Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 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. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • 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.   
  • 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

Me in the middle of Argos and Hoover Candy!!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2667 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

I am caught between Argos and Hoover Candy in a dispute that I have been battling since March last year.

 

I am being passed from one to the other and neither will resolve my issue to my satisfaction.

I think they may be flouting the law.

I have called Citizens Advice and also Retail Ombudsman who directed me to the Furniture Ombudsman for Argos.

 

Nothing to escalate the problems with Hoover Candy.

I have seen reviews for Hoover on Trustpilot.

My last email to them was quite strong and I also emailed a link to the reviews so they could not argue about their appalling customer service and shoddy products.

I need some clear direction on how to proceed.

 

I am not a giver upper but this is making me ill.

Even so it is not in my character to let myself be treated in such an appalling way.

I am posting a copy of my last email which outlines the issues I think so that anyone can get the gist of it.

Sorry it is long winded.

I am at my wits end :-x

 

I have today spoken to Argos, Citizens Advice and also the Retail Ombudsman about my rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979,(my product was bought before October 2015) and how I have been treated by both companies.

 

Argos have said that although I contacted them in the first instance while this product was STILL in guarantee and they directed me to deal with the Manufacturer (Hoover Candy) it is NOT their responsibility at this stage because the original hoover was disposed of as instructed by you (I have that in writing) You did not instruct me to contact the retailer or to return the goods to them or to you for examination or investigation you told me to dispose of it. In this case I would have no evidence of the original faulty product.

 

The product I have now is a replacement supplied by you from your own stock.

You say that it is under the same contract because it is like for like under the same contract with Argos.

They say it is not because it is not supplied by them but by you.

You took responsibility for this issue and issued the replacement acknowledging that the original was faulty.

 

You did not ask me to prove the fault or to return the product.

You accepted that it was faulty. I have this in writing. All of it.

 

 

You cannot then say with hindsight that you should not have replaced it.

It is irrelevant.

You have dealt with this issue in a completely unsatisfactory way and taken months and months being as obstructive as possible as a company to get to this point

 

All of this action was started while this product was still under warranty.

I am not happy with the replacement.

You have a responsibility to me as the customer under the Sale of Goods Act to rectify that situation.

You provided the replacement which was only 3 months old when I complained about it again.

In that instance I do not have to prove there is a fault and I am entitled to a refund or a replacement.

 

I should also be entitled to some redress for the way my complaint has been dealt with and the length of time it has taken, the stress it has caused me and the costs incurred on calls etc. I have all of the contact with you in writing.

 

 

I also repeat that one of your advisors John, yesterday told me that I should tell ARGOS THAT THE HOOVER I HAVE NOW IS THE ORIGINAL because they do not check serial numbers.

That is deception and would achieve nothing.

 

 

The time scale is irrelevant on all of this because I started this complaint BEFORE the manufacturers warranty ended.

You came to a resolution after 6 months of being obstructive and replaced the faulty hoover taking complete responsibilty away from the retailer and told me to dispose of the original.

 

In the light of this you are now responsible to come to a satisfactory resolution regarding the replacement which I find unacceptable after just a few months.

 

 

I have the law on my side and I will take this to the next step if you do not agree to either refund me the cost of the original hoover or replace it FOC with a new model to the same value as my original purchase.

 

I fail to see how under the circumstances and given all the information and the conduct of your company regarding my experience, you can argue the point anymore.

 

Please do not ignore this email.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome,

 

I have formatted your post a bit to make it easier to read, hopefully you will get some help shortly.

 

Regards,

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is wrong with the replacement. Do you consider it to be faulty?

 

H

  • Haha 1

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

quite correct its nowt to do with argos

 

and I don't think CRA [which is the replacement for SOGA]

covers you under the manu rather than the retailer

 

you'd have to read it to find out.

 

I believe the warranty runs concurrent from the first purchase too.

 

and they cant refund you

they were not the retailer nor should they have to

the item is outside of any moneyback period if there ever was one.

 

repair or replace as they supplied it - but no refund

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

The CRA applies from oct 2015.

I bought before that.

 

 

I went to argos in the guarantee period.

They told me to go to hoover who led me up the garden path for months and then replaced.

 

 

Not happy with replacement.

Now they tell me to go back to argos.

 

 

I have been put in this situation by the two companies both now refusing responsibility.

 

 

CAB point to argos,

they point to hoover they point back at argos.

I must have some rights for redress with one or both!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, again then, What, exactly, is wrong with the replacement. Do you consider it to be faulty?

 

What does it not do that it should do or does it do that it should not.

 

To determine liability, and a case if there is one, we need to know the fault. It wasn't mentioned in your first post and you've not stated it so far in any of your replies.

 

'Issues with the replacement' is not a description of a fault.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not work properly.

It is for pet hair and has a turbo tool which does not rotate or pick up after several uses.

 

I have had 4 tools which they expected me to pay for.

That is not fair wear and tear.

 

The hoover has a burning smell when stationary and using the tool.

 

The roller continues to rotate when stationary causing friction and damage to floor and carpet.

 

The same as the first one they replaced as faulty.

I came on here for help not an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not work properly. It is for pet hair and has a turbo tool which does not rotate or pick up after several uses. I have had 4 tools which they expected me to pay for. That is not fair wear and tear. The hoover has a burning smell when stationary and using the tool. The roller continues to rotate when stationary causing friction and damage to floor and carpet. The same as the first one they replaced as faulty. I came on here for help not an argument.

 

Well pardon me for asking, I was trying to ascertain exactly what the problem is so I could offer a solution, not an argument.

 

I'm out.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...