Sales of goods act letter, someone help me please?

[MonkeyL]

http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/

Is pretty easy and strightforward. It'll cost more to send anyone to defend than just to payout.

Judging by the layout of that blurred invoice, I think I too have had trouble with this company scamming me for cost of return of faulty goods.

I found that the company was completely and utterly uncontactable via any method on their website. Phone support results in blatant lies and misinformation.

Had to contact the MD with a particularly pointed note before getting any satisfaction.

Might be worth trying something like that.

[mike306dt]

Is pretty easy and strightforward. It'll cost more to send anyone to defend than just to payout.

Judging by the layout of that blurred invoice, I think I too have had trouble with this company scamming me for cost of return of faulty goods.

I found that the company was completely and utterly uncontactable via any method on their website. Phone support results in blatant lies and misinformation.

Had to contact the MD with a particularly pointed note before getting any satisfaction.

Might be worth trying something like that.

Any suggestions? My letter will be sent tomorrow, had a full day of degree stuff today and have just finished work! Should I bother to add the stuff about them not checking things?

Thanks for your replies!

[mike306dt]

I'm getting a bit lost with the sequence of events now, is this a very quick response to the draft letter in your original post, or from an earlier stage when the mobo was returned to you?

In any case, "foot", "self" and "shot" spring to mind...

"Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of xx-xx-xx. Your acknowledgment that you failed to inspect the product prior to despatch is noted, as is your suggestion that the damage in question could have been sustained at the factory..."

This was while they still had the motherboard for RMA. You know i'd have probably given up by now but you guys are giving me the errr motivation? to carry on with this

[CaptainCrash]

Any suggestions? My letter will be sent tomorrow, had a full day of degree stuff today and have just finished work! Should I bother to add the stuff about them not checking things?

Thanks for your replies!

I think your original letter is pretty much OK as it stands to be honest - to keep things clear though, if I were you I'd explicitly demand a refund rather than a "refund or replacement", and point out that you're rejecting the goods in accordance with your statutory rights under the SoGA.

I wouldn't bother mentioning their admission of not having checked the mobo at this stage, although it's rather amusing and might come in handy further down the line. Just keep things short and to the point and free of unnecessary fluff.

[mike306dt]

I think your original letter is pretty much OK as it stands to be honest - to keep things clear though, if I were you I'd explicitly demand a refund rather than a "refund or replacement", and point out that you're rejecting the goods in accordance with your statutory rights under the SoGA.

I wouldn't bother mentioning their admission of not having checked the mobo at this stage, although it's rather amusing and might come in handy further down the line. Just keep things short and to the point and free of unnecessary fluff.

If I demand a refund then it doesn't stand me so well as far as the sales of goods act goes. I was told this by consumer direct. I shall however add that I want my test fee, both sets of carriage refunded, and the rejected the goods in accordance with my rights.

[mike306dt]

Address stuff here


Letter Dated as postmark

To Whom It May Concern, regarding RMAxxxxxx

The Sales Of Goods Act 1979

I purchased from you on the 26th October 2009 a motherboard (item code xxxxgives the game awayxxxxat a price of £114.77 plus V.A.T) which was delivered to me damaged.

• The damage to the top of the motherboard was not consistent with any outer packaging damage, and I only discovered this upon opening the box.
• The damage means that the goods are not of satisfactory quality.
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

After many attempts to resolve the matter with your xxxx-company contact system-xxxxx system, and having to pay carriage to send the board back to yourselves and then back to myself again I am unsatisfied with the outcome.

I respectfully request a REFUND or REPLACEMENT of the motherboard concerned. I am rejecting the motherboard in accordance with my statutory rights under the Sales Of Goods Act.

A response to my letter within a period of fourteen (14) days from the postmark to the postal address above, not via email or telephone is required please.

Yours sincerely



My name!!

[vti_786]

why don't you also mention the illegal activity with the charge for the return postage and checking the mobo, that should get them worried, say if you don't sort it, everything will be used in court as you have kept every response from them

[CaptainCrash]

If I demand a refund then it doesn't stand me so well as far as the sales of goods act goes. I was told this by consumer direct. I shall however add that I want my test fee, both sets of carriage refunded, and the rejected the goods in accordance with my rights.

I'm not quite sure what they're on about, but you have every right to reject the goods and demand a refund - the retailer may *offer* a replacement board as an alternative, and you may choose to accept that offer, but it's entirely at your discretion.

