I agree Steptoe, I have favourite scrapyards around me. I always check them first, they have no problem giving refunds within 14 days - never had to ask for one, but they have been happy to tell me "you have 14 days" even if I don't ask specifically. I have only been into *this* one a couple of times before never bought anything (too expensive) and always had a bad feeling about them, only today did I see the sign, and as I said, when I got home I read the reciept!
I'll never go there again, unless I'm really stuck and I'll make sure they give me 14 days, either that or I won't buy.
|
None - above has the answer.
If the part is faulty most scrappies will replace it. They have their own mixed colours as well to mark the piece so they know you are bringing the same part back.
What they - and main dealers - won't put up with is someone buying an expensive electrical bit like an ECU on spec, trying it out and if it doesn't fix the problem, taking it back for a refund
Martin
|
SCRAPYARDS?- Automotive recyclers please!
--
Fullchat
|
After studing economics for 3 years at uni and gaining a degree I think some of you are on the right line, but a lot of you are off.
We all (I Hope) suport JC's view that we are all entitled to our own oppinion and we have long and passionate disucsion weather speed kills or not.
The point is that in a logical and decent society we all have the right to chose. Why should we condem dealers who explicitly say that they offer no refunds?? If we take the punters veiw where we will be willing to pay a premium for items we that are under a 14 day warrantte?
Not all punters may take this veiw. Why the antagosim against the dealer that offers no refunds? If a punter is willing to take a risk and pay a lower price why stop them? We don't need laws that specify the condition of an item. We do need laws that defend against missleading purchases. I fully agree with aprillia that the large merc scrap yard behaved like criminals. All that is needed for a market to fuction is correct information. Which sadly are as lacking in the new product markets (have read the thread about MR Clutch) as the scrap market.
The present laws are in force to protect the gamblers and the naieve. The naieve I can have some sympathy for, the gambers not at all.
We should allow scrapies to sell without refund if they so chose, but only if they make the terms of sale explicit. Why the vitriol against the OP's scrapyard?
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
No proper breakers any more. Political interference. Pain in fundament. End of story.
|
|
|
After studing economics for 3 years at uni and gaining a degree I think some of you are on the right line, but a lot of you are off.
I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect....
|
It all comes down at the end to you argueing with a guy built like a brick shed, loads of tattoos & his German Shepard!
Sometimes might beats right!
Personally never had a problem, but I know a lot of places that do electronic parts that suffer the "fault finding syndrome" so are reluctatnt to refund, also it's quite easy to blow up some electronic items & diffcult to fully test if returned.
|
|
|
Thanks for the sarcasm Aprilia. It's nice to know you prosess such power of logical argument yourself.
Seriously, Lud is right there is too much government involvement. The advantage of legislation like the sale of goods act is that it provides both buyers and sellers with a standard contract. This greatly helps both parties since they can refer to the conditions of exchange readily and challenge what they see as breach of contract if the buyer or seller does not meet relevant conditions (like not refunding a faulty item).
What I do detest is when business does not meet the terms and conditions various legal contracts. What Aprilia was so put out about in his post further up the thread was the fact that the business he was dealing with decided to put on a 25% admin charge and even then had trouble returning the item, which was not in a condition the seller said it was. The firm behaved in a way that broke legal conventions and should have been taken to court.
However we should congratulate traders who decide to opt-out of the various legal clauses that make up legislation such as the sale of goods act. Taking this view allows business to focus on different markets to the benefit of customers. I support the scrap yard in the OP because they make the opt-out explicit.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
|
|
mk124,
My opinion on this is based on the fact that by refusing refunds they are under some circumstances acting against your consumer rights, or "acting illegally" (not entirely sure whether the word "illegally" is correct or not because it implies an arrestable offence and I'm not sure about that because the police would just say "it's a civil matter").
