Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • 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
  • 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
      • 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

Claim issue against SCS for poor care instructions - helpHelp


warrior13
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3436 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

Hello

 

I have had a long complaint with the sofa retailer

which first took place via letter/email and due to them not wanting to do anything to help has escalated to myself starting a claim online.

 

my chair leather has become damaged.

I have been cleaning it as per the care leaflet i was advised to follow by the salesperson

which does not mention the use of any cleaning products, simply to use a damp cloth.

 

 

An independent leather expert inspected my chair and concluded that the damage was due to not using cleaning products.

This means to me that surely they are responsible due to me following their instructions which were clearly wrong.

 

I will now write below what I wrote in my claim details when i filed it online

and after that write their response (which if you ask me is full of inaccuracies and lies):

 

I am claiming for a damaged La-Z-Boy Monroe chair which I have attempted to have repaired by the retailer who have no interest in helping me.

I have had the chair for just over 4 years (within the 5 year warranty period.)

The chair has had minimal use (144 hours approx).

 

About 4-6 months ago I noticed the leather on headrest

and one of armrest was slightly sticky and not smooth like the rest of the chair.

This is due to the leather coating breaking down,

an independent specialist confirmed this.

 

The independent specialist also confirmed that the coating was broken down

because no cleaning/protection products have been used on the leather.

 

However I have been following the cleaning instructions given to myself from the retailer both verbally

and on the care brochure I received when i bought the chair.

 

I was given bad cleaning info from the retailer which led to the damage of my chair.

 

I went in store to confirm and got same advice.

I have the care guide as evidence which clearly does not state to use any products on leather,

which matched the in-store advice.

 

Below is their response to the claim which they are defending:

 

The first occasion the defendent was contacted by the claimant was on 7th July 2014.

This being a period of over 4 years since delivery has taken place.

 

The defendent understands the claimant is seeking rejection of the goods as he is claiming for the full price of the goods.

 

The defendent asserts the acceptance of the goods has taken place within the definition of section 35(4) of the sale of goods act 1979

and is fully supported by all known case law.

 

The claimant has appointed an independent inspection of the product and the goods were outside of the guarantee period by over 3 years.

 

The independent inspection of the product concludes the issues the claimant

has reported are solely attributable to a lack of care and maintenance of the product.

 

The claimant confirms in his claim that he has damaged the product

and claims this is due to the care information given to him at the point of sale.

 

The defendent asserts that care information was given from the retailer at the point of sale

and the manufacturer at the point of delivery as per established practice.

 

The defendent believes it is for the claimant to demonstrate his claim

even though by the claimants independent report asserts the issues are attributable to him.

 

It is for the claimant to demonstrate he has cleaned the product in accordance to the care instructions

and demonstrate that following straight forward care instructions has resulted in a build up of damage claimed.

 

It is also for the claimant to demonstrate he has a right to reject the goods

and there has been a failure of consideration although he has confirmed receipt of the goods for over 4 years.

 

The defendent believes it has acted fairly and reasonably at all times.

 

The claimant has not complied with annex A of the pre action conduct contained within the civil procedures rules.

 

At no point has the claimant intimated he will be pursuing the matter through the small claims track.

 

The defendent believes this claim is unmeritorious and vexatious in nature and has little of no prospect of success.

 

Any help with this would be good. Just translating the legal jargon would be great.

Edited by warrior13
privacy reasons
Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as you have proof it is NOT out side the warranty, as they state

you should be ok.

 

 

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

as long as you have proof it is NOT out side the warranty, as they state

you should be ok.

 

 

dx

 

Thanks for it reply. Should warranty even come into it as im not claiming that the issue is a warranty issue. My claim against them is due to wrong care advice from them which has ruined the leather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for it reply. Should warranty even come into it as im not claiming that the issue is a warranty issue. My claim against them is due to wrong care advice from them which has ruined the leather.

 

In my personal opinion, you do not have a hope in hell of winning this claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for it reply. Should warranty even come into it as im not claiming that the issue is a warranty issue. My claim against them is due to wrong care advice from them which has ruined the leather.

 

 

no and quite rightly pointed out.

 

 

but its in their reply so address it might need addressing.

 

 

I think eitherway, the 'damage' should not have happened

covered under soga me thinks as well.

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

In my personal opinion, you do not have a hope in hell of winning this claim.

Even if I have the care guide in front of me as evidence which clearly advises using a damp cloth and does not mention using anything else to care for the leather?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could seek out an expert to prove your case, if you feel you have a strong case. A good starting point would be the instructions provided by other retailers / manufacturers. You need to do a lot of research, it is unlikely they threw the instructions together on an 'hit' and 'hope' basis.

 

http://www.upholsterers.co.uk/

 

http://www.bfm.org.uk/

 

'Google' to see if other consumers have found the instructions limited or simply don't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...