Perhaps Consumer Direct are under the impression that you'd kept the mobo for longer than 30 days before returning it as faulty - in that case it might be argued that you'd "accepted" the goods, and things wouldn't be so clear cut. However, from your first post I gathered that you'd RMA'd the board as soon as you received it, and it's not your fault that they sent it back to you.

Still, you should do whatever you feel comfortable with, hopefully it will have the desired effect in any case.

[Saracen]

.....

Perhaps Consumer Direct are under the impression that you'd kept the mobo for longer than 30 days before returning it as faulty - in that case it might be argued that you'd "accepted" the goods, and things wouldn't be so clear cut....

Jut to be clear, there is no specific 30-day period. The SoGA ust says that you must be given a reasonable period to examine the goods to ensure they conform to contract, and that not rejecting them within that reasonable period is one of the ways to"accept". How long "reasonable" is will depend on the nature of the goods, and other circumstances, so ultimately is what a court decides it is in each unique case.

Realistically, with rare exceptions, 30-days is probably the maximum you'll get and it often won't be that long. You'd be a bit pushed, for example, to reject a banana or daily newspaper after 30 days. And yes, they're extreme examples, but it makes the point.

[CaptainCrash]

Yes, that's a point worth making, although for most goods 30 days does seem to be accepted as a de facto "reasonable" period, unless there are obvious reasons why it should be something different (such as the aforementioned banana).

I know this is true, I read it on the Internet!

Certainly I'd be surprised if I found maggots in my motherboard after, say, 25 days, and I'd be even more surprised if a judge told me it was only to be expected.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I expect many people here will already have a prime suspect in mind, but I suppose one shouldn't jump to conclusions.

edit: I've just noticed the evidence is already in the thread if you know where to look...

lol the old VAT number caught my eye more than the board!!!

Like someone else said earlier use Citz Advice B.

They'll quickly give up if it gets to the stage of county court (small claims courty). I'd have thought

Worth noting that if you have to get legal with their ass, you might be able to deal with it online.
http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/

The VAT number post is indeed correct. I daren't say who it is as I know things normally go wrong when people mention them on here. I'll just say they sell overclocked stuff.

the VAT number showing on the picture is of OCUK Limited, not that I'm saying that's where the motherboard came from .......

That narrowed it down a bit!!

[mike306dt]

why don't you also mention the illegal activity with the charge for the return postage and checking the mobo, that should get them worried, say if you don't sort it, everything will be used in court as you have kept every response from them

I'm not sure if it was done on the naughty, however £22.71 has been taken from my account!

[GaryRW]

Probably a bit late now, but to me if looks as if they have pretty much accepted that they can't deny the board was damaged before they sent it out, you will give pretty clear evidence it was damaged when it arrived and all that is on top of the presumption in your favour in the first 6 months that Saracen has mentioned.

I think you should be fairly confident of getting your court fee back!

(& I am shocked. I read the posts thinking that I could guess which retailer was responsible, counting down the posts until it became a general slanging match against said retailer, and yet everybody has been remarkably restrained and helpful. Good ol Hexus....)

[mike306dt]

Letter sent friday! Will post back the outcome.

[mike306dt]

I've had a reply!

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to your letter, I dispute the claim that theere was an inherent flaw with the product prior to its despatch from our warehouse.

We do not handle the goods outside of their packaging and the impact damage inflicted to the motherboard is not mirrored by damage to the packaging to indicate that the motherboard has been damaged in transit.

There is no "fault" as such with the product - the product has been mishandled and damaged. The product comes from a factory where hundreds of these boards are produced faultlessly each day and from a warehouse where a product is not handled outside of its packaging. There was no opportunity for this damage to be incurred prior to the item being in your posession.

As such, I am unable to offer a repair, replacement or refund of this product.

Regards


Jimmy biggins <- fictional character!

[mike306dt]

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to your letter dated 30/11/2009 I have the following points to raise with you.

The outer packaging of the board was actually damaged, your tecnhicians obviously didn't pick up on this damage as the photo below shows, something I myself didn't immediately notice -

{Photo of the box that is currently on this thread}



It also, during the first six months under the sales of goods act is upon the retailer to prove that there was no damage to the product when I received it, and as stated in your letter and an email I had from a Daniel Worrall you do not check the product contained within before it leaves your warehouse. It is also the retailers responsibility not the manufacturer to resolve these issues.

I also repeat my previous comments to your technical support people - I did not physically damage the board, and overclockers uk were informed of this problem straight away.

I repeat my previous request for repair which I feel probably isn't possible OR replacement under my rights given to me by the sales of goods act.

Regards,


Me