This is a long story but I'll try and keep it brief and you can ask questions as needed.

In November 2015 I purchased an ASUS gaming laptop from an Amazon Marketplace Seller. The product was brand new but was shipped to me from the US. The company however were slightly misleading by having UK in their name.

The laptop developed faults within days of arrival and I asked to send it back for a replacement. The company were only interested in doing a repair on the machine and insisted on remote troubleshooting first.

I worked in IT Management for 5 years and had serious problems trying to explain that the fault with the laptop was a Network Card issue so any remote troubleshooting would fail. It's second problem was keys falling off the keyboard. No amount of remote support will fix that in any way shape or form!

Fast forward and I sent the laptop off to be repaired as I gave up trying to fight a replacement because the company were not interested. This is the first problem I had.

The seller refused point blank to pay the return shipping charges despite amazons policy being extremely clear that the seller was responsible. The seller wanted me to pay 99$ to them for the label. In hindsight I should've have done this but claimed a chargeback immediately for breach of Consumer Rights Act. Instead I choose to pay DHL around £100 to send it back to their repair center.

The laptop was packaged in its original packaging, wrapped in bubblewrap before being sent to them and then the external box being wrapped in more bubble wrap, brown paper and all over that with brown parcel tape. The laptop was temporarily seized by customs because DHL did not attach the correct paperwork. This was resolved within 48 hours and the laptop sent on its way. While the laptop was within DHL's care, they somehow (no idea how...) damaged it and it arrived with 2 massive dents in the side of the screen panel.

I was advised by the seller the state in which it arrived and being proactive asked for a quote to repair the damage on 16/10/2016. DHL Insurance then contacted me on the 19/10/2016 to request a quote to have the laptop repaired. The seller then wrote to me on 20/10/2016 asking how I wanted to proceed. They had not issued me a quote. I replied around 1 hour later the same day (20/10/2016) asking for the repair quote. I heard nothing. I contacted again on 31/10/2016 & 02/11/2016 and nothing still. Not a sausage!

I then frustrated wrote to Amazon and asked them to intervene. 3 agents (have this in writing) said I would be refunded. Amazon then said that I would no longer be receiving a refund and would need to resolve the matter with the seller directly. I can understand 1 person making a mistake... But I was promised a refund by 3 people and thought the matter was coming to a close... I then made a complaint with The Better Business Bureau in the US to try and poke the seller. My complaint was sent on to the seller.

I also requested a refund on the delivery charge on 05/10/2016 and that email has not even been acknowledged. All of these emails took place on the sellers ticket support desk so I know for a fact they have received these communications.

Bottom line of this is I want the laptop refunded or replaced, also to receive my delivery charge of £100 back as the seller has clearly flouted Amazon's policy. Then amazon tell me their policy say my claim deadline has expired... How ironic... So the seller can ignore but not the buyer...

Amazon said I could do a credit card charge back, however my Father paid for the order with his credit card as the order was coming from the US and my credit card limit wasn't high enough to pay for the order. However he is very very reluctant to pursue a Section 75 Claim against the credit card company... So I really don't think that is an option.

Can anyone advise what I can do here please? I'm thinking pursue Amazon in small claims court as they have a responsibility for the sale and cannot enforce their own faulty goods return policy. I have photo evidence that the laptop was indeed faulty (keys not attached to the keyboard) I also cannot proceed with the claim with DHL because they need a quote for the repair which I am unable to give them...

So any help would be received with gracious thanks

Let your dad read about section 75.

There's nothing wrong with it as you've lost money and goods.

They won't pursue you, how could the possibly recover money across the pond?

I agree with King12345, it is a right your father should know about as it is a protection for the consumer.

I made this post in November 2016 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?471630-Amazon-Marketplace-amp-DHL-Hell

Regarding a faulty ASUS Laptop. The replacement provided by the Amazon marketplace seller was later discovered to be missing a 600.00 part (Samsung 2TB SSD Drive). The seller was contacted immediately and they have decided to do what they do best and ignore me.

The advise given to me at the time was to make a Section 75 Claim against the Credit Card company. Sadly my parents refused to assist with this and it's caused a breakdown in our relationship.

I have therefore decided to make a claim with Amazon UK under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and have drafted a sample particulars of claim. Could I have some advice on my PoC and anything I should add, remove or change?

Many thanks for reading and I hope someone can advise me appropriately.

