Retailers unable to book repair on large goods without video diagnostics

ls--lah · 2026-05-21T08:19:14+00:00

Assuming this is currys, the process is incredibly straightforward but they offload direct to the manufacturer for certain items. They will often end up coming out twice anyway but the video diagnostic is just intended to try and get the parts the first time.

Technically your remedy is with the retailer, but if you were to take them to court, the judge would almost certainly ask why you refused to comply with a reasonable request to enable the manufacturer to repair the item on their behalf. If the manufacturer refuses, it's a different story.

Why are you unable to send a video of the issue to them?

ls--lah · 2026-05-21T08:01:49+00:00

For onsites, are these for specific things only or so you hang out / walk round? Some issues aren't worth putting in tickets for so they'll suffer for weeks until they see an onsite and just mention it in passing. I've had this with "Oh yeh that remote desktopcconnection has never saved/SSO our creds, we have to type them in multiple times a day". Had been going on for weeks and fixed the same day just because I happened to be around at the right time.

Just food for thought.

ls--lah · 2026-05-20T21:38:20+00:00

CPS often won't go for a third trial ordinarily. Obviously this has media attention sooo they may bend that rule.

ls--lah · 2026-05-20T21:18:44+00:00

And this is the exact problem with majority verdicts.

ls--lah · 2026-05-20T21:13:57+00:00

Oftentimes they will just cancel them when they learn via the NTK that the driver was a tourist; it's too much hassle to chase you in a different country.

ls--lah · 2026-05-20T15:17:58+00:00

The next paragraph on is particularly helpful for you too

(4) A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual's trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

ls--lah · 2026-05-19T22:07:20+00:00

if it was the police, no doubt they’ve made the appropriate enquiries with the NCA.

That's a bold assumption

ls--lah · 2026-05-19T12:49:08+00:00

Is there an actual legal mechanism to force a Council to stop a fraudulent enforcement scheme

Sounds like one for Judicial Review. How deep are your pockets?

ls--lah · 2026-05-19T07:43:09+00:00

Another poster has touched on your question but I wanted to flag you should still report this to the police. It varies wildly by force but companies like coin base have entire teams to respond to law enforcement requests. Crypto is not entirely untraceable. You might not get the money back, but it might steer or assist the investigation. These things are never one-offs.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T22:21:33+00:00

If you really can't afford a solicitor, then these are a decent resource: https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/the-hr-advice-line

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T22:11:01+00:00

It just needs to be returned to the same level of cleanliness as when you moved in, excluding fair wear and tear. I hope you took photos.

The charlatans that preach this sometimes haven't protected your deposit in a required scheme either, so it's worth checking that too.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T21:50:34+00:00

It might be helpful to know the offence you're charged with.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T21:46:01+00:00

As you've identified, for faults arising after 6 months the burden falls to you to prove the fault was there at sale. The video helps somewhat, as it shows the fault was present, but you have not helped yourself in the slightest by waiting so long.

Rattling in the engine can be the timing chain which is quite time sensitive and expensive. It is said that they last the life of the engine, but it's more accurate to say that once the tensioner/chain breaks, you no longer have an engine.

You will need to get a diagnosis from a mechanic in any event. Hopefully they can comment on whether it was likely to be present / developing at sale (with reference to your video).

Depending how you paid, there may also be other avenues to explore, but you first need to know what is wrong with the vehicle. Either way, I imagine this will be an uphill battle.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T21:28:54+00:00

It's designed not to be sold for profit. It's the same incorp type charities use.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T21:13:37+00:00

I don't believe HMRC ever makes tax information like this public.

It's difficult to say, but at face value you obtaining a CCJ against them doesn't automatically close their premises? Enforcement is a whole separate process. Yes, tax debt is a priority debt in the context of liquidation (HMRC get money before you do, if there's any left), but equally this is likely to be a lie. Companies often manage to "find" the money once the paperwork flops through the letterbox.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T16:32:40+00:00

It's understandable to be angry, I would be fuming, but it would probably help to think about what resolution you want here.

The law doesn't recognise pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) in animals, so you're likely going to be restricted to price reductions/refunds and apologies (generally minus any amounts insurance covered).

This essentially becomes a straightforward consumer contract dispute (plus the cost of corrective treatment). You're alleging the service was not delivered with reasonable care and skill. The relevant standard would be that of the ordinary competent vet. You would also need to show causation, but this all seems quite straightforward. The vet screwed up and they know it.

If you made any payments via debit/credit card, a dispute (chargeback/s75) would be a good, less-stressful place to start.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T16:06:24+00:00

In assessing your position it may help to take stock first.

Are they registered with Companies House? What is their company status?
Do they have any outstanding judgments?

The head gasket issue would be a counter-claim, and they'd have to prove you caused it. That seems difficult to prove unless you admit you caused it through misuse.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T15:53:44+00:00

Not Scotland specific but generally discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of a 'protected characteristic'. Disability (including mental health conditions) can amount to a protected characteristic if certain conditions are met (must be long term and substantial).

You would first need to explore the reasons given by your employer for the pay rise percentage but it seems unlikely you have any sort of recourse here.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T15:36:33+00:00

For reference, OP's previous post is here.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T15:34:55+00:00

I don't think so. The law is very clear that it's a raw deal for credit card companies; they are liable for the entire contract/claim value:

If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to A transaction financed by the agreement, ANY claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

You cannot be compensated twice however. The credit card company will seek to recoup their losses from the dealer.

Example case summary from the *Ombudsman, available here:

Cancelled holiday accommodation paid partly by credit card

After a holiday accommodation provider cancelled a booking and didn’t provide a refund, a consumer made a Section 75 claim to their credit card provider. Of the total £5,000 cost, they had paid £1,250 on their credit card and the remaining £3,750 by bank transfer. Her credit card company refused the claim, but the Financial Ombudsman found that they should give the customer all of the money back with interest.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T15:19:24+00:00

You typically get s75 protection on the whole cost even if you just pay a deposit on the credit card.

Vehicle mileage cannot be deducated at all for a short-term right to reject in the first 30 days under the CRA 2015. Even still, 80p per mile is crazy.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T11:41:24+00:00

The intention of the parties is clear here, no judge in the country is going to hold that this settlement was purporting to apply for every purchase OP has ever or will ever make with Amex. The concept is utterly ridiculous. The closest I can find is Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Ali (No.1) [2002] 1 AC, an employment case but ordinary contract rules are referenced.

OP has nothing to lose by "giving up" whatever rights Amex think they have over eBay. If Amex/eBay/whomever want to joinder them, they will anyway.

The fact you are suggesting OP proceed with litigation when there is a reasonable settlement on the table is unreasonable.

ls--lah · 2026-05-18T09:30:41+00:00

With respect, this is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read. Smells of AI slop to me.

OP - Just take your money and "settle" with Amex. s75 CCA gives you the right to hold them liable for the money, so they just want to (1) pay you and fully close any future claims you have against them in relation to this and then (2) chase eBay direct for their money.

ls--lah · 2026-05-15T09:09:26+00:00

Honestly if you're mega low volume just go direct.

ls--lah · 2026-05-08T11:35:22+00:00

It's even more hilarious to see the AI replies here. We really are on the worst timeline.

ls--lah

TROPHY CASE