Member Info for Daytradenovice

Its not been confirmed yet Billy, thats what we've been discussing. That is just a media article, not the actual judgement

Well you stick with your cut and pasted daslaw.co.uk comments then if you think your right still.
Obviously you didnt read the rest of the item, i'll post it below for you, but id suggest you get someone else to read it to you because you obviously cant take it in.

Just what part of 'faulty' or 'made faulty' dont you understand?

"How to obtain refunds for faulty goods

If a fault develops soon after you purchased an item, or if it was faulty straight away, meaning the goods are not of satisfactory quality, then you are entitled to a full refund from the retailer.

The legal term to use here is the “right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act”, as the item was not of satisfactory quality. You must give the seller clear notice that the item is rejected within 30 days for a refund to be given."

FFs
A simple google would prove you are wrong!

Here, done it for you because you are to arrogant and just wont check. Here is a basic write up for you from Which. If a 'faulty' item is delivered then a full 100% refund is the law.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product-aTTEK2g0YuEy

Just how do you think "a retailer proves the item wasnt faulty to begin with" if thats the nonsense your now clinging onto to save face. The simple fact is they cant, and they dont ever try to, just more nonsense from you.

Look for your post yourself. Im not retrawling through all your garbage, nearly 600 posts in the last 30 days only!
Unlike you i have far far better things to do with my time, im not particularly interested in discussion with any 8ndividual that makes such truly disgusting accusations as you do.

Again, you are wrong.
And feel free to go for it, just dont forget to point out your disgusting accusations of homophobia will you.

Oh i remember that more recent post you quote. Im not referring to that post at all, try an earlier one you definately did post mr liar. Your so full of it its unreal.

Your other comments on returns you are wrong on. The legislation is quite clear - 'faulty' goods = 100% returnable, and always will be. period.
Now go wash that vile mouth of yours out.

Time will tell so no point worrying about it now.
Just dont get going 'commando' incase it all goes horribly wrong!

The way i address people trading for huger losses?, now, even for you, THAT is funny.

As for your 'knowledge' on legal matters im quite,happy to leave you in your little 'ostrich head in the sand bubble', you know the same one that told you that the sp here was rising further when in the mid 400's, so like the big know it all you try and portray yourself you can find out for yourself in the same disappointing manner. i'll take no pointers from you im afraid - wouldnt want to make the same mistakes.

The rest of your waffle, is just that. 'Faulty' goods, supplied that way or otherwise made so by people intending to return them, can 100% be returned at zero cost under the current relevent legislation and there is nothing an online retailer can do about it (other than a time limit). There are no price restrictions, hygiene restrictions or any other restrictions for that matter. That is a fact backed up in consumer law.
Obviously as you are just a BOO peddler, and so desparate to claw back your losses, that is just a narrative that you dont like spelled out to you as it costs this company dear. None the less it is a fact and impossible to circumvent under current legislation.

That will require a complete law change. i.e. no chance at all

Bl00dy hope so - hope they havent tried to bribe the judge :(

That will be interesting to see.
Having had only a brief skim through the legislation its clear that "A deduction" can be made if the goods value has been negativly affected as a result of you handling the goods more than was necessary.
It doesnt however mention refund deductions/charges for the act of refunding itself.
Id expect somebody like Which to jump on this sort of thing.

Of course when punters get wise to this 'charge' all they would need to do is claim the items been damaged during delivery or is faulty, button fell off, threads pulled etc then the right of a free return, inc postage, becomes the legal default under the consumer rights act and is undoutable

And how are they going to do this? The right is enbedded in law
https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

trading for huger losses

Just for your info, im quite clued up in just such an arena..
For a job, 33 years experienced, i am whats known as an "appointed person" who works on behalf of the secretary of state investigating breeches and gathering evidence to prosecute for infringements in public health legislation by individuals and companies within my designated area of the UK. As well as A very specialised investigative role, i am personally responsable for providing formal Regulatory legal advice to the courts Regulators and government in my specific field, one of approx 50 individuals in the UK in such position. Theres nothing you can teach me in this area im afraid.

The issue of settlement and provision figures is a nonsense. The very need to set such figures aside in the first place is simply an accounting practise, in case the action goes against you. Any immbecile understands such a practise, the point is the company shouldnt have put itself in such a stupid position in the first place.

And give up the insults, your just not very good at those either, my hearts thumping away nicely thank you, and im not particularly old.

So how many years did you sell double glazing or was it Kirby vacuums for? similar cr@p spouted and the same lingering smell.

Dbno, apart from "while", a typo, obviously meaning 'whole' what do you mean?

Blimey DBNO that would be an absolute disaster for the while practise.

"trading4good
Posts: 3,503
Price: 77.68
No Opinion
RE: Class Action UpdateToday 13:02
Does it?

What is better than a settlement withinprovision without liability?"

Like you, simples. Maybe no need to have to fight a case at all gorgeous! Think of all those expensive lawyers fees they could have kept in the bank.

By being an honourable upstanding business instead of a shady company that everybody likes to investigate would be a "far better settlement" would it not?

if your snipping at me again trading for even huger losees today, i dont own any KZG.
You really should get your facts straight, if you read back (we know you struggle with this) you will see i wrote those off against a properties 6 figure capital gain some years ago now.
But never let a fact get in the way of your continual lies eh chum!
I post there, as here as im interested in the share, simple as . . . . . . . you

Good job they put the cash away to pay for all these associated costs, the kitty has very little left in it afterall.
Seems the market was expecting better.

Got mine in HL accounts around 3pm today.
I did send a growlagram message though.

My words are quite clear trading for losses, to those of us that can actually read correctly.
Your problem if you cant/dont/wont.

Ive already, twice, explained how you and your sort ramp, i dont need to do so again.
A clue for the clearly clueless, Maybe start with the first line above and try again.

Keep trying to deflect, it aint working.

Nice little rise again today, all good in the hood.