News Reader wrote:

"Dr Teeth" wrote in message
...
I am not going to name the company involved in this story unless they
refuse my refund. I have already purchased a suitable domain for the
whole story...see later.

This company behaved in an illegal and unsatisfactory way IMHO.

I bought a wireless router that would drop the PPP connection and not
automatically reconnect.

My two other routers and my (new) current one behave perfectly.

I completed a returns form three days after receiving the new router
and they replied, "On this item we need confirmation from the
manufacturer that the product is faulty. This should not be a complex
process. Please call the manufacturers technical support on xxxx xxxx.
They should be able to provide a returns number that we require. In
all cases please take the name of the person you speak to and update
us on the conversation".

I advised them that I was rejecting the goods as faulty, and under the
law I do not have to prove the router faulty, they do. I also pointed
out that it would be irrelevant if it passed their tests as working.
The router was not sold with any conditions of use and it was
reasonable for it to work as all my other kit does, connected to *my*
phone line. It was pointed out that the only way that they could prove
the router faulty would be to stay at my gaff for a few days...the
cost of which would be more than the router's worth.

Further refusal to budge.

I the purchased a suitable domain 'do-not-shop-at-company's
name.co.uk' and put up a holding page. I them wrote to the (?) major
shareholder and company secretary at home. It is this bit that has
**always** worked for me, making the company in question realise that
I am VERY serious.

Later on the day that the letter would have been received, I got a
call at work from somebody who said that they had approved the return
as it would not be worth their while fighting me. I mentioned that I
was used to dealing with retailers who accept returns on the
purchaser's word - which is most of them in my experience.

The aforementioned chap told me that he would have to test the router
before issuing a refund. I managed to get it out of him that it would
be highly unlikely they would refuse a refund if the router worked,
only if it were damaged in transit.

TBH, I would not be surprised if they did declare it damaged to try to
avoid giving the refund.




--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Hi,

Interesting they talk about "not worth their fighting"... what / who / when
/ where? I thought this was a customer - why would anyone be trying to fight
them...?

I think it is agreeably pretty sick that clearly explained meanings of the
various pertinent bits of legislation are frequently, almost routinely,
attempted to be evaded:

- sales of goods act
- unfair terms in consumer contracts
- distance selling regulations

etc. etc.

Operatives flapping about "warranties" whilst failing to understand that
consumer rights cannot be undermined or overridden, and that warranties are
in addition to statutory rights - just as an example. The DTI clearly state
that under distance selling rights the consumer has a reasonable right to
inspect and evaluate goods before deciding whether they wish to refuse them,
etc. , etc. .

Would you be happy to receive something "new" that had been opened and
used by someone else?

--
James