Bibliographic citations
Starost, A., (2021). Informe para la sustentación de expedientes: Expediente Civil N° 11067-2010-0-1801-JR-FC-20 / Expediente Administrativo N° 062-2016/CPC-INDECOPI-LAM [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/657892
Starost, A., Informe para la sustentación de expedientes: Expediente Civil N° 11067-2010-0-1801-JR-FC-20 / Expediente Administrativo N° 062-2016/CPC-INDECOPI-LAM [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/657892
@misc{renati/397631,
title = "Informe para la sustentación de expedientes: Expediente Civil N° 11067-2010-0-1801-JR-FC-20 / Expediente Administrativo N° 062-2016/CPC-INDECOPI-LAM",
author = "Starost Figueroa, Alex Bruno",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2021"
}
The present work of professional sufficiency aims to develop the procedural matter of this administrative procedure that was carried out through the Commission of the Regional Office of Indecopi Lambayeque, and the complainant is Mr. Waldo Aníbal Rojas Soto and the accused is the University of San Martín de Porres, for alleged infringement of the duty of suitability of Article 19 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, having failed to carry out the internal transfer of the complainant to the Faculty of Economics, in addition to not complying with issuing the corresponding receipt for the complainant to pay his tuition, finally alleges that the university failed to provide a response to his document presented on March 15, 2016 and to his notarial letter of March 30, 2016. In this sense, the Regional Office Commission declared the complaint unfounded in two of the four aspects and only declared founded about the defendant's failure to respond to one document and a letter. Finally, the Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection decided to revoke the previous resolution, and reforming it, declared it unfounded, since it had been established that the complainant did receive a response to the document of March 15, 2016. It also declared the partial nullity of the previous resolution, which issued a ruling on the lack of response to the notarial letter of March 30, 2016, because the alleged conduct was considered a violation of Article 24, and that is why, by way of integration, the complaint was declared unfounded.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License