Thank you, that was my thought. Indeed and I think that is not uncommon with the banks not taking due care and consideration, it is simpler to pass the buck either to the ombudsman or hope the client accepts what they say. I will draft another letter to set out what and why I think the breaches have occurred and wait for their response. Although I find it odd that rather than waiting to discuss their opinion with myself /request further evidence they at the same time of notifying me, go to the merchants bank seeking goodwill .. Thank you all for the input.

Thank you. I think you have missed that the offer was only made after 5 weeks, and the cost of implementing the offer was greater than the benefit, infact there was/ is no benefit as nothing can achieved by the replacement except additional cost as I have explained.

I had a choice of no heat and hot water with a baby imminently arriving and the promise that the missing parts would be sent immediately, plus the installation was already scheduled, building work was tied up around the installation starting. Therefore it was accepted the parts would be sent and the install could continue when they arrived, it was not expected to take 5 weeks of further aggravation, delays and communication to enable the installation to be completed.

I set this out in my original letter to them the boiler was unusable until a month after it was received when the final missing parts arrived. What I am trying to recover are my costs due to the delays caused tot he installation. Because the supplier /manufacture hasn't entertained them then I felt it right to claim under section 75. I am perfectly willing to claim the cost of the boiler back deduct my costs and forward the remaining money to the supplier.

Thanks. I sent what they asked for a copy of the correspondence between myself and the supplier and manufacturer and the suppliers T&C's (why they couldn't download them themselves is beyond me). The supplier acknowledges parts are missing following my email to them 28/8/13 and correspondence shows them requesting the matter be resolved by the manufacturer and a querying if this had been done 6/9/13. It then shows from the tech side of the manufacturer a possible reason 16/9/13 why these parts were missing, further correspondence around the 27/9/13 chasing parts. As per the SOGA website I think this is ample proof of a fault and I refer again to I think what is required is a strongly worded letter to the CC pointing out the relevant points of consumer law that