IN THE COUNTY COURT CASE NUMBER:

BETWEEN:

Nuclear Shark (Claimant)

AND

Amazon UK Limited (Defendant)

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

 

1. On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the sale of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The laptop ordered was for the amount of 2054.11 GBP.

 

2.The defendant fulfilled the order via their agent and facilitiated the payment between myself and .

 

3. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:

Extremely Poor Battery Life

Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)

Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections

Overheating

Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011

Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

 

4. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants agent required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.00 (exhibit 2) This contradicts:

 

Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_gt_rr_amretaref?nodeId=201819160)

 

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 3 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23/enacted)

 

Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/part/1/enacted)

 

5. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of 91.10 GBP. This forms part of the claimed amount. To date neither the defendant nor their agent have repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy just the 91.10 amount alone.

 

6. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per Exhibit 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (See Exhibit 6 - Email between Amazon CS and Claimant). This was actioned by the Claimant multiple times without success.

 

7. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendants agent failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7 Various Emails) as required by DHL Insurance Team.

 

8. The defendants Agent held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair caused by DHL negligence and return date of the laptop. This was ignored by the defendants agent.

 

9. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at 605.99 RRP (Exhibit 8 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-inch-Solid-State-Drive/dp/B010UFKDHY). The defendants agent was notified immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. (See exhibit 9 - Support Ticket). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendants have not offered any replacement parts.

 

10. The defendants' customer service department promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (See exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund.

 

11. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises an then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

 

12. It is acknowledged in the mainstream media (Exhibit 13 - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/19/amazon-marketplace-purchases-not-covered-consumer-credit-act) that Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 may not apply to Amazon Marketplace sales. This creates a further Unfair Term on the consumer as it removes a vital element of Consumer Protection Law

 

13. The Claimant maintains that the defendant have not assisted in this case as they have done for other customers. Exhibit 14 shows various cases of the Amazon Marketplace Sellers Forum show several members reporting that Amazon A-Z Claims have been opened well in excess of the 90 Day term defined by the defendant in their terms and conditions. So far the defendant has not provided a reasonable explanation of why they have refused to do so. Exhibit 14.1 more specifically relates to my case as the return was originally requested on 07/01/2016

Exhibit 14:

https://sellercentral.amazon.co.uk/forums/message.jspa?messageID=1130840

https://sellercentral.amazon.ca/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=231301

https://sellercentral.amazon.co.uk/forums/message.jspa?messageID=1193419

 

Exhibit 14.1 More specifically to my case: https://sellercentral.amazon.co.uk/forums/message.jspa?messageID=1141275

 

14. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim

 

15. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and their agent in respect of processing the payment and offer no level of mediation with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:

 

The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 15 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)

 

The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)

 

All correspondence ends with "Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk" which clearly suggests that the defendant is the entity whom you are forming the contract with. (Exhibit 16)

 

16. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

 

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the present date (572 days) at the daily rate of £0.47p making a total sum of £268.47 and continuing at the daily rate of £0.47

 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

 

1. The sum of £2,145.21

 

2. Interest in accordance with section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court seeks fit.

 

3. Costs.

Your father paid on his credit card.

Who (you or your father) made the contract with the seller?.......

Was purchased using my Amazon Account. I gave my Dad the amount by BACS transfer to his account and then he used his credit card on my Amazon Account. So the whole order and delivery process etc is in my name.

I would revisit your point 1 .and rephrase it....

On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Yes you entered into a contract.....but not under the Consumer Rights Act 2015...that legislation is merely for consumer protection should the contract fail.

You have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act.

Andy

Thanks Andy, so something like this:

On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP.

If you want to mention the CRA :

"On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent.

The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP.

This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

Thanks Andy, so something like this:

 

On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP.

If you want to mention the CRA :

"On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

Can I just pose a question

You cannot pay with another individuals credit card unless you have the card registered with Amazon and that card is registered to the card holders address.

The same as PayPal with Ebay

Well that happens with me anyway so a bit confused how you father paid through your Amazon Account

The relevant part of Amazon's T&Cs reads as follows (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=chk_help_termsbottom_pri?ie=UTF8&nodeId=1040616):

"Amazon allows third party sellers to list and sell their products at Amazon.co.uk. In each such case this is indicated on the respective product detail page. While Amazon helps facilitate transactions that are carried out on the Amazon Marketplace, Amazon is neither the buyer nor the seller of the seller's items. Amazon provides a venue for sellers and buyers to negotiate and complete transactions. Accordingly, the contract formed at the completion of a sale for these third party products is solely between buyer and seller. Amazon is not a party to this contract nor assumes any responsibility arising out of or in connection with it nor is it the seller's agent. The seller is responsible for the sale of the products and for dealing with any buyer claims or any other issue arising out of or in connection with the contract between the buyer and seller. Because Amazon wants the buyer to have a safer buying experience, Amazon provides the Amazon A-to-z guarantee in addition to any contractual or other rights."

