Halfords Again

[peterc10]

Its actually difficult to know what proactive action Trading Standards can take. You see the retailers are not strictly doing anything illegal, i.e. breaking the law. I know it is a strange concept to grasp but what we have been outlining above is a civil and not a criminal matter.

All the Sales of Goods Act does is imply terms into a contract for sale. Those terms apply and you or any other buyer can take advantage of them. If the seller denies you your rights that is a civil matter of contract law, not a criminal law matter. It is a matter between you and him.

Of course Trading Standards do have some powers and there are some criminal laws on trading, but the Sale of Goods Act is not one of them. In any event the level of proof required for a criminal conviction ("beyond reasonable doubt") that they have to meet is very different from that that you have to meet in a civil case ("on the balance of probabilities"). So just because you have won your civil case does not mean that the seller has broken any criminal law.

[tedkay]

[peterc10]

There is a major difference between contractual rights implied by statute and laws which impose criminal laibility. Of course civil law matters but in most cases of contract law, which is what we are talking about, it only "matters" to the parties to the contract because (with a few exceptions) they are the only people that can enforce the terms of that contract on the other parties. 3rd parties, such as Trading Standards, can't do that, except in specific circumstances.

Laws such as the Sale of Goods Act imply terms into contracts between parties. The Act does not say that it is "illegal", i.e. against the law, to have a contract without those terms. All it says is that if the contract does not have those terms either party may imply such a term into the contract, should they wish to. Consumer regulations also do not make it "illegal" to have an unfair term in a consumer contract. All they say is that such a term will be voidable by the consumer, and the seller will not be able to rely upon it.

It is also not illegal for one party to disagree with the other about what implied or explicit term is in a contract, or what term is or is not void. That is what lawyers do on behalf of their clients in the civil courts all the time. For example the Sale of Goods Act does not make it illegal for the seller to argue (either in court or in the shop) that a particular term is not included in the contract.

All the Sale of Goods Act does is give one party rights. Those rights can normally only be enforced by a party to the contract, which Trading Standards are not. The other party is not acting illegally, i.e. against the law, in maintaining for whatever reasons that those rights do not exist.

Trading Standards do have legal powers and can nowadays act in certain circumstnaces against companies if there is clear evidence of continued flouting of consumer laws. For example they can go to court to require them to remove blatantly unfair terms. Once the court has ordered that then it would be illegal to continue to include it, but not until. What Trading Standards can't normally do is act for (or instead of) a party to a contract in civil cases about that contract, and nor can they require terms to be explicitly included in a contract when the Sale of Goods Act implies them anyway.

[tedkay]

But despite all that, peterc10, the Sale of Goods Act can and does place an obligation on retailers to abide by its' terms. Trading Standards can, and sometimes does, make representations to retailers who blatantly ignore the Act, without necessarily acting for any particular consumer. This usually happens when an instance is highlighted in the media, and Trading Standards is embarrassed into action.

My argument is that when big high-profile retailers such as Comet not only habitually ignore their obligations to the consumer but are blatant enough to post signs in their stores advertising the fact, then they should be taken to task by the authority we pay to protect us.

In fact when I called my local Trading Standards office after my last run-in with Comet they readily acknowledged Comets' blatant flouting of the law but told me that they don't have the resources to do anything because there are so many instances, in so many stores. This didn't impress me particularly, because Comet has a head office and a letter there from Trading Standards would not stretch their resources too far.

I suppose we will have to wait until the editor of The Sun gets mugged-off by a retailer such as Comet before anything gets done!

Ted Kay

[peterc10]

Ted,

I agree with you about applying pressure, but that is all they can really do in most cases. However if Comet are as you say blatantly advertising restrictions in rights which are contrary to the Act that is another matter. I would be interested to know what is says because there is legislation on such point of sale advertising, which may make it illegal and a criminal offence. Trading Standards are the agency that is supposed to enforce that legislation, but the problem is that it is not well written and has plenty of loopholes I am told.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Sun option. Don't forget how much advertising Comet and all the other big retailers buy from Rupert, whereas convicted rapist never advertise.

[jpkeates]

Don't buy from Comet
and write and tell the Chief Executive why.

You'll probably get no response,
but they lose your business.
Which is all they value.

[Chippychap]

Hi Gang,

Sorry to be picky...............but.

