Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

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

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

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

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

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

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

       

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

DFS leather peeling - County Court - WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2044 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

help and advice needed about a three piece leather sofa from DFS

 

jan 2014 purchased a three piece sofa from DFS £3500

 

feb 2014 they were delivered

 

2 weeks ago called dfs to report leather peeling away on head rest

 

monday last week repair man come out. told he can not repair it and will send report to store

tuesday i visit the store. told by salesman they will get it repaired. and told its caused by natural oils in the hair and skin and not their problem but they will repair it as a gesture of good will. also told because we are pensioners and not working. sitting in it all day dont help.

told the salesman we dont think the suite has been treated properly and wish it to be taken back as repairing one area is no good because other areas will go. salesman said that there is no way we can return it and all he will do is repair the affected area.

 

tuesday last week. called barclays credit as we bought it on the interest free deal. informed them the suite was unfit for purpose. Barclay informed the will write to DFS to get the to resolved.

 

today manager from another store called to inspect the suite.

he says he stands by the report that it is a chemical reaction to oils in people hair and skin.

told us we should have bought the after care plan that was offered at time of purchase which would have included a treatment kit that would have stopped it happening.

 

told us we could not return it as it was not a manufacturing issue.

he inspect the rest of the suite and he picked up on the other chair that the leather was also starting to peel on that.

as a gesture of goodwill he would get the both headrests repaired and a free leather kit and gilders thrown in free because we are pensioners.

we told him we just wanted to return the suite because we felt it was not fit for purpose.

he said no because under the sale of goods act. there needed to be a manufacturer fault and there was no fault.

we rejected his offer and he said there is nothing else we could do because they had fulfilled there obligation.

we said we would go through the courts. and he said we wouldn't win because there was not fault in the suite

 

any help or advice on proceeding

 

i have a photo but because i,m new it wont let me post but hopefully it will let me soon

 

also when we told him we were rejecting his offer. he said "i should be charging you for this"

 

called barclays and they said they will but in it a claim handler to sort out. does anyone know what they will do

 

searching on CAG and i cant seem to find many cases going to court. is that because they resolve them

 

http://s15.postimg.org/k0075aa5n/photo.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile phone, so very short response.

You are completely right. It is a SOGA matter and your sofa is not fit.

Take photos and document everything. Record calls. Write detailed formal complaint and come back here with their response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a video, put it on YouTube with the title "Look at the fantastic quality of a DFS suite" (then they can't say you were defaming their good name) then post the link to the video to DFS to the Chief Executive as above. Worked a treat for me a few years ago.

It would help if you could get a few people to view the video so it shows as being popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no this is not fake. apparently this leather is a top quality. it is leather but. now im guessing here. the pigment is sprayed on then a protective coat applied. this is what appears to have peeled off. the first guy who come out said it cant not be repaired

 

spent the evening researching it. from my findings it is a good quality leather hides used. however from what i can see about leather treatment. the makers have not prep the hide correctly before applying pigments. started drafting a letter to Ian Filby.

 

will keep you updated

Link to post
Share on other sites

spent the evening researching it. from my findings it is a good quality leather hides used. however from what i can see about leather treatment. the makers have not prep the hide correctly before applying pigments. started drafting a letter to Ian Filby.

 

will keep you updated

 

Yes you are right The type of leather you have is a pigment coated leather which is essentially a 'painted' leather with a clear coat finish and it is this coating that has begun to break down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ramsay2014

 

Could I ask exactly what proof do you actually have from DFS that this is REAL Leather?

 

If the answer is none then put DFS to proof and let them prove it is REAL leather.

 

Also consider in your letter about getting an Independent Inspection done agreed by both parties and both parties share costs for report?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...

We have the exact same problem on our DFS sofa and armchair, they were under 12 months when this was first noted and we reported it to DFS who sent their surveyor around and he told us it needs to go via a insurance claim with the policy we took out with DFS and that we needed to do it ourselves as he could not get involved under the data protection act, he also said the cause should be explained to the insurance company as human bodily fluids.

 

I spoke with a girl in the DFS office who said that the peeling would be dealt with by the insurance company and the sofa repair would be rejected as a defect but not to worry as DFS will address that but in the meantime to add both to the insurance claim, obviously I am not happy with something that is clearly not up to standard, I purchased this model as it was sold as a thicker better quality leather (Supreme model) and was shown the difference on swatches in the store so did not mind paying the extra as my previous sofa lasted 16 years including shipping it to Turkey for our villa and having sweat etc from the heat and not a single problem with peeling or colour fading, so why after several months this is being put down to bodily fluid and not a manufacturing defect is a joke.

 

I have informed the insurance company I am not happy with the claim and they are sending their own assesor to double check. No doubt this will rumble on but interested to hear you are having the same issues and by the looks of photo exact same quality and colour issue! Will update when I know what is going on but will take it to court if need to as these are not cheap sofas and never heard of pigment colouring before nor was it mentioned of course when selling the item, purely about the superiour quality!

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the exact same problem on our DFS sofa and armchair, they were under 12 months when this was first noted and we reported it to DFS who sent their surveyor around and he told us it needs to go via a insurance claim with the policy we took out with DFS and that we needed to do it ourselves as he could not get involved under the data protection act, he also said the cause should be explained to the insurance company as human bodily fluids. I spoke with a girl in the DFS office who said that the peeling would be dealt with by the insurance company and the sofa repair would be rejected as a defect but not to worry as DFS will address that but in the meantime to add both to the insurance claim, obviously I am not happy with something that is clearly not up to standard, I purchased this model as it was sold as a thicker better quality leather (Supreme model) and was shown the difference on swatches in the store so did not mind paying the extra as my previous sofa lasted 16 years including shipping it to Turkey for our villa and having sweat etc from the heat and not a single problem with peeling or colour fading, so why after several months this is being put down to bodily fluid and not a manufacturing defect is a joke. I have informed the insurance company I am not happy with the claim and they are sending their own assesor to double check. No doubt this will rumble on but interested to hear you are having the same issues and by the looks of photo exact same quality and colour issue! Will update when I know what is going on but will take it to court if need to as these are not cheap sofas and never heard of pigment colouring before nor was it mentioned of course when selling the item, purely about the superiour quality!