As such, unfortunately you might find that your rights under contract law and your rights under the Consumer Rights Act will be against the marketplace seller - not Amazon. You may find that Amazon's liability is only for their A-Z Guarantee - to qualify for the A-Z guarantee you would need to have reported the issue within 90 days.

I would remove things like paragraph 12 - this is talking about s75 claims. It is not relevant as this is not a s75 claim. Paragraphs 13 and 14 also add nothing to your claim.

Your POC does not contain a statement that you are claiming under the A-Z guarantee ... do you need one? Claiming under that might have a better chance of winning if you lodged your claim within the 90 days.

Before you issue a claim, you should write a formal 'letter before action' in compliance with the pre-action rules.

I think I've covered PAP in an email I sent to them already. Would this be considered appropriate as an LBA?

Dear Amazon

 

Thank you for your email, the contents of which has been duly noted.

 

Your response is both unsatisfactory and concerning. Please note that I will continue and take court action should you fail to recognise the issues at hand.

 

So please take this email as a Letter Before Action. Failure to provide a satisfactory outcome will result in me issuing legal proceedings without further notice to you.

 

 

If I do not receive the refund by 01/06/2017 then I will issue legal proceedings against Amazon UK Services Ltd for 2413.68 which is the above amounts plus 8% Interest Per Annum. I have attached the claim form I intend to submit should that be necessary on 01/06/2017

Does this count as an LBA or should I send a postal LBA and give them till 14/06/2017 to respond? I'm hoping to take the documents to court to file tomorrow as I am entitled to Fee Relief. But if I need to rework the PoC again then I'll hold off for a few more days.

I have also tweaked the following clauses:

1) 1. On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the sale of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The laptop ordered was for the amount of 2054.11 GBP.

Changed to:

1) 1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Acticon 2015."

12)

It is acknowledged in the mainstream media (Exhibit 13 - https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...mer-credit-act) that Section 75 of The consumer crediticon Act 1974 may not apply to Amazon Marketplace sales. This creates a further Unfair Term on the consumer as it removes a vital element of Consumer Protection Law

Changed to:

12) The defendant informed the claimant that they are to make a Section 75 Claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with their Card Provider as a way of redress. The claimant denies this as an option as it is acknowledged in the mainstream media (Exhibit 13) that Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 may not apply to Amazon Marketplace sales. This creates a further Unfair Term on the consumer as it removes a vital element of Consumer Protection Law.

New Clause A)

A. The Claimant signaled their intentions to return the laptop by way of the Amazons Online Return Process on 07/01/2016 but the Defendants Agent claimed that the Claimant was liable for return shipping of the laptop. As the amount to return the laptop was exorbitant and the claimants finances did not permit for this at the time. This was not possible until October 2016. As per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 the consumer must give the supplier 1 opportunity to resolve the issue by way of a replacement. This took an extensive amount of time to eventually get the defendant to agree to. This inadvertantly caused the time of 90 days for Amazons A-Z Guarantee to expire.

13)

The Claimant maintains that the defendant have not assisted in this case as they have done for other customers. Exhibit 14 shows various cases of the Amazon Marketplace Sellers Forum show several members reporting that Amazon A-Z Claims have been opened well in excess of the 90 Day term defined by the defendant in their terms and conditions. So far the defendant has not provided a reasonable explanation of why they have refused to do so. Exhibit 14.1 more specifically relates to my case as the return was originally requested on 07/01/2016

Changed to

13) The claimant has discovered credible evidence that Amazon can change the terms of it's 90 Days A-Z Guarantee Claim by way of extending the 90 day period in favour of the customer. However the claimant has refused to do so on this occasion without explanation. Exhibit 14 shows various cases of the Amazon Marketplace Sellers Forum show several of the defendants agents reporting that Amazon A-Z Claims have been opened well in excess of the 90 Day term defined by the defendant in their terms and conditions. A very direct email has been sent (New Exhibt B) however this so far has been ignored. Exhibit 14.1 more specifically relates to my case by way of a request for return being within the 90 day period, and the A-Z Guarentee Claim being filed after the 90 day period.

