Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Ordered a gardin cabin made by them through my catalogue before the winter, because we had to lay a concrete base and let it set, we couldn't start building it then, so stored the thousands of bits and pieces until the weather improved.
DH finally got started last week, and it is an absolute NIGHTMARE. None of the holes match one another, nothing slots where it should, the rails are cracking and breaking, this is the worst piece of tat that we have ever purchased.
Problem is that DH, instead of just leaving it alone the moment he discovered that things were not fitting right, ploughed on and instead trimmed and cut where he could in the hope that he could get it sorted. Guess what, it can't, it's that bad.
So now looking for background info to see if anyone has information on them before I decide how to proceed. If there's a chance it was DH who messed up with the instructions, obviously, not much I can do. Otherwise, well, I'll have to think on what's best.
I have at the moment sitting in my garden a £700 useless meccano set and I am not happy.
Re: Norfolk Greenhouses, anyone knows the company?
Norfolk Greenhouses, anyone knows the company?
I ordered a greenhouse called a 'norfolk greenhouse' in the 1980's, from an ad in the Telegraph. It was metal framed and covered with non-rigid transparent plastic.
I recently bought this and it assembled OK after being stored awaiting its concrete base. Im not sure whether norfolk greenhouse refers to a type of greehouse or its the name of a company that makes greenhouses.
Ask the supplier to replace the goods or give you a refund and see what comes.
Re: Norfolk Greenhouses, anyone knows the company?
Ahead of you there, guys, letter went today with photographs. As it is less than 6 months since I got it, it is still deemed to have been faulty from start (which it is) and if they want to argue it, they will have to prove that it isn't. One way or another, it sure isn't fit for purpose!
I know our position is slightly weakened by the fact Mr Bookie tried to make it fit where it couldn't, but 2 wrongs don't do a right, and the action he took still wouldn't have been necessary if they had supplied something that was usable and workable in the first place.
I'll let you know how the catalogue company responds.
Thanks for the help.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Re: Norfolk Greenhouses, anyone knows the company?
Phoned Grattan yesterday as I haven't heard anything since their last e-mail saying "someone will be in touch" (for what? :-?), they requested collection on March 3rd, I haven't been contacted yet, so they'll chase it up. Hmmm... Meanwhile, the BNPL is due to kick in, they're going to have a shock if they think I am paying for the useless thing.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
First they wrote to ask me to contact this number "where someone could help us". Not knowing what number this was, we called. It was the manufacturers, and their helpline was there to advise and help building the thing, When I explained what the issue was, the nice lady apologetically said she couldn't help and agreed my issue was with Grattan (yes, dear, I know!).
I had to write to, and phone, Grattan a few more times to finally get out of them that "the manufacturers won't take it back, that's why the collection hasn't been done."
Launch into "your responsability, not theirs, contract with you, deal with it", and onto next round, where I was asked various questions about this and that and the problem and the packaging, etc...
The concept they can't get their heads round, seemingly, is that we ordered in September, but didn't start building until February. Well, yeah, we had to lay a concrete base and it took longer to dry than expected, and then winter came, so we couldn't do it when we wanted to. So what? We still didn't examine it and start building it until February, and it still fell apart and cracked and didn't fit on trying to build it, so whether that was then or now doesn't really make a difference, does it? Never mind, they can't get past that.
It came to a head today where I was told that they wouldn't pick it up at all, apparently, the manufacturers have never had a problem with this model (never heard that one before!), and so there is nothing wrong with it (!) and if I tell them which pieces are broken, they'll replace them and I am to get a quote to get help building it and Grattan will consider paying for that. Huh?
I nicely pointed out that if they wanted to replace the faulty bits, they needed to replace the whole thing since it can not be built as is is, and that I could get a bloody structural engineer in, it would not make any difference as, read - my - lips, it can not be built!!!
Would they listen? No. At which point, I said that at the end of it, it wasn't up to me to get someone in who would then confirm it couldn't be built, it was up to them to send someone who would confirm it could (ah ah ah). Nope, wouldn't do that either.
I did the only sensible thing to do at this point, told them I'd have to go to TS since they were denyimg me my statutory rights, to which their response was: "well, you do that then"
I can see how this is going to end up: I'll refuse to pay, they'll then have to take me to court for the money, where I finally will be able to get them to face to their obligations under SOGA, which they should have done in the first place. How ridiculous is that?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Completely ridiculous, but at least they will get the point.
Oh and I think the Nordic Marine case will help in court (Clegg and another v Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] 1 All ER
I'm saying: "Look, these are my rights, these are your options" and they go: "la-la-la, can't hear you!"
How do I get them to comply? I have the thing, they will bill me for it, and I have little option but not pay so that they will be forced to get their heads out of the sand. (I suppose I could go drive to Bradford and dump it to their warehouse, but somehow, I don't think that will work! )
Thanks for case, I'll look it up now. How's the revision going? ;-)
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Oooh poorly! at least 40 case names to remember one exam on criminal evidence covering 8 diferent Acts and god knows how many Orders, rules, guidance etc but we're not allowed a statute book. And teh lecturers say examsn are not a memory test! Really!
In reference to your query, as you have rightly stated it appears that you may have a claim against Grattan for a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). One of the main terms of this legislation states that goods supplied must be of a satisfactory quality (i.e. fit for their purpose and free from minor defects). If the goods are not supplied in this manner, the consumer may be able to hold the trader in breach of their contract and request for a suitable remedy to be provided within a reasonable time. The remedy which you may be entitled to is dependent on how long you have owned the goods before informing the trader of the fault.
In this instance, since you have owned the goods for longer than 3-4 weeks before reporting the fault, you are seen to have ‘accepted’ the goods in the eyes of the law. Once acceptance has taken place, the trader can offer to repair or replace the goods rather than offer a full refund for the goods.
Generally speaking, if the fault is not repairable or if the fault cannot be repaired within a reasonable time (i.e. 10-14 working days), a replacement should be offered. This should be a like for like replacement, and it may be seen as reasonable for the consumer to be asked to contribute towards this replacement to reflect the fact that it is brand new rather than the age of the faulty goods. If a like for like replacement cannot be provided, then the consumer may be able to negotiate for a replacement of a similar specification. If this product is of a better specification, again it may be seen as reasonable for the consumer to contribute to reflect this. If there is no suitable replacement that can be offered, a partial refund should be provided, taking into consideration the usage of the faulty goods.
I would suggest that you send a recorded delivery letter to Grattan, outlining the situation and mentioning the legislation as set out above. It is important to send the letter by recorded delivery since you can prove that the trader received this on a particular date, and you have evidence that the trader was made aware of the fault. I would recommend enclosing copies of any evidence to back up your claim, and make time of the essence (i.e. 10-14 working days) for an appropriate remedy to be provided. Always ensure to keep a copy of this letter for your own records.
Since you are paying for this item via a credit agreement, you may also wish to send a copy of the letter to the finance company, since they may be held equally liable for any breach of contract. I would recommend that you mention Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states that the finance company can be held jointly and severally liable for the breach of contract.
Ok, someone points me to where the law has set time limits for acceptance, please?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
[gyzmo rubs neck after stupidly using a swivel chair to get big heavy box containing case law fom top of wardrobe]
Right. start with the law - SOGA Basically, acceptance is where you do anything not in accordance with ownershipof the seller, or where a reasonable length of times passes without intimating to teh seller that you reject the goods.
This is quite difficult because most case law relates to motors, and the decisions seem to be quite arbitary.
Clegg v Olle is a starting point. Rejection aftre 6 months was allowed but only because he had requested information from the outset on suspicion that the goods did not comply. The time period was the fault of the seller.
jones v Gallagher 2005. Hand made kitchen made to match existing dresser. Kitchen supplied and installed in May 2000. Buyer raised number of complaints. Remedial work carried out. In september 2000 the buyer attempted to rescind but was deemed to have left it too late.
the main problem is the time period between purchase and opening them. I think you would have to demonstrate a good reason for the time period. A court could ask why you did not order once the flagging etc was completed.
But moving on to 5A of SoGA, I think it is reasonable to state that a repair is out the question, as is replacing the parts. You should be entitled to a FULL replacement (its not as if you have bought a suite - what you have is individual components of one product which is different). If they are unwilling to do that, then a refund is required. As you know, the refund is disounted for the use you have had. I would argue that you have had no use out of it and therefore any deduction should be minimal if not non-existent.
IMHO, I think a court would say that you have accepted the goods. But the state of them should not bar you from a near-full refund.
(1) The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—
(a) when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b) when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.
(2) Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—
(a) of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract,
(4) The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
the main problem is the time period between purchase and opening them. I think you would have to demonstrate a good reason for the time period. A court could ask why you did not order once the flagging etc was completed.
I ordered in September because catalogues have a habit of not stocking items like these for very long, and I have had issues with them about it before. Also, we are not exactly expert builders and totally underestimated how long it would take for the concrete to dry, and by the time it was dry, the weather was not suitable for outdoors actvities of the kind. I think that if anything, it would have been unreasonable (and irresponsible in view of not having accepted ownership, and therefore having a duty to keep their goods in as good a state as possible, tbh) to open the gazillion boxes and check every bit to make sure it fitted, which you can't really do anyway without actually trying to build the thing... so there's a bit of a catch 22 there.
The point is, I did notify them as soon as I became aware of the problem, which happened shortly after having had the first proper opportunity to examine the goods, so I think that covers the rejecting part.
Notwithstanding the above, I have told them I would accept a replacement of the faulty parts, but told them that that meant sending a whole cabin again, as it is totally faulty. I mean, how can I give them a list of the faulty pieces without attempting to build the cabin... which, let's remember, can not be built due to the drill holes not matching? This is putting me in a bit of a spot, you'll have to agree!
Faced with that kind of attitude, what choice do I have? As it is, I can't get a cabin from elsewhere in case they end up being ordered to replace the goods, and by the time this whole sorry affair is concluded, the summer will probably be over.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
35(2) is a bit of a bone of contention. My lecturer (p/t sol, ex TSO) suggests that it could mean you have had suffficient time to examine them regardless of whether you have done or not, or does it take into account individual circumstances?
I don't hink it has been tested in the courts, who would need to apply a meaning to it. I do not know which way it would go. If you can argue the latter, you should be laughing. I would hope a magistrate would take a practical point of view (though I also hope it wouldn't get that far).
I would suggest a stern letter (accompanied by photos if poss of offending parts) explaining what you have stated above re. taking care, and the obvious inconvenience of having to open up the remaining boxes. Shove the Clegg v Andersson case in. You want to rely on the reasonableness meaning what is reasonable under YOUR circumstances, and that informing them straight after counts as recission. I must say though that it is a risk on that.
I still think the better option is 5A - replacement of all goods or refund (less negligible amount for enjoyment already received).
Enjoyment already received, my backside, this is proving to be one of the biggest headaches, it takes all the space in my garden, I can't go and get another one until this is solved, anyone tries to argue "enjoyment" is going to hear bells ringing.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Anyway, I can't see why I can't argue both "in the alternative" if it comes to that, and let the judge decide. In Clegg, I saw that's what they did and why not? ;-)
The fact that they are just giving me a "bugger off" answer when I try to get them to face to their responsibilities should help too, don't you think?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Bookie v Grattan **WON**
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 10110001
)
one exam on criminal evidence covering 8 diferent Acts and god knows how many Orders, rules, guidance etc but we're not allowed a statute book. And teh lecturers say examsn are not a memory test! Really!