 

Please will you post the story in a new thread so that we can help you more effectively.

 

Your story is very interesting and raises some very serious issues.

 

Start a new thread and also read our customer services guide before having any more dealings with this company

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

update. been a long haul. but won. DFS tried to fight. even phoned from letter before court action warning us that they will win and ask for all their costs. saying there was no fault and it damage was caused by head grease. our claim was there does not need to be a fault for it not to be fit for purpose. claim issued phone call from DFS we will not fight it and collected the suite . full refund plus costs paid +++++won+++++

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

 

More proof, if ever was needed that a firm and litigious aggressive attitude towards these companies gets results and often it is the only thing which does get results.

 

What a shame that the bullies need to be bullied back before giving good customer service.

 

How amazing that a company like DFS will put their reputation on the line simply to defeat one of their customers who quite clearly has got a legitimate basis for complaint.

 

I think this serves as a warning that anybody wants to buy a sofa should try and find some other company in preference to DFS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in all honesty. our problem was a stubborn manager

 

12 weeks after delivery it peeled. so we visited the store and the manager said he would only offer to repair the affected leather. we asked if we could swap it as we felt it may go in other areas. he said thats all he was going to do and dont bother asking head office as this was his store and they had no control how he runs his store.

 

he visited the house to inspect the leather and again only offered to replace the affected area. we declined as we felt after 3 months we were covered by the SOGA act. is attitude was do what you want. so we told him we would use the courts to sort it out. he wrongly told us we could not use the courts because we had to use the furniture ombudsman first.

 

the furniture ombudsman was a waste of time. they ruled there was no fault and blamed head grease. they said they dont rule on "not fit for purpose" only if there was a fault. but their inspector recommended a free repair.

 

DFS declined to repair it and stated that because it went to the ombudsman they paid out £345 to them and the free repair was off the table.

 

contacted barclays to claim under the SOGA not fit for purpose. they phoned DFS and advised Barclays to close the case as the furniture ombudsman had ruled on it. they closed the case

 

letter before court action sent to head office

 

store manager called to say head office has got nothing to do with it. its his store and he will send a repairman out.

 

repairman sent. said he could not repair it as leather needs replacing. called the manager who said oh they went to the ombudsmans. dont do nothing. just leave a card for them to get it repaired themselves.

 

second letter sent to head office. before court action

 

store manager called sending a repairman.

repairman arrives with a spray to paint over affected area. informs it will only peel back off as there was no sealant. offer of repair declined told the manager was off but will get him to phone us

 

store manager phoned. said he dont have to offer anything and painting it was a goodwill offer. told him we would issue a court claim. told us we had no chance of winning but if we did he would hire lawyers and make us pay for them.

 

court claim issued at the store we bought it from. saying "there does not need to be a fault to make a product unfit for purpose"

 

store manager called saying he would win the case. but he spoke to the maker of the furniture who said they would replace every piece of leather on the suite

 

as it was in now in hands of the courts. we declined the offer and wanted it taken away and a full refund plus court costs was only acceptable offer.

 

he begrudging agreed but wanted the case closed after he did it

 

suite taken away Barclays refunded and payments paid to Barclays sent to me. cheque off DFS for court costs plus what i added for post etc. deposit refunded to card.

 

closed the money online claim. notes on case show DFS acknowledged the claim and also did a change of address to head office. which leads to to believe head office ordered this to be settled

 

hope this saga will help anyone grieved by DFS. but i firmly lay the blame on the store manager for being trying to be god almighty.

 

i think if DFS head office monitored cases like this. instead of leaving it in the hands of the manager till it goes pear shaped

 

 

hope this helps someone else

Edited by ramsay2014
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. That is very interesting and it is very kind of you to give such a detailed account of what happened.

 

Many people come to the forum and then when they solve the problems, they never come back and tell us anything about it.

 

It sounds a really ghastly adventure and so hats off to you for sticking by and sticking it to them.

 

Whether it is DFS or their manager, it is all the same thing really.

 

The manager is paid and he represents his employer and if his employers don't know what's going on then that's another strike against them because they should be monitoring what's happening in their shops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Hi,

Seems that they are still up to their old tricks!

We bought a leather sofa from DFS last December and came with a defective electric reclining mechanism. This was sorted but took a few month for them to get the part.

Other problem we now have with this sofa is that it seems to be doing the same peeling as previously described on the thread.

Just had a DFS representative out today, Wednesday 17th October and he has stated sweat and hair products as the reason for this peeling.

Having noticed the post by Ramsay2014 in May 2014, I have the very same issue with what seems to be the same "quality product".

 

The rep has said he is going to advise that the affected backrest is replaced, but having further researched the issue, now going for a complete replacement or refund.

 

I feel sorry for previous posts and the hassle they have had but seems the only way to resolve issues.

 

Will keep you informed of any updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi!

I've just come accross your issue with DFS. I've just been to the store (Llandudno) i bought a leather suite from in 2015 as i have the same problem as everybody else in this thread!!! I've sent them pictures & explained everything. I am just waiting for a response!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread is sev years old

You wont get seen here

 

Start a new thread

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

Now closed to stop newbie bumping

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2044 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...