14)

14. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim

Changed to:

14) 14. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. An example of this would be point 4 in these particulars. Where Amazon are ignoring their International Returns Policy and refusing to explain to the customer why this does not apply under the contract. However are insisting they are not the liable party in the sale of this laptop. Another Example would be Clause 13 where Amazon are changing the deadline of their 90 Days A-Z Claim process but refusing to do so in my case for no clear reason yet upholding other parts of their policy that work in their favour.

Or should I remove 12 / A / 13 / 14 altogether? Personally I think they are relevant in my case as it's clear that Amazon can and do extend the deadline of 90 days but are not doing so in this case.

When did you send the e-mail?

Did it give them 14 days up until 1/6/17?.

You also seem to be saying that you accept you are outside of their 90 days A-Z guarantee period.

That E-Mail was sent on 15/05/2017

I do reasonably accept I am outside of the 90 days. But my basis is that I requested a return well within the period and this should've remained an option until the case was resolved. I erroneously believed that I had to give them the opportunity to replace / replace the laptop before I could file the claim. At least that was my understanding. I now know very differently.

As I mentioned it's clear that a similar case occurred and Amazon allowed an A-Z after 90 days where a return was requested within the 90 days as per Exhibit 14.1.

My other basis of the claim is being promised refunds by 6 representatives (One as recent as Saturday Evening) and then when it came to it I just got a very generic template letter saying they were "very sorry but we can't / don't want to help"

I think I've covered PAP in an email I sent to them already. Would this be considered appropriate as an LBA?

I would send a proper LBA nuclearshark. Not least because it makes sure this gets looked at by the proper people within Amazon. The requirements are here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1.

1) 1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendants agent. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Acticon 2015."

As mentioned I think this is wrong and would lose if contested in court. The marketplace seller was not Amazon's agent. The marketplace seller was the company which provided the goods. I think you need to fudge this - either just say that Amazon was the seller or they are liable under the a-z guarantee.

Changed to:

 

12) The defendant informed the claimant that they are to make a Section 75 Claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with their Card Provider as a way of redress. The claimant denies this as an option as it is acknowledged in the mainstream media (Exhibit 13) that Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 may not apply to Amazon Marketplace sales. This creates a further Unfair Term on the consumer as it removes a vital element of Consumer Protection Law.

I think you should delete this paragraph completely. I can't see how it is relevant to your claim. I do not know what you are asking the court to decide on here.

It makes no sense to me why you are talking about s75. A s75 claim would be against your bank. Not against Amazon.

The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. An example of this would be point 4 in these particulars. Where Amazon are ignoring their International Returns Policy and refusing to explain to the customer why this does not apply under the contract. However are insisting they are not the liable party in the sale of this laptop. Another Example would be Clause 13 where Amazon are changing the deadline of their 90 Days A-Z Claim process but refusing to do so in my case for no clear reason yet upholding other parts of their policy that work in their favour.

Imagine you are a judge. You have to come up with a reasoned verdict in this case. What exactly are you asking the judge to decide here?

You need to be able to point to Amazon's specific breach of its contract with you. If you feel that specific terms are unfair, you need to point to the terms which you say are unfair.

If you want to claim that you are entitled to this money under the a-z guarantee, I think you need to clearly say that - it is nowhere in your POC at the moment.

Or should I remove 12 / A / 13 / 14 altogether? Personally I think they are relevant in my case as it's clear that Amazon can and do extend the deadline of 90 days but are not doing so in this case.

There is no law requiring Amazon to treat its customers the same. Only that they need to comply with the terms of your contract with them. So that is what you need to focus on.

I will draft the LBA and put that in the post tomorrow.

With regards to s75 my argument here is that Amazon are trying to wash their hands of it by saying "You need to claim against Bank under section 75" when it's been reported in mainstream media that such a claim would likely fail. So I was wanting to use this as evidence that they are deliberately misleading their customers. That was my angle anyway. I was making it out that this was an unfair term by relying on a piece of consumer law they know to be shakey ground and contesting it as an unfair way of providing the customer appropriate redress.

If you think it bears little relevance to the case I will remove it completely.