The irony here is that your idea of how you would like the laws to be changed (and they would have to be changed to accomodate your view) is that the scrappy who offers no refunds would have cheaper parts. In this case this scrappy is expensive, the parts would be cheaper from the other scrappies (if they had them) who do offer 14day exchange/refund. So your "economics viewpoint" is already off the mark in practical application.
>The present laws are in force to protect the gamblers and the naieve.
>The naieve I can have some sympathy for, the gambers not at all.
The present laws do not protect the "gamblers" at all, I presume in this context you mean by 'gamblers' people who want to try a part out and then return it workking or not for a refund if it fails to fix the car. Under the present laws consumers are *only* entitled to replacement/repair or refund (at the sole discretion of the retailer - which solution to offer). If and only if the part sold was faulty or did not last as long as would be "reasonably expected". This ofcourse excludes 'gamblers' or 'chancers'.
You mentioned the 'gamblers' & 'naive' you forgot to mention the 'reasonable' i.e. those consumers who expect a part to be serviceable at point of sale - and for a reasonable period. The consumer laws are there to protect "consumers". You wouldn't say someone buying a fridge from Comet was naive, would you? Because they hand over the money in good faith that the fridge will function correctly. There is no difference with a consumer who hands over money in good faith to a scrappie for a part they reasonably expect to function correctly of course not last as long as new, but they have a reasonable expectation the part will last a certain length of time, and certainly under all circumstnces to work on the day of purchase.
|
Mk124
I'll also add that the "opt out" was not explicit as you said you applaud them for it.
The sign in the reception said "No refunds credit notes only" It was easy to miss but If it were legal (it is not) then it does kind of satisfy a display of terms and conditions and it would be the buyers fault for not reading it. - I would argue that it should be prominently placed on top of the reception counter (not on a wall at the back of the room) so it is impossible to miss.
RE: The note written on the reciept - "electrical item non returnable"
I would not have even seen if I had not asked for a reciept. In addition to that writing terms and conditions on a reciept is no good because the transaction is over, the item has been paid for it now belongs to you. Writing a note on a reciept does not amount to explicity displaying their intention opt out from the SOGA before sale takes place in my opinion.
If a retailer and you as a consumer would prefer the laws to be changed so that the SOGA is optional, that's fine by me, lobby parliament and ask for the laws to be changed. The problem here is that this retailer has decided the laws of the SOGA are not good enough for him so he's going to break them. This is understandably a wrong view to take in most peoples eyes. Wouldn't you agree? And that is basically what this "vitriol" as you call it is all about.
|
|
|
|
After studing economics for 3 years at uni and gaining a degree I think some of you are on the right line, but a lot of you are off.
Didn't do anything for your spelling.
|
|
|
|
|
There's one down the road from us signed as an "End of Life Vehicle Centre"......
|
Never had a problem, but I have always used either a yard run by a family friend, or more recently (because it's closer) a bigger "dismantlers" with all parts shelved and most warrantied. Never had hassle changing duff parts from either of these two.
Cheers
DP
|
- mk124 you will go far in the world i think ,why?,because in my opinion you have your head screwed on right.
|
mk124, sounds like one of the many sheep in life who just accept anything rather than question it. Who believes just because there is a sign on the wall or a notation written on a reciept that there is nothing they can do if the part turns out to be faulty. Such people just 'take the hit' rather than fighting for their money back, usually out of ignorance that they can actually fight for a refund and teach the retailer a lesson in the process.
People like this don't generally "go far" in the world.
Like mk124 who has his/her own views on utopian laws, my utopian law in this case would be that there should be penalties handed out to businessess like this scrappy who openly flout the SOGA in the order of 1000 pound fines. And in certain cases taken to the small claims court the judge should have the ability not only to award damages/costs to the consumer but where in the opinion of the judge the company was deliberately going against the SOGA laws, he/she should be able to issue a minimum fine of 1000 pounds.
|
|
i think you want to get out a bit more into the real world horatio.
|
|
I think you need to be more specific about what you're trying to say. I don't do conundrums :o)
|
|
I note you didn?t reply to my query about why you didn't buy a new one from the appropriate source?
