Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Manchead - Triton shower problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4764 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I recently had an visit from an triton engineer to fix my faulty shower and the engineer refused to do the job as he said there was limited access to the shower unit. I was a bit tricky but another elctrician has agreed to do the job. I thought a full refund would be issued but they said that they could only issue a partial refund and to get this a letter would need to be written. It was an absolute joke to be honest.

 

It seems like you had a similiar problem.

 

I am currently writing this letter and wandered if you please give me any tips or maybe even email me the letter so that I could see whats makes a successful letter of complaint.

 

Regards

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Manchead and welcome to CAG

 

I've moved your post into your own thread to avoid hijacking. :-)

 

I assume you paid for the engineer's visit in advance so you now need to seek a full refund. You should write to Triton's HO along the following lines:-

 

Dear sir or madam,

 

Engineer's visit on xxdate

 

Your engineer attended to repair my shower unit but refused to carry out any work, saying there was limited access.

 

I called in another electrician who carried out the repair successfully with no problem regarding access.

 

When I spoke to you by phone on xxdate, I was told I would only be entitled to a partial refund and that I would have to put my request in writing.

 

Because your engineer did no work at all, I now require a full refund of the amount paid by debit card on xxdate in the sum of £xx.xx.

 

I will not accept a partial refund and, if you refuse to refund in full within 14 days, I will take County Court action to recover the fee paid, court fees and Statutory Interest.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Send the letter by Recorded Delivery and keep a copy of all letters. Do not deal with this by phone. Keep a copy of the invoice from the firm that carried out the repair.

 

If they fail to refund within 14 days, you can send the same letter, headed LETTER BEFORE ACTION. If they fail to refund within a further 14 days, you can issue County Court action using form N1. We can help with this if necessary.

 

8-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Slick thanks for the help and for moving my post.

 

I've nearly finished the letter but just a 2nd opinion would be good. So if you could just have a quick read through and tell me what you think that would much appreciated

 

cheers

 

 

To Mr Jacobs

 

I am writing to complain about the Triton engineer visit on Thursday 24th March. I have had the Triton shower for around 6 years and have been pleased that it has worked perfectly well throughout this time. However I have become dissatisfied with the level of service I received during the visit of a triton engineer.

 

After calling Triton on Monday 21st March to explain the problem with the shower, the Triton employee recommended arranging the visit of an engineer and implied that the problem would be fixed. This as stated on the website would cost £148 which would include labour and spare parts.

 

When the engineer Mxxxxxxxd arrived I assisted him in finding a parking space. After we had met in the car park, Mr xxxxxx spent several minutes questioning me about the problem with the unit and whether the access to it was good enough to be able to do the job. He already sounded rather sceptical about doing the job and I almost had to convince him to come and have a look at the unit for himself. Having inspected the unit, Mrxxxxxx said that he could see two or three problems with it but was reluctant to do the job. He said that although he could fix it, he did not have enough time to do it. He declared that the company allocates only an hour for each job and that he had had already spent half of that hour trying to find and the property. Mr xxxxxx left approximately 5 minutes after he had arrived at the property, having refused to do the job and reassured that the company would issue a refund (a full, not a partial refund).

 

At no point during the engineer visit did I feel he was prepared to undertake the work needed. Also, it was only after contacting the company when I found out that the engineer had claimed that the unit was ‘inaccessible’ (and therefore that I was only liable to a partial refund as stated in the terms and conditions) – whilst at the property, the only issue for Mr Sandford seemed to be the time.

 

Under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 you should carry out the service with reasonable care and skill and for a reasonable price using parts that are both of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose.

I feel that only a full refund would suffice due to level of service I received and the fact I had to take a day off work to be able give the engineer access to the property.

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Manc,

 

I've shortened it, changed a few bits and added the request for compensation for your time off work. Claim for 1 day's pay based on your gross daily pay, pro rata.

 

To Mr Jacobs

 

I am writing to complain about the Triton engineer visit on Thursday 24th March. I am very disappointed about the poor service I received.

