Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 160 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

Homeserve Furniture Repairs Limited - 5 Year Warranty


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4641 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 Folks

I am posting for information as the elderly couple next door don't have internet never mind a PC.

They bought a three seater sofa and two reclining chairs from World of Sofas just over a year ago.

 

Two weeks after taking delivery there was a problem, a four inch strip of leather at the side of one of the cushions was cracking and peeling so they contacted World of Sofas who sent someone out to repair it, three times.

 

Since then World of Sofas has went to the wall but the problem persisted, thinking that they would use the 5 year warranty, that they paid £200 for, to get the sofa repaired or replaced, they contacted Creations Consumer Finance Ltd as instructed who said to contact Homeserve Furniture Repairs Limited and have an independant report done but this would cost them £36.

 

Homeserve sent out a technician and they received a letter today stating that a satisfactory repair could be carried out in their home.

But they want £280 + vat to do it.

 

On the Homeserve Care Plan 5 Year Policy Coverage it states they are covered for "Lifting & Peeling of Leather", so why doesn't the warranty they paid £200 for not cover the repair.

 

To be honest this sofa should have been replaced after two weeks, it's obvious that there was a manufacturing fault from the start and that the three failed attempts to repair it previously should convince them that another repair isn't going to wok, how many chances do they get, is it until the five year extended warranty runs out and they can say it has nothing to do with them.

 

The crazy thing about it is that they want this 80 year old couple, one of whom has dementia to allow a technician access to their home for five hours to do a repair and then only if they pay over £300 to have it done after paying for an extended warranty which in my opinion and their own printed words should cover this.

 

I don't think I mentioned before but they use the two chairs, the sofa is very seldom used unless they have visitors, which is very rarely.

 

If there is anything that makes me angry, it's a company exploiting our older community and bleeding them dry after that.

I am in the process of writing another letter to them, explaining the situation and that if something is not done soon that the next avenue I will take is Trading Standards, the FSA and every review website on the internet.

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did they pay for the sofa ? Was any form of credit used ?

 

Have come across a similar post from someone who bought a 'leather sofa' from The Range. It turned out that the material was not real leather after close inspection. The Range then argued that the did not say it was 'real leather'. Anyway to cut a long story short they took the retailer to court and the judge actually heard the case at the claimants home which they won against the retailer. If the sofa was bought on credit, they can take action via the credit company, as the retailer is no longer trading.

 

If they did not use credit and the retailer is not around so no viable claim can be made via that route, then make a complaint to Homeserve using their complaints process and if after 8 weeks they cannot resolve, the complaint can be passed to the FOS. The FOS process can take 6 months or more. You really need to read through the Homeserve policy from front to back, to see why they want £280 +vat. Homeserve have to explain why this is the case.

 

Have a read of the FSA handbook on claim handling that Homeserve should be observing.

 

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly homeserve are renound for pulling these stunts.

 

ScS use them and they wriggle out of it everytime. and then charge you.

 

i had a friend that had a sofa that was in the LIVING QUARTERS of a BnB

they refused to repair it as it was in a business establishment.

 

he did what BG is suggegsting and got Visa involved.

 

oh and while i'm at it, World of Sofas were featured big on watchdog some moons ago.

i think they are mentioned here too

same guys, just ditch and run every 2yrs.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...