I also note you assumed the part might be faulty, which is why you took a multimeter along. Does this not imply your awareness of the likely failure of this part yet you still bought it?
Yet you want draconian laws to protect yourself against the loss of a gamble that YOU took? Fully aware of the risks I hasten to add.
No wonder this country is turning into a nation of professional litigants and ambulance chasers.
You ultimate consumer protection is not to buy at such sources.
|
Holmes, I can't see your tongue in your cheek, so assuming your comments are serious, my comments on your views follow.
I note you didn’t reply to my query about why you didn't buy a new one from the appropriate source?
Because dealers often charge ridiculous prices, and on an older car it's not always economical to buy new. My heater motor has just failed so I'm buying a recon one rather than new as a halfway house.
I also note you assumed the part might be faulty, which is why you took a multimeter along. Does this not imply your awareness of the likely failure of this part yet you still bought it?
The OP took the multimeter to check that it was working as far as he could. By implication, no-one goes to a scrappie to buy a non-working item, so the scrappie should reasonably expect the buyer to bring something back that doesn't work IF he has charged a price that by implication is reasonable for a working item. So, if he charges 10p, that's fine if it doesn't work, he's charged a price commensurate with the item's function. If he charges £10, then there is a clear implication that he is selling it for the purpose for which it is intended, i.e. coil not doorstop. Other posters have made this point. I concede there is a grey area where the buyer removes the item from a vehicle of his choice rather than simply buying one that the scrappie has already removed.
Yet you want draconian laws to protect yourself against the loss of a gamble that YOU took? Fully aware of the risks I hasten to add.
No-one wants draconian laws, but to reiterate, no-one buys a coil as a door-stop, they expect to buy one that works as a coil if a reasonable price is paid.
No wonder this country is turning into a nation of professional litigants and ambulance chasers. You ultimate consumer protection is not to buy at such sources.
See points above - your view is fine if we all had unlimited funds available. Some of us have older cars for which new parts are not always appropriate. Furthermore, it is more environmentally sound to continue to use older cars and source used parts.
|
I have a simple outlook on the scrapyard, if you are removing the part you should be sure it's the right part or ask if they'll take it back if it's not. Where as dealers if given the right details should provide the right part and refund if not.
I've love scrapyards, the amount of bits and bobs you can get for pennies is staggering. Just think about how much fuses/bulbs/panel fittings cost from a dealer compared to a yard.
Horses for courses.
Steve.
---
Xantia HDi.
Buy a Citroen and get to know the local GSF staff better...
|
Holmes,
On previous occasions here I have been told off for replying to everyone, don't blame me.
An "appropriate source"? A scrapyard is an appropriate source, (it all depends on what you want, I want a second hand working component, for a second hand working component price) and you pay an appropriate price..bla bla bla bla I've said all this elsewhere. SOGA applies to second hand goods as well as new, the point I am raising here is that a scrappy has posted signs which violate consumer laws if you disagree with that we can argue the point but so far the people against me, seem to be saying forget that you have consumer protection in law and just roll over and let them shaft you, I don't do that, sorry.
The part could obviously be faulty but I am paying a "working price" I took my meter with me for the obvious reason that I wanted to be as sure as I could be that it was a good part. It costs me 5 pounds in petrol to go there and back I wished to minimise my expenses, had it been no good that would have cost me another 5 pounds to take it back for a replacement (which I would be entitled to under law or if they didn't have one, a refund). Have you not read the thread? I have said all this elsewhere, you pay for a working component, and an expectancy for it to work for a short period. The part could obviously fail after a month and you would have no comeback - that's the only "chance" I take, and it is a chance I am willing to take. I am not going to accept the chance that I pay good money for a part and it is faulty at the point of sale and I have no way of getting any money back or replacement that would be daft.
