Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Currys/PCworld refuse refund or replacement


flyte
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2068 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

Hi, still trying to calm down after my visit to Currys today:x

 

We bought a cooker there less than 2 months ago and its been faulty from the start, the oven cuts out during cooking leaving food half done and only fit for the bin.

 

This happened in our second week of ownership but we weren't sure if it was us or the cooker, now we know for sure its the cooker at fault as its happened 4 times.

 

We went back to currys today to complain but were told the manufacturer would only consider a repair and it might take a month :!:

 

So I've been looking up our rights and would appreciate some help from the forum

 

First, they insisted we could only get help from the manufacturer, but our contract is with Currys, no one else, do they have the right to fob us off in this way ?

 

Second, the fault has been there since we took delivery, do we have the right to a replacement or refund or do we have to accept a repair ?

 

I know we're over the 30 day limit but its not our fault, this seems so unfair, any advice ?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Currys are doing what they always do and hope nobody will notice. Get a complaint direct to the CEO and go instore and give them a copy. I would also inform trading standards as well.

 

If the fault was there from the start, then currys dont have a leg to stand on. They have to refund or replace.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ! just as I suspected, they did something similar to me years ago, I had hoped things would have changed. Anyhow, I just sent off an email to their customer services so I'll wait for a reply and let you know. Then as you suggest I'll go further with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you have lost your right to insist on a refund or replacement because you did not assert your right within 30 days of the date of the contract. This means that you must now rely on the six-month rule and that means that as the defect has appeared within the first six months you should inform them in writing that you are asserting a right under the consumer rights act and that they have a single opportunity to carry out a repair or else you will insist on a refund or a replacement – you will have to choose.

 

The repair must be carried out within a reasonable time and I would have thought that something as essential as a cooker should receive a visit and an attempted repair at the very least within seven days. Because Currys has such an appalling record I would set it all out in a letter before action and make it clear to them that after 14 days you will start a small claim in the County Court.

 

Don't muck around with these people. They will lead you round by the nose if you give them half a chance. Keep control of the situation. Send them your letter – don't bluff and at the end of 14 days simply issue the court papers.

 

If all of this means that you are without a cooker then you could reasonably include in your letter that you will be purchasing a new cooker if they failed to carry out the repair within the seven-day specified because this is an essential household item and you will therefore be claiming for the cost of a new cooker – even if it is slightly more expensive – and also the reasonable cost of storing the old broken one until they collect it.

 

Currys are a complete disgrace and it's about time somebody like trading standards sat up and took notice – but of course this never happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok.....not as straight forward as I had hoped, there are very few choices for kitchen appliances where we live, currys would have been bottom of my list but its about as far as I can travel.

 

I'll still wait for a reply from their customer services and take it from there, I'd like to know why Currys take no responsibility saying its down to the manufacturer and why they wont accept that it was broken before the 30 days were up.

 

Thanks for the idea of charging them for storage, I might also bill them for takeaways while I'm waiting :lol:

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stories charge should be kept very modest – no more than 1 pound per day and you should serve them notice in advance that this is what you will be doing and the cost to them. You must give them an opportunity to remedy the situation that once the court papers are issued then I would start levying the storage charge.

 

Why does Currys do this? Who knows. Poor staff development and I think that they are probably lulled into a certain poor customer service because so few customers will stand up to them. Their solicitors/legal department seem to make a personal matter of beating consumers down but when you issue the papers eventually Currys give up – but for people who aren't hugely confident, it can feel as if it is nerve wracking. Currys are rubbish company – but unfortunately nowadays there is very little alternative on the high street. You're generally speaking much better off with John Lewis. I don't think that in nearly 14 years we have had more than two or three complaints about John Lewis

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the 30 days:

 

The first six months

If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

 

During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there when you bought it - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

 

If an attempt at repair or replacement has failed, you have the right to reject the goods for a full refund, or price reduction if you wish to keep the product.

 

The retailer can't make any deductions from your refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement.

 

demand they fix or replace it. If they wont, then outright reject it

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is from the consumer rights act........ even outside of the 30 day period, if goods cannot be repaired in a reasonable amount of time or a repair would cause significant inconvenience then a full refund or replacement should be offered. Is this correct ?

 

 

If it is then I'll be taking them on, one month isn't a reasonable amount of time to repair a cooker and going without our cooker would certainly cause significant inconvenience. I'm disabled and my wife has Diabetes, we both have specific needs when it comes to cooking and foods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

get a full complaint in writing to the CEO and the store manager. Take the relevant legislation with you if needs be. If they keep refusing, then take it further. It is up to the retailer to sort any issues, and chase the manufacturer. Not you.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...