When we slag-off Comet, Trading Standards et al, it ain't the organisation we mean, it's the spotty oik we stand opposite.

I promise you, if you are the son of Mr Comet, or the CEO of Trading standards (stretching the point but you know what I mean) you would receive totally different treatment.

Trading Standards, depends who you get, when I rang recently to report a local petrol station whose pumps charged more than the price per litre price advertised, I explained three times that if you multiplied the price per litre by the litres sold, they were charging more..............I gave up.

Comet, and other such stores, if they didn't offer cheap acne cream, they would not get staff (I'VE had spots, not a general insult, just a generalisation of the cr%p they employ) you are talking of the oik and not the organisation, they're robots, if you listened closely in their ears you would hear "does not compute" over and over and over and over.

No real point to this post other than to say, stick with it, be calm, ask to speak to a manager, refer back to the forum if things get tough, find a tactic that works............tell us, we'll use it, if it don't..............tell us, we'll try to find one that does.

Bobbins companies, live with it, normal part of living today, it ain't you, it ain't personal, it'll be me next. Like a football game, both side trying to win.



Ken

[Simmy]

Again this is a company that i have had no problems with at all, there seems to be alot of bad comments about alot of companies on this forum, surely not all of them will be that bad?

[chrissyb_tsp]

Hi all


you can be real lucky sometimes and you can get a real honest and trustworthy member of staff of whichever store you visit.... remember, shopworkers and people too. It is too easy to be too general when referring to retailers.
Some retailers offer more than others, some offer loads more and will most of the time bend over backwards (conditions prevailing) for you.

For example, I'm a shopworker myself amongst other things... and I'm sure Comet staff don't have to worry about fitting the fridges into customers kitchens, right? or whereby PCWorld are cost cutting so much that they're cutting staff and thereby losing sales..... consequently therefore not being able to afford more staff (and so on and so forth)... it's not the staff's fault.
Sometimes you can be unlucky and get a 16 year old kid who doesn't know ANYTHING and wants just the sale out of you even though he is getting paid the same for selling you something good or something crap and can make you lose your temper.... OR you can be lucky and have a 17 year old whizkid who knows everything about computers.... the luck of the draw.
whereas Halfords, not only will their staff who are already struggling with their companies constant cost cutting, understaffing, POS price changing, the fact that their head office NEVER compliment or recognise their constant hardwork amongst expecting ALREADY too much on their basicly waged staff... they will still give you the best and most honest advice they can whilst offering a service to fit things to your car, being technically trained on another legal loophole and minefield that is CHILD CARSEATS, ontop of which being expected to have an expert knowledge of how EVERY car works and how EVERY bike is put together and also having to know every single little thing about Satellite Navigation and radio's ASWELL.... I don't think they do too bad as people/businessmen and as far as customer service goes they're very good and I can't complain. If only people knew the things that go on behind the scenes of retailers, you would realise that one slip-up here and there is only a small price to pay. Find me a retailer who offers more services?

It's not any retailer's fault if your PDA goes wrong, the honest STAFF aren't the one's who make the products... they're just the ones who sell them.... (with the information they have given to them by their poor head office.) It's just unfortunate that everyone has to start somewhere with a complaint and you can't just go straight to the top, so the easiest thing to do is either complain to your local kid at the retail shop where you bought your faulty product from, or discuss it on forums, such as this one.

It's a bit like a free kick in a football match. Who are the one's at the front who are going to get smacked first with the ball?
That's right...... the Wall.
Who are the people who will die first in trench warfare?
.... the first charge of a frontline.
is it fair? no.... but it's life and it's easy to poke fun at retailers and part-time workers because they're the first people you see. Again, that's part of THEIR job and part of their companies responsibilities to accept the consequences when things go wrong.

I hope some of that makes sense.... in a nutshell, in some cases not all retail workers are to blame.

nuff sed

x

[chrissyb_tsp]

[Ako]

chrissyb_tsp wrote:

[chrissyb_tsp]

sometimes it could be down to lack of training... but then again sometimes it's down to [b]TOO MUCH training as too much can be expected of the staff to fulfill everything expected of them.
Some companies try to do too much and look too far forward when realistically, they should be more concerned with what's going on around them.

[Borg]

Just a small point

EBay is not an auction, they even say they are not on their site.

[peterc10]

[Borg]

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!