Again I did not gamble, I paid good money for a working component, had I not got a working component I would have been entitled to a refund whether they like it or not. I don't want draconian laws, the laws you refer to already exist to protect consumers (not gamblers). The only laws I want which don't exist right now are on the spot fines (issued by trading standards) for business premises who display signs which contravene existing laws. And the power for judges in small claims courts to be able to fine bad companies. - Again I said it all elsewhere.
"Professional litigants" in this case I would say amateur litigants, i.e. the public learning how to stand up to rip off merchants - and quite rightly
"Ambulance chasers" - off topic I won't go there.
"your ultimate CP is to not buy at such sources" We are protected in consumer law, recycling of parts is a very admirable business to benefit consumers and salvage companies alike. I am not frightened off by a sign on the wall which the proprietor hopes will frighten me into rolling over and be shafted. There are far too many consumers that don't know their rights, and are being shafted by all sorts of companies including the big national chains.
|
Holmes,
Forgot to say, in addition to taking my meter with me another time saving method I used was to phone the scrapyard before journeying to ask if they had the part I wanted, The telephone is a time and money saving device, the multimeter likewise is a time and money saving device.
Mike H,
Nice to see someone who sees what I am saying, lovely point about the doorstop, no one pays 10 pounds for a doorstop - exactly right.
|
Well when your scrap yard has disapeared, bankrupted and buried under a mountain of legislation, regulation and prosecution designed to protect your rights to be a cheapskate, I will look forward to your posts on how much you are charged for new parts.
As I said, you had the choice not to go there.
|
Holmes,
I would say the cheapskate is the retailer who sells doorstops as coils and tries not to accept responsibility when it turns out to be really a doorstop. If he sold everything as doorstops I'd be happy to pay 10p and not be surprised when it doesn't work as a coil.
I chose to go to a scrap yard for a working coil, what is so wrong with that?
|
|
Baaaa Baaaaa.
Can you site an example of me just accepting something, or don't you like me questioning your logic?
On another note I do agree with some people and I should not say anything about my qualifications or experiance in order to make a point. It does not lend itself to logical debate if someone just says 'accept what I say', indeed it is very patronising asking people to become sheep.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
mk124,
I welcome you questioning me, and I have answered your logic in return. Your earlier response - I don't think you actually said what you would do, you decided to ignore whether or not you thought this scrappy was breaking SOGA. Your post was mainly how you would like the laws to be changed. which is all well and good, but how did it challenge my logic exactly?
To clarify if you are a sheep or not kindly take this scenario and answer what you would do.
Scenario 1
You have isolated the fault to your car to the ECU (you substituted your friends ECU and your car works with his ECU). You need an ECU for your car cost new - 1500 pounds scrapyard 150 pounds, The only scrap yard (with ECU) is this one with the sign at the back of the room in reception and the note on the reciept which you notice when you get home. You don't specifically bring up the subject of returning the part, you buy it take it home and it doesn't work. You go back to the shop and the guy points to the note on the reciept and the sign on the wall.
Do you ?
A) Go home and throw the ECU in the bin and 'take the hit'
B) Tell the guy you know your rights and his signs are irrelevant, fight for and obtain a refund at some stage.
Scenario 2
Same as Scenario 1 but with the added fact that you asked for a returns policy and were directed to the sign on the wall.
Do you
A) Buy the part knowing that no other scrappy has one
B) Tell him to forget it and walk out - (and return with your car for it's scrap value :P )
In case of 2A) do you subsequently
1) Throw it in the bin
2) Return and tell the guy you know your rights and fight for a refund.
|
On another note I do agree with some people and I should not say anything about my qualifications or experiance in order to make a point.