 

After calling Triton on Monday 21st March to explain the problem with the shower, the Triton employee arranged the visit of an engineer to repair unit at a cost of £148 which would include labour and spare parts.

 

When the engineer Mxxxxxxxd arrived I helped him find a parking space. In the car park, Mr xxxxxx spent several minutes questioning me about the unit and whether access to it was good enough to be able to do the job. He already sounded rather sceptical about doing the job and I almost had to convince him to come in and look at the unit for himself. Having inspected the unit, Mrxxxxxx said that he could see two or three problems with it and was reluctant to do the job.

 

He said that although he could fix it, he did not have enough time to do so. He said the company allocates only an hour for each job and that he had had already spent half of that hour trying to find, and park at, the property. Mr xxxxxx left approximately 5 minutes later, saying he couldn't do the job and reassured that the company would make a full refund.

 

Before even seeing the unit, the engineer seemed unwilling to carry out the repair, due to his limited time. Only when I contacted Triton did I learn that the engineer reported that the unit was ‘inaccessible’ and, for this reason, I was only due a partial refund of the £148 fee.

 

In the circumstances, I require a full refund of the fee paid of £148 plus compensation for the day's leave I took, to allow access, of £xx making a total of £xxx.

 

If you fail to refund as requested within 14 days, I will take County Court action to recover my losses including the refund, compensation for my days leave, court fees plus Statutory Interest.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

8-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could lose the action because the Sale of Goods Act [Part 5A] is clear enough:

 

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

 

(a) impossible, or

 

(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

 

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

Also:

 

(5) If the buyer has claimed to rescind the contract the court may order that any reimbursement to the buyer is reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.
It is also possible that you could win, technically, but not be awarded the costs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Perplexity,

 

Can you explain what you mean in the context of this particular case.

 

The OP has paid for a service including labour and materials which the repairer failed to carry out. OP therefore wants the fee refunded along with comp'n for lost wages. I don't follow your reasoning.

 

Thanks. :-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but my understanding is that Triton's service is essentially an After Sales Service, so the starting point is the terms to cover the original purchase, the consumer protection legislation plus whatever a general warranty may have had to offer.

 

While it is then a mystery to me what exactly the "would cost £148" would allude to, this from Triton's terms and conditions is not so hard to spot:

 

Once inside your property, if any serviceable part of your appliance has been installed in an area where it is inaccessible and our engineer cannot gain clear and safe access, or it has not been installed in accordance with the user instructions, or the product has not been manufactured by Triton, we reserve the right to retain an inspection fee of £68 and refund the remainder of the fee.

 

 

Apart from Sale of Goods Act [Part 5A], perhaps, I fail to see what the grounds for an action are to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Perplexity and thanks for the further info.

 

I was looking at this from the viewpoint that the Triton Eng'r seemed pushed for time from the outset, so used the "inaccessibility" excuse to justify not doing the repair. In this circumstance, OP is not entitled to the full refund and is left having to pay the Inspection Fee of £68.

 

As the repair was successfully carried out by another (non-Triton) engineer without problems, it would appear that the unit WAS accessible.

 

Accordingly, OP was treated unfairly, was charged £68 and lost a day's pay. I think OP should at least have a go at getting the full refund and compensation for the lost pay.

 

If Triton refuse, then consideration should be given as to whether OP has sufficient cause of action to proceed to court.

 

8-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the complaint is that Triton's terms and conditions were unfair to start with, the ground would be this, which is especially defined as an unfair term, by Schedule 2 of The Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulations 1999:

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

-----

 

The course of action should then be to refer the matter to Trading Standards, because of the general nature of the complaint, with every potential customer affected. Since the advent of the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 a criminal prosecution of this as a criminal offence is a serious possibility, while the opportunity to claim against the company remains in the mean time.

 

If all you do is claim a relief by arguing about facts of the particular instance, you could lose the action and watch them walk away.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Perplexity for the further useful input.

 

You've saved me some research time - it would've taken me ages to find the correct section of the CPUTR.

 

You are right saying court action is more likely to succeed if the appropriate legislation is used to support court action.

 

8)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...