Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

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

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

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

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

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

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

       

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

Options under Sale of Goods Act regarding PCW


zantos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2626 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

My wife purchased a Logik TV from PCW 31/08/2016 for £79-99.

Yesterday 13/01/2017 there was a "pop" and the TV no longer switched on

- browsing the internet I find it is a common fault with Logik TV for the power supply or motherboard to fail in this way.

 

Visitng PCW in Coventry I was told I HAD to allow them to repair the TV and COULD NOT ask for a refund on the grounds the TV was "not fit for purpose".

 

Their policy is that they MUST attempt a repair

. Is this true that under the SOGA I HAVE to allow them to try a repair before I am allowed a refund.

 

I remember once reading that after you had allowed a repair you were no longer allowed to ask for a refund.

 

Can anybody enlighten me as to what action I am allowed and whether I HAVE to allow PCW to repair a TV I have now lost all confidence in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you bought the TV after October 2015, the applicable law is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It doesn't really make a world of difference to your rights in this particular case. The TV has to be of satisfactory quality and must last that way for a reasonable period of time. However, the Consumer Rights Act does provide that if a fault occurs within six months of the date of purchase, then firstly it is assumed to have existed when the item was sold – but secondly, the seller must be given an opportunity to repair. You only have to give them a single opportunity and if the repair is not possible or if the repair fails, then they are obliged to refund you or to replace – less a deduction for the use that you have had from it.

 

Therefore, PCW is entitled to attempt to repair it. This has to be carried out within a reasonable period of time. If they are unable to affect the repair then they will have to replace it or refund you less a margin for the use you have had – about five months which I would expect could reasonably be said to the equivalent to about 10% of the expected life of the TV of this type and price.

 

Return the TV to them for repair. Tell them that you want the repair to be carried out and the TV to be repaired within a reasonable period of time and that you consider that 14 days is more than adequate.

 

Tell them that if they are unable to affect the repair within this time then you will treat the repair as a failure and that under the CRA 2015, your then entitled to a refund or replacement – at your option.

 

Don't expect this to be straightforward. PCW are not very renowned for respecting people's rights. Furthermore, I expect that they will end up taking a lot longer over the repair and I can imagine that it could go to 6 weeks or more. I consider that this kind of timescale would be unacceptable – but it will be up to you to decide what action you want to take

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you bought the TV after October 2015, the applicable law is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It doesn't really make a world of difference to your rights in this particular case. The TV has to be of satisfactory quality and must last that way for a reasonable period of time. However, the Consumer Rights Act does provide that if a fault occurs within six months of the date of purchase, then firstly it is assumed to have existed when the item was sold – but secondly, the seller must be given an opportunity to repair. You only have to give them a single opportunity and if the repair is not possible or if the repair fails, then they are obliged to refund you or to replace – less a deduction for the use that you have had from it.

 

I have looked on the Which? website and their interpretation of the Act is that the choice between repair OR replacement is the customers. Is this in fact true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. So far as I know, that is not correct. The seller has an option to attempt a repair within the first six months. Once that repair fails, then the options go to the customer who can agree to another attempt to repair a refund or a replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A not so happy follow up!

 

Took the TV into the PCW store today and agreed that the CPA 2015 applied

. Asked why I couldn't have a replacement and was told it wasn't their policy.

 

Handed over the TV in the ORIGINAL packing and said they could repair it,

BUT THEN I was presented with two pieces of paper to sign agreeing to THEIR service terms with conditions like "We are not responsible for claim or losses resulting from the non-availablility of product"

I said I didn't want to sign this and was told "then we won't repair it!"

 

Are PCW allowed to attach their own conditions to the PCA?

The repair was THEIR responsibility and I shouldn't be expected to sign away any of MY rights to obtain satisfaction under the act.

 

I did sign BUT added the footnote that I had been forced to sign to obtain my right under the Act.

 

The TV was then taken out of it's packing and I was given "my box" back so not sure how it will progress on it's journey.

 

I welcome any observations or comments.:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I don't think you've "signed anything away".

I should hope that by law you are not even allowed to sign your rights away.

The fact you've added a footnote to say "you were forced to sign" is also in your favour.

 

As for removing the TV from it's box,

it will be sent away in something called a "tellytainer" which is far more safe and secure than the original packaging.

It will be bubble wrapped and secured.

 

If you REALLY don't want a repair and want a replacement then maybe request (not demand) to speak to a manager.

 

Appeal to their common sense and put your case calmly.

All Dixons managers have been briefed to "Say Yes More"

. So, as a customer use this to your advantage.

 

Let them know exactly what you want and give them the opportunity to make it happen

. Logik is own brand and easily "sent back as faulty".

 

Speak to store staff as you would like to be spoken to and I'm sure you will get what you want. Best of luck. Let me know how you get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 'say yes more' is indeed correct and still operating, also, the previous year, all dixons managers were given £1000 personal bonus each, to communicate to their staff that they shouldnt argue with customers, just do whats right.

 

unfortunately the £1000 wasnt shared with their team....just pocketed and the staff told not to argue with customers.

welcome to how dixons is run

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...