Would it be worth rewriting the POC for a basis of an A-Z Claim and stating that the A-Z Guarentee should apply to the length of warranty provided on the product or allowing a return under A-Z where a customer has made intentions to return due to a fault but wanted to see if the trader could replace first?

re-written the PoC for the assumption that Amazon was the seller but referenced A-Z as well:

IN THE county courticon CASE NUMBER:

BETWEEN:

Nuclear Shark (Claimant)

AND

Amazon UK Limited (Defendant)

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

 

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

 

2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:

Extremely Poor Battery Life

Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)

Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections

Overheating

Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011

Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

 

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.00 (exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:

Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=201819160)

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 3 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/23/enacted)

Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...part/1/enacted)

 

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of 91.10 GBP. This forms part of the claimed amount. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the 91.10 amount alone.

 

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per PoC Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (See Exhibit 6 - Email between Amazon CS and Claimant)). This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

 

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7 Various Emails) as required by the DHL Insurance Team.

 

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop. This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (See Exhibt 7.1)

 

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at 605.99 RRP (Exhibit 8 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-inc.../dp/B010UFKDHY). The defendant was notified immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (See exhibit 9 and 9.1 - Support Ticket). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered the replacement part.

 

9. The defendants' customer service departmenticon promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (See exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under CRA 2015

 

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises an then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

 

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim

 

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of mediation with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:

The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 15 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)

The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)

All correspondence ends with "Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk" which clearly suggests that the defendant is the entity whom you are forming the contract with. (Exhibit 16). Exhibit 16.1 where the defendant makes such a claim is also ended with the line:

"Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

 

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

 

14. A further attempt was made by the claimant to amicably resolve the matter on 26/05/2017 by way of Amazon Webchat. The defendants employee however made an allegation of the use of inappropriate language. This is rejected by way of Exhibit 17 and could be construded as contempt, also to show further unwillingness to offer appropriate and and legally binding )as per contractual obligations) resolution to help resolve the matter.

 

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the CRA 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the time limit to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

 

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of theor terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

 

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the present date (572 days) at the daily rate of £0.47p making a total sum of £268.47 and continuing at the daily rate of £0.47

---

This is what point 14 refers to and certainly did make me facepalm hard...:

09:16 PM BST NuclearShark: I do understand

please contact the seller

lets give them a final chance to play ball

09:17 PM BST Amazon: I'll help you with this issue but please refrain from using any inappropriate language.

09:18 PM BST NuclearShark: huh? I didn't use any inappropriate language/

09:20 PM BST NuclearShark: just to clarify "final chance to play ball" means "to agree to do what you have been told or encouraged to do" it's not an inappropriate phrase or considered bad language

swearing at people will just reduce my credibility

With regards to s75 my argument here is that Amazon are trying to wash their hands of it by saying "You need to claim against Bank under section 75" when it's been reported in mainstream media that such a claim would likely fail. So I was wanting to use this as evidence that they are deliberately misleading their customers. That was my angle anyway. I was making it out that this was an unfair term by relying on a piece of consumer law they know to be shakey ground and contesting it as an unfair way of providing the customer appropriate redress.

I don't think any of that is relevant to a claim for a faulty laptop, which is not a claim under s75, though.

Would it be worth rewriting the POC for a basis of an A-Z Claim and stating that the A-Z Guarentee should apply to the length of warranty provided on the product or allowing a return under A-Z where a customer has made intentions to return due to a fault but wanted to see if the trader could replace first?

Did you report an issue to Amazon within the 90 days? If so, then I think you should have a paragraph saying that Amazon is required to reimburse you under the terms of its A-Z guarantee, which formed part of your contract with Amazon. Honestly, I think you will lose this claim unless you can at least show you contacted Amazon within the 90 days (even if you did not actually do it under their A-Z claim link).

I don't think there is any point saying that the A-Z guarantee should cover the full warranty period or should be extended if you contact the trader - the A-Z Guarantee is only for 90 days.

14. A further attempt was made by the claimant to amicably resolve the matter on 26/05/2017 by way of Amazon Webchat. The defendants employee however made an allegation of the use of inappropriate language. This is rejected by way of Exhibit 17 and could be construded as contempt, also to show further unwillingness to offer appropriate and and legally binding )as per contractual obligations) resolution to help resolve the matter.

I think this needs to come out. You need to stick for what your claim is actually for - a breach of contract claim in respect of a faulty laptop.

Your are not suing Amazon because they were rude/unhelpful by webchat. I am sure the judge would agree they were rude/unhelpful over webchat, but that is not a valid legal claim. Your POC needs to be concise and it needs to be focussed on what your claim is.

Thanks Steampowered, Andyorch and BazzaS for your input. I am going to post out a letter before action hopefully today. Can I include the PoC in the letter before action along with exhibits?

I am going to remove Paragraph 14 and replace it with:

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit X. The defendant provided a replacement product which was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee.

Yes I did contact Amazon to return the product within the 90 days period as shown here:

So would you advise the following for PoC, send them the PoC with an LBA and Exhibits?

My Final PoC will be this if it looks ok:

IN THE county courticon CASE NUMBER:

BETWEEN:

Nuclear Shark (Claimant)

AND

Amazon UK Limited (Defendant)

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

 

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

 

2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:

Extremely Poor Battery Life

Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)

Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections

Overheating

Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011

Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

 

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.00 (exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:

Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=201819160)

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 3 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/23/enacted)

Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...part/1/enacted)

 

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of 91.10 GBP. This forms part of the claimed amount. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the 91.10 amount alone.

 

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per PoC Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (See Exhibit 6 - Email between Amazon CS and Claimant)). This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

 

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7 Various Emails) as required by the DHL Insurance Team.

 

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop. This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (See Exhibt 7.1)

 

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at 605.99 RRP (Exhibit 8 - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-inc.../dp/B010UFKDHY). The defendant was notified immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (See exhibit 9 and 9.1 - Support Ticket). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered the replacement part.

 

9. The defendants' customer service departmenticon promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (See exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under CRAicon 2015

 

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises an then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

 

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim

 

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of Mediationicon with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:

The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 15 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)

The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)

All correspondence ends with "Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk" which clearly suggests that the defendant is the entity whom you are forming the contract with. (Exhibit 16). Exhibit 16.1 where the defendant makes such a claim is also ended with the line:

"Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

 

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

 

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit (Pictures above). The defendant provided a replacement product which was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee to refund the faulty product as the claimant has fulfilled their legal requirements for allowing the defendant and opportunity to replace the laptop as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the CRAicon 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the time limit to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

 

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of theor terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

 

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the present date (572 days) at the daily rate of £0.47p making a total sum of £268.47 and continuing at the daily rate of £0.47

No .....dont add the particulars of claim..give them chance to respond to your LBA.

Andy

Ok thanks for that. Just wanted to make sure.

Should I mark the envelope with Legal Department also?

If they have one.

Thanks Andy

Long time since I've written one of these so just checking if this is ok for an LBA?

I have not received a response to my emails dated: 16/05/2017, 26/05/2017 and 30/05/2017 regarding the Faulty Laptop I purchased from your website http://www.amazon.co.uk These emails explained the issue in detail and why I am due a refund.

I am therefore again requesting a full refund on the purchase price of £2,054.11 on the basis that the goods were not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Under the aforementioned act I must give the merchant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product. I have allowed you that right and the replacement product is not a like for like product, has developed similar faults and is missing a £605.99 Part so therefore I deem it a replacement not of merchantable quality. I have enclosed the proof of purchase and a copy of the pricing of the missing part and correspondence with customer service representatives promising a refund will be received.

I am further requesting a refund of £91.10 in shipping fees to return the laptop to you. This is written within your terms and conditions and I have enclosed a copy of that policy highlighting the relevant extract where Amazon are liable for this amount. I have attached an invoice from DHL showing the costs of returning the item to you.

I ask that you reply as soon as possible so that I know you have received this letter. If you don't agree to the refund, could you please then send me a detailed response saying why you don't agree.

To avoid taking court action, I am willing to use Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve this problem.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs.

I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraph 4 which sets out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the Practice Direction.

I look forward to your response and receiving payment.

Yours Sincerely,

Sorry forgot to ask, should I add that the basis for the LBA is to use the A-Z Guarantee? So add a paragraph like:

As the return was requested on 07/01/2017 (See attached appendix) this falls within the A-Z guarantee period of 90 days which is the basis for my claim against you. I have also enclosed copies of your Amazon Forum which shows Amazon have allowed claims under A-Z after 90 days. As you were aware of my intentions to return the product within 90 days my claim is valid.

Are you better off just saying that you notified Amazon of your claim within the 90 days as required by the A-Z Guarantee nuclearshark? Rather than saying the deadline should be extended etc.?

Thanks, so something like this:

As you will be aware, you were notified of my intentions to return the product on 07/01/2017 and as such this falls within the 90 days as required by your A-Z Guarantee. This forms the basis of my claim against you.

Or do I need to further revisit the LBA?