc fitted. At the time it was made clear I had disabilities, including back trouble and more, and that the trike would be used for me to shop so it needed to be able to carry at least some cargo (hence trike not bike). It was finally delivered in October 12 but still required some actual building/putting together. I also found that certain requested modifications weren't done, namely the fitting of a pannier and installation of the electrics into it so they could be locked away. I contacted the retailer over this but then became too I'll to deal with much for a long while. Note that I also have social anxiety so I don't have people I can get to help with this kind of thing, I don't have friends/family who could help. Just before Christmas 13 I was finally able to get the trike put together and took it out. That's when I discovered the following... The basket falls apart at the slightest knock One of the two provided batteries has a different connector I can't walk after riding due to my back being severely jarred as there is no form of suspension. Yes, I realise its been over a year but I couldn't act until I became aware of the problems. The company concerned have offered to fit a suspension post, but want to charge me £125 to send the bike back to them to do so, they also offer to fit it free but it will cost £180 for the post from them. The link they sent of the particular post was to Amazon, the post costs between £110 and £160 depending on the size. No mention by them of the work they didn't do, apologies for it or offers to move that. Where do I go from here?

I had a Freezer delivered last week and was advised to leave for 8 hours before switching on. I did this and its very loud. I have called Currys to say that under the cooling off 7 days I wish to return the item. They have told me that as the item has been powered on , they term it as having been "used" and as such they wont take it back. If we think its faulty then can send an engineer but if he cant find anything , they will charge us for that too. Really all I want is to send the item back. I have read all of the details on the web around distant selling and it doesnt mention items being "used" or whether currys can take this view on "used". Its not stated anywhere in their T&C's and even then I'm not sure whether they are accurate. I'm confused. Can I return this item as all I have done is turned it on.

Firstly - I'm a newbie here - so apologies if I ask the same as others have !!! I had a credit card with MBNA for around 15 years before I used the card to purchase a car (cost approx £9k) in March 2011. The transaction was made by myself with the car dealer that advertised it, I called the dealer and read out my card details over the telephone for the car that I had seen a description of on the internet. The car dealer delivered the car and upon arrival it was clearly not as described in a number of ways (some damage and no full MoT to mention a couple) and this is clearly provable against the internet description where it stated full MoT and no mention of any damage. The supplying car dealer was clearly in the business of selling cars as he had about 6 other cars advertised for sale at the time and I've kept copies of all these descriptions in case they are required later. So under distance selling regulations, I complained to the supplying car dealer and asked for a refund, made the car available for them to collect but they refused to accept the car back and refused to collect the car. I immediately made a section 75 claim to MBNA. MBNA stated the disputed amount would be put on hold until the matter was resolved. Sensing there was going to be a fight I cancelled the direct debit so that the disputed amount would be "on hold" with MBNA and not with myself and wrote to MBNA telling them that was my course of action and supplied copies of all information receipts/descriptions/correspondence with the car dealer. Eventually MBNA refused the section 75 claim, for a couple of spurious reasons. One was broken debtor-creditor relationship - MBNA claimed the car dealer was selling the car on behalf of the previous owner !! clearly MBNA don't seem to understand how car dealers sell cars and this one was an obviously blatant attempt by the car dealer to attempt to avoid responsibility. The other was that MBNA claimed that I knew about the damage prior to delivery and that I should have checked the car before purchasing. I demonstrated to them that I relied upon the description and could not have been expected to travel from Oxford to Scotland to check the car over before deciding to purchase. It was clear to me that I had provided sufficient information and evidence to support my section 75 claim, and I repeatedly insisted that MBNA honour their obligations under section 75. However, they refused and set on a course of pursuing me for what they claimed was an outstanding balance and what I repeatedly claimed was the disputed "on hold" amount. I wrote to them on several occasions suggesting that we should put the matter in front of a judge to decide. Eventually they went through the process sent me lots of demanding letters and default notices which I always replied to and politely reminded them that the outstanding balance is subject to a Section 75 claim and that if they felt strongly about it then I would be happy to talk it all over in front of a judge. MBNA's last letter they stated that they would be selling the debt. I immediately wrote back to MBNA and informed them that they do not have my permission to give or sell any of my personal data to anyone. At this point I made a claim through the financial ombudsman, which is currently in progress. In the meantime, MBNA have sold the debt to DLC who appear oblivious to the section 75 claim and are now harrassing me with letters and phone calls. I have written to DLC telling them to stop harrassing me and referred them back to MBNA, stating that it appears that they have obtained my personal data in contravention of the data protection act. Clearly there are several strands to this situation, I feel strongly that this is a valid section 75 claim, but it seems that MBNA have simply avoided justice and I have been left with a blemished credit history. My first concern is that the claim via the financial ombudsman may be too late. My second concern is that having not paid the balance when I left the "on hold" balance with MBNA may have undermined the claim to some extent. Comments, the experience of others in similar situations and all advice is appreciated. (I will add/update as and when I get updates) thanks !

I'm in a situation with Amazon whereby they (or the seller) won't give me the sellers geographical address (as required by the DSR), I'm sure this constitutes an unfair contract term, however it's got me thinking about Amazon's position on Marketplace. Amazon may claim that it is only an agent, but I think that is pretty weak, the usual situation between an agent and their client is that an agent takes a cut after the contract has been performed. In Amazon's situation, the consumer has no choice but to pay them (in the same way as if you are buying directly from them). Does this constitute a sale of future goods as per the sale of goods act? In which case "a contract of sale the seller purports to effect a present sale of future goods, the contract operates as an agreement to sell the goods" which makes Amazon liable for the conclusion of the contract I'd love to hear your views on the subject and I'd like to see Amazon taking marketplace seriously

Bought a phone (Orange San Francisco) online a few days back from Onestopphoneshop.co.uk. As well as the phone, it was mandatory I bought a £10 Orange topup. Realised that using Orange would be too expensive compared to my existing provider. Phone now unlocked, rooted and fully operational on Asda PAYG. The mandatory topup (and Orange SIM) have never been touched/used. Its worth pointing out the topup and phone were shown as two distinct items on the invoice. I would like to reject the topup for a refund, under distance selling rules, as it is definitely not suitable for me. Since the topup exists only as data in Orange's servers, it could easily be removed from Orange's database. Question: Am I within my rights to do this and can I insist with the backing of the Distance Selling regs? If you know of any cases, please can you point me at them? Thanks everyone.