The point is you were making out that you were more highly qualified than others here. Which I can assure you, you are not ;)
If everybody listed their qualifications before making a point, we'd never get anywhere, it'd just end up with us comparing qualifications.
|
|
As for an economics degree qualifying someone to talk about a) the criminal law (breach of the provisions of the SOGA) and b) contract law, then clearly mk124 is optimistic. BTW the quaintly phrased ?The advantage of legislation like the sale of goods act is that it provides both buyers and sellers with a standard contract.? is well off beam. The actual terms of a contract, verbal or written, are for negotiation, in theory. The SOGA and the Unfair Contract Terms Act set a framework and a safety net. In particular, ?The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 limits the use of exclusion clauses in contracts. Generally only a court can decide whether an exclusion clause is reasonable, However, any exclusion of liability whether in a contract term or in a notice is always void if used for the purpose of evading liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence. Also, a trader selling goods cannot exclude liability for a breach of a consumer?s rights under the Sale of Goods Act. Contractual exclusion clauses in relation to services are not illegal but they are not enforceable if they are unreasonable.? From the DTI pages on consumer contracts: I have excluded some of the detail of subsequent legislation, mainly because I am not familiar nor up to date on much of it, as I specialised in a different legal sector.
|
In both scenarios you make the point of noting the scrapyard is the only one source of the ECU. In reality I don't think that will happen.
In Scenario 1 I would select A.
However this assumes lots of diffrent things. If you were just out to do the best financialy then B may be a better option. That is, if there is a 50% chance you will get your money back, you would 'invest' up to £75 worth of your time and effort to get a refund.
Even if I thought it financialy in my best intrests to do this though I would not carry out this action since I belive it would be moraly wrong to do so. I knew before I bought the item I could not obtain a refund, therefore why buy item in the first place?
Scenario 2 is a little more complicated and depends on many factors, which you omit.
I assume that the working car is worth less than £1500, since you would rather scrap it than get a new ECU. Lets say the car is worth £750 working and £0 as scrap. The maximum you should pay for an ECU, of any kind would thus be £750. This makes a new £1500 from a dealer uneconomic and thus asign the car to scrap, if no other working ECU's could be found.
In my mind if you are neither risk adverse or a risk lover (that is you don't gamble, but don't insure yourself) to buy the ECU from the scrapyard, you must think it will work with a 20% or more chance, otherwise it would be considered a waste, since the expected value of the ECU would be less than the price the scrapyard is selling at.
That is if the ECU was expected to work 25% of the time you should definately buy it, since to you it would be worth 750*0.25=£187.5 (A person who insures themself may not buy this)
If the ECU was expected to work 20% of the time you are undecided whether you should be it or not, since the value to you is 750/5=£150, which is what it is selling for.
If the ECU was expected to work only 15% of the time you would not buy it since it's value to you would be 750*0.15=£112.5, which is less than what is is selling for. (if you were a gambler you may buy this)
Based upon my expectations of whether how likley it would be that the ECU would work and the value of the car working and as scrap and my attitude to risk I would select either A or B.
what makes 2A any diffrent from scenario 1?
I don't really know what the SOGA says so I can't comment on whether the scrapyard would be breaking the law. However, I commented on what I thought would be moraly right in my above post. Sometimes laws just don't make common sense when applied like a blanket.
In reply to nortones, as I have said I don't know much about legal legislation (are 'legal' an 'legislation' one and the same? I am sure the Lawers are laughing at this.), but I feel I summerised why it's of benifit to business and their customers in an above post.
(sorry about spelling)
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
nortones,
what you said is what I thought, a retailer cannot post terms and conditions which break consumers rights (and expect to get away with it).
Hello mk124,
Briefly then because we don't want this to go on much longer. It is quite often that you find the part only available in 1 yard (take my coil for example, was only available from the scrappy I don't like), though I do exclude postal based scrappys ( I don't use them). The scenarios took it as given that new was out of the question and it was either buy scrap part - or scrap the car. Scenario 2 was to see if you would ignore (having asked specifically) the scrap man telling you he did not take items back (which is against your rights). Note Scenario 1B did say you would definately win, (and this would apply to scenario 2 aswell even if I didn't write it).
From your answers you seem to be saying that you would lose money, because you bought an item which was useless, merely because the seller told you "no refunds". That puts you into my sheep fold I'm afraid, i.e. you don't stand up for your rights. You said you would do this because of some sort of gentlemans agreement you thought you had with seller, even though the seller's terms are against the law (your rights). IMO you are letting people walk all over you.
But anyway you are entitled to lose money this way if you like (doesn't have to be a scrapyard it can be any retail transaction).
To recap then, I was just annoyed to see this scrappy openly flouting SOGA and I thought I'd ask here to have that confirmed and it might help some people reading this to know they don't have to accept such rules if they don't want to. I will of course read your reply but I may not continue with this, it has all been said now.
cheers.
|
You are in my sheep field too.
I would agree that you are quite within your rights to take the item back to get a refund, even if you saw they did'nt offer refunds. This is because of the law giving you these rights.
What I don't agree with is what the law says, or how it's implimented. Business should behave the way it wants, but contracts should not be broken. The law is another instance of red tape.
I do find business that operate outside the law incredably unfair. Businesses that feture on watchdog for example. What drives me insane is businesses that only payout or whatever only when pushed. It is like it's company policy to obstruct customer rights, and I do think they should go to court , not just have to payout compensation to the customer that they messed about, rather I feel a fine in exess of £1,000 on top is the way to go. The businesses that do this though have generally broken a contract.
I sometimes think the law is wrong and we should be free to enter into gentlemans agreements as we so wish. To that end I think the SOGA should be modified. Thus prehapps in entering into a gentelmans agreement I feel the law should not be applied in quite the same way.
As for myself, losing money on a useless item because I can't obtain a refund, that is purely my perogetive. I could chose a business offered refunds, if I so chose. I suspect many people on here will tell you how to get a Daewoo coil from a scrapyard with a refunds policy, however that option would be more expensive, not just in terms of purchasing the said item, but of searching for it too.
You seem to be drawing the completely wrong conclusion out of this, blindly beleiving we need to live by laws, even if those laws disadvantage us.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
Horatio,
It looks like...
"....they are surely obliged under law to refund, repair or replace the item....What do you think?" from your original post (which sounds like a question) has metamorphosed into "I was just annoyed to see this scrappy openly flouting SOGA", which sounds like a statement, via a series of slightly rude put downs of anyone who doesn't seem to agree with you.
Being a bit more open to people's viewpoints on this forum might just lead you to a view of the world that differs from your current one and might even lead you into a more harmonious life. It might not, of course, but it's perhaps worth seeing that there might be some truth in other's views. After all, what do you have to lose?
V
|
Perhaps you should quote in full instead of cutting it to suit yourself
"I was just annoyed to see this scrappy openly flouting SOGA and I thought I'd ask here to have that confirmed and it might help some people reading this to know they don't have to accept such rules if they don't want to"
It has been confirmed by some posters here that the notice is against SOGA, I have also confirmed it myself by doing a little research. Hence the natural progression from my OP to my last post which you partially quoted.
I engaged in debate with people who told me basically I should learn to lose my money and If I use scrapyards I should expect a part not to work etc etc Those people were not open to my views on this and I am certainly not open to theirs, I don't see the problem?
"truth in others views" ? what ? "I shouldn't expect a part from a scrappy to work" "I should just "take the hit" and use it as it's intended purpose - A doorstop -" You're having a laugh mate.
You need to chill out if you think I have behaved out of order in this thread. Perhaps you should ignore all my threads in future, funny Dalgleish said something similar yet he still managed to try and stir up trouble here.
Good bye
|
My final words on this. You have a habit (see previous threads mentioned above) of asking a question, then being rude to anyone who objects to your view of the world. I'm just suggesting you relax a little, as you may find out worthwhile viewpoints if your mind is open. Frankly, it makes no odds to me if you do or not, but you do seem to choose to be a little caustic in your comments to people you disagree with.
Rudeness in this forum has driven me away before, so I feel quite happy to highlight it when I see it. (By the way, I've been guilty of it myself). You seem to have a habit of it (see linked threads) so I mentioned it. That's all.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
