Latest news with #consumerrights
Associated Press
a day ago
- Business
- Associated Press
TRAXXAS ALERT: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is Investigating Traxxas, L.P. on Behalf of Traxxas Customers and Encourages Consumers to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, June 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized consumer rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Traxxas, L.P. ('Traxxas' or the 'Company') on behalf of Traxxas customers. Our investigation concerns whether Traxxas has violated consumer protection laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business practices. Investigation Background The investigation is examining consumer complaints regarding Traxxas's warranty, repair, and customer service practices based on reports from customers and publicly available consumer complaints. These complaints include: Warranty and Repair Service Issues: We are investigating complaints about Traxxas's 30-day warranty policy that many consumers report is insufficient given the frequency of reported defects. Additional concerns include excessive repair backlogs despite Traxxas claiming to provide quick repair service, with some customers reporting that company representatives have acknowledged shipping '150-200 repaired cars a day.' Consumers have also reported poor customer service experiences where representatives reportedly became rude when pressed about repair timelines or disconnected support chats. Others reported issues include recurring mechanical failures with specific components that lead some customers to report spending 'more time taking [the vehicle] apart and shipping back for warranty work than playing with the dang thing,' warranty claims being denied where customers were allegedly told malfunctions were 'their fault' despite occurring shortly after the warranty period expired, and expensive battery replacement procedures reportedly requiring customers to ship back defective LiPo batteries at their own expense for 'evaluation' before warranties are honored. The investigation highlights how these reported issues affect consumers who have invested significantly in Traxxas products, with some high-end models costing over $1,000 plus additional expenses for batteries and chargers. Based on consumer reports, customers have experienced vehicles that require frequent repairs within weeks or months of purchase, difficulty obtaining warranty service within the company's limited 30-day warranty period, significant downtime while waiting for repairs, and financial losses due to repair costs and shipping expenses. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Traxxas products and experienced issues with warranty or repair services, or if you would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at [email protected], by telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form for a free case review. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook, and keep up with other news by following Brandon Walker, Esq. on LinkedIn and X. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. (212) 355-4648 [email protected]
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: Help! Storage firm lost entire contents of our five-bed home
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. Mrs J.P. writes: We put the contents of our five-bedroom home into long-term storage, costing £200 per month. We had retired to Spain, but returned to the UK and contacted the storage firm to have our goods delivered to our new home. It then informed us that it had accidentally disposed of them. Tony Hetherington replies: It has taken months of enquiries to unravel everything that took place. You first put your belongings into storage in 2017, but in 2018 your mother-in-law was nearing the end of her life so you returned to the UK and your belongings were returned to you. In 2019 you and your husband put everything into storage again and went back to Spain. Last year you decided to return to this country, but were then told your belongings had gone. The name of the storage company you gave me was Herts And Essex Removals Limited, which you told me was run by Martin Sontag. But this was impossible. That company did not exist until 2021, and it was compulsorily dissolved by Companies House in March last year so it cannot have been trading when you came home several months later. I asked you to search out your agreement and you came up with a slightly different company name, Herts & Essex Removals & Storage Ltd, based at Matching Green in Essex. The agreement pledged: 'Your furniture and effects are covered to a substantial £100,000.' I checked, and this company was formed in 2011. But no one named Sontag was involved, and it was voluntarily dissolved in 2013. Judging by the dates, you should have been dealing with another of this crop of similarly named companies, Herts and Essex Removal and Storage Ltd – not 'Removals', with an 's'. This was set up in 2012 and, yes, it was run by Martin Sontag. The snag was, it went bust in 2018. Martin Sontag borrowed over £30,000 before the business collapsed, and is repaying this gradually. So you may have put your belongings into storage with this company in 2017, and got them back in 2018, but when everything went into storage again in 2019 it cannot have been with this company because it was in liquidation. So just who were you paying? No surprise, you were paying Martin Sontag himself. Your husband told me: 'We always paid him cash as this was his preferred method of payment.' The money was handed over by a family member and you repaid them. When the bad news came about the loss of your possessions, Martin Sontag explained that he told his employees to prepare your belongings to be returned, and on the same day other items that were not yours were to be dumped. The instructions were accidentally reversed. He stressed he had a 'gold plated insurance policy', but his inventory of your possessions was on a corrupted computer drive. You put together your own list, and insurance giant Sedgwick, the company handling the claim on behalf of Axa, offered you £4,700. You asked me, how could you replace the contents of an entire house for £4,700! Armed with your signed authority, I asked Sedgwick for a copy of the policy. It refused, but did tell me that the insurance did not provide 'new for old' replacement cover. And Sedgwick then slashed its offer to just £2,800. But who would pay £200 a month to store goods worth only £2,800? Martin Sontag was more helpful, and gave me a copy of the policy. It was made out to him personally. He also produced his agreement with you, in the name of one of the companies that had ceased to exist. He told me he had bought its customer base. Without realising it, you had been switched from a contract with a company to a cash-in-hand deal with an individual. On the brighter side, Martin Sontag told me the damaged computer had been repaired, but the inventory did not match your own. He said your inventory showed items not on his, and you told me that he had failed to list some items. I explained to Sedgwick that there was no way I could encourage you to accept £2,800. It had to think again, and it did. When you received the new offer, it had rocketed to just under £15,000. Absurdly, it was accompanied by an alleged copy of your storage deal – in the name of the company that folded in 2013. I invited Sedgwick's legal team to explain this. The question was clearly too difficult as they failed to answer. I have discussed the offer with you, so I can now report that you have accepted it. Isn't it amazing that an insurance payout can shoot up by 400 per cent! And, of course, the payment you have accepted lets Sedgwick and Axa off the hook, but Martin Sontag could still be impaled if you feel it falls short. Handing over your worldly goods to a storage firm should not involve sleepless nights, loss of belongings or a lengthy battle for fair payment, yet that is what you faced and you deserve a fair outcome.
