I am writing to complain about the renewal of my contract for my mobile phone and a replacement refurbished hand set that fails shortly after delivery. I believe this transaction did not meet the requirements of the Sale of Goods Act 1982 for the following reason
1) The person on the phone miss-represented himself as an employee of Three when in fact he worked for Pones For You direct. This misrepresentation came about because you had supplied them with information about my account. As a result of this misrepresentation I agreed to extend my contract I would not have done this had the person explained that they were from Phones For You Direct. As a result I believe my contract with you is invalid.
2) The offer made on the phone included 2 years free insurance for the refurbished phone, which would cover replacement of faulty phones. I accepted the contract on this basis however this free insurance was not included in my contract. As it transpires that the insurance only covers lost or stolen phone. I did not accept any offer excluding repair insurance; therefore I believe my contract with you in invalid.
3) The refurbished phone has failed after only 35 days. I was informed that refurbished phones were new but had just been returned by customers who did not want them. This is clearly untrue and there for I do not believe these phones are of merchantable quality. Hence you should replace the phone with one that is fit for purpose.
I have tried to contact you over the past few weeks without satisfactory outcome. If within 28 day I don’t receive a satisfactory reply to this letter I will.
1) Stop my direct debit for this phone
2) Refer my complaint to Otelo
3) Start proceeding in the small claims court