Sky News
6 days ago
- Business
- Sky News
Money Problem: We win reader a refund for 'complete failure' event after company refused to budge
Reader Ciaran sent in this Money Problem after paying nearly £55 for an event he was forced to leave halfway through... I purchased two tickets (costing £54.40) from FeverUp for a live jury experience in Manchester. Unfortunately the event was a complete failure due to technical issues that made the interactive element impossible. The WiFi at the venue wasn't strong enough to support the voting system. This meant the core experience, audience participation - simply didn't happen. The atmosphere quickly soured, with many audience members visibly frustrated. I left halfway through. When I contacted FeverUp, they denied me a refund or compensation, and said their terms and conditions said no refunds. Monzo also refused to raise a chargeback. It's so frustrating when an event doesn't go to plan, and it can be easy to think if a company has terms and conditions that state "no refunds" that is it. Like with most consumer disputes, the first place to start is the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) - this doesn't just apply to goods, but also services - and, crucially, this law supersedes any company policy. Section 49 of the CRA states that services must be performed with "reasonable care and skill", while the 2024 version of the act builds on this by saying any adverse factors that may restrict the consumer's enjoyment (such as restricted views - or in this case, issues with the sound system) must be disclosed at the point of purchase. The act also allows consumers to claim a refund if the event is not as described or of a satisfactory quality. Issues with the WiFi system, as you rightly pointed out when we talked, are foreseeable. Now it wasn't FeverUp's fault that issues arose - that was with the venue. But your contract was with FeverUp as you bought the tickets from them, so it is their responsibility to ensure that what they sold you complies with the act. Unfortunately, in this case, it did not. I contacted FeverUp, outlining all of the above, and asking them if they wished to reconsider their "no refunds" stance. Less than two hours later, they had issued you with an apology, a full refund and two complimentary tickets to another FeverUp experience in Manchester. This was resolved relatively quickly, but anyone who finds themselves in this situation should check the Consumer Rights Act. What you are entitled to can be summarised by my favourite mnemonic (thanks to the team at MoneySavingExpert for this one)... SAD FART. Items, goods and services should be... S atisfactory quality A s D escribed F it for purpose A nd last a R easonable length of T ime Remember, this takes precedence over any terms and conditions a company may try and cite. When it comes to complaining, detail is key - tell the company "according to the Consumer Rights Act..." and cite the relevant section if you can. This will show them you know your rights and are not going to be fobbed off. This feature is not intended as financial advice - the aim is to give an overview of the things you should think about. Submit your dilemma or consumer dispute via:
Irish Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Irish watchdog orders fast fashion group Shein to rectify breaches to EU consumer law
Singapore-headquartered fast fashion group Shein has been ordered by the Irish consumer watchdog to rectify several practices on its platform that potentially breach European Union (EU) law. The issues include fake discounts, pressure selling tactics, and unclear information regarding consumer rights. Shein, which ships cheap garments made in Chinese factories directly to shoppers around the world, has one month to propose commitments on how they will address the identified consumer law issues. The investigation is being carried out through the European Commission's Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, which is co-led by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) in Ireland and its counterparts in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. READ MORE Issues identified include 'fake discounts' where the group pretends to offer better deals by showing price reductions that are not based on the actual prior prices, as required by EU law. It has also been found to engage in 'pressure tactics', where it uses false deadlines to put pressure on consumers to make purchases. [ EU to impose €2 tax on low-cost items in blow to Temu and Shein Opens in new window ] Shein has also been found to display 'incomplete and incorrect information' about a consumer's rights to return goods and receive refunds. The investigation has also identified the use of 'deceptive product labels' that suggest the product 'offers something special' when in fact the relevant feature is required by law. 'We're at a critically low level of housing stock' for buyers and renters Listen | 33:06 Other issues include 'misleading claims', where false or deceptive information is given about the sustainability benefits of certain products, as well as 'hidden contact details', where it is made difficult for consumers to contact Shein with questions or complaints. Information has also been requested to assess the company's compliance with further obligations including those around product rankings, ratings and reviews, and third-party sellers. Depending on the company's reply, the investigators said they may enter a dialogue with the company. If it fails to address the concerns identified, national authorities can investigate further and may take enforcement measures to ensure compliance, which may include fines based on its annual turnover in the relevant member states. CCPC Commission member Patrick Kenny said consumers 'should be allowed to shop without being put under pressure by fake deadlines or misled by fake discounts'. 'They also need clear information about how consumers can contact the company, how to return an item and receive a refund,' he said. 'In this case, we have identified several practices that could mislead consumers or undermine their consumer rights. 'E-retailers and online marketplaces have a legal obligation to provide transparent and honest information about the products they sell, and consumers' rights around returns. 'The CCPC takes any breaches of the law very seriously and looks forward to constructive engagement with Shein during the course of this investigation.' Shein's net profit shrank by almost 40 per cent to $1 billion (€880 million) last year as it suffered a difficult final quarter and battled competition from rival Temu. FBI director Kash Patel has shares in Shein worth between $1 million and $5 million.
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Calls for EU to intervene in row over charges for hand baggage on budget airlines
Campaigners are calling for EU lawmakers to intervene in the row over whether budget airlines should be allowed to charge customers who want to take hand baggage on to a flight. Last week European consumer groups called for Brussels to investigate the pricing policies of seven airlines, including Ryanair, easyJet and Wizz Air. Airlines were 'exploiting consumers', said Agustín Reyna, director general of BEUC, an umbrella group for 44 consumer organisations, and were 'ignoring the EU top court who ruled that charging [for] reasonably sized hand baggage is illegal'. 'Haven't we all experienced the fear of our hand baggage not fitting in the airline's sizers and being charged extra fees?' he said. Whereas once travellers worried about the weight of suitcases going in the hold, now it is shrinking hand baggage allowances that cause anxiety in airport queues. In recent years it has become common practice for travellers to face a fee if they want to carry on all but the smallest of bags, with charges varying between airlines. Passengers with Ryanair, for example, can carry a small bag that fits under the seat for nothing. However, if a gate check reveals it is oversized the fee is £60. A larger cabin bag can be added to a flight booking for £6 to £36 depending on the route but, again, if it is deemed too large it costs £75 to stow. Spain has become a battleground for the issue. Last year its Consumer Rights Ministry fined five budget airlines, including Ryanair, a total of €179m for charging passengers for hand luggage and seat reservations. This month a Spanish judge ordered Ryanair to refund a passenger €147 (£124) in hand luggage charges racked up across five flights, including a return trip from Spain to the UK. In the ruling, Judge Raquel Martínez Marco said 'carry-on luggage is an essential element of passenger transportation' and therefore 'cannot be subject to a price supplement'. The case was backed by Spanish consumer rights organisation Facua, which has been decrying the 'illegal surcharge' since 2018. Kenton Jarvis, easyJet's chief executive, suggested passengers were happy to pay for the service they wanted. He said a third of its customers 'take no ancillaries, and therefore are happy taking the free [smaller] cabin bag'. Expecting them to pay for people who want bring a larger cabin bag 'doesn't feel very consumer friendly', he said. Jarvis added that free cabin bags were previously a 'big logistical headache' for easyJet because they could not all fit in the overhead lockers. This led to delays and passengers being inconvenienced by having their bag put in the hold. 'That's why it is good to just ask the traveller to pay for what they want,' he said. Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, said it would not be changing its policies: 'The Spanish have a mad minister who's decided that as General Franco passed some law 30 years before Spain joined the European Union, passengers are free to bring as much baggage as they want,' he said. 'It's a clear breach of European regulations,' he said. 'The European Commission have already told Spain it's illegal.' Any attempt to intervene would be in breach of the regulation that guarantees airlines the freedom to set prices and policies free from political interference, O'Leary added. 'In the short term, you have a couple of the consumer agencies in Spain taking decisions at local court level and trumpeting these,' he said. 'It's not going to change. We're not changing our policy. It will get referred to the European courts; we'll be appealing those rulings. In reality, there isn't that demand from passengers.' Reyna said that given the current review into EU legislation governing air passenger rights there was an opportunity to clarify what services should be included in a basic ticket price. 'Our data shows that consumers expect to see a small item and a piece of hand luggage when buying basic tickets,' he said. 'Policymakers should also define hand luggage's 'reasonable size and weight' to avoid surprises at the airport and ultimately reduce the number of disputes costing consumers and airlines time and money.' Kevin Bodley, a consultant at law firm Steele Raymond, who specialises in aviation law, said the Spanish ruling 'had delivered a clear message against hidden airline fees'. While neither the Spanish judgment nor future EU laws are binding in the UK they could still 'influence legal reasoning and consumer rights discussions in the UK', he said. 'The end result suggests the emergence of an increasing level of protection to passengers at the expense of the airlines,' Bodley said. 'However, this may well be cancelled out by the need for airlines to increase overall fare levels to cover this at the ultimate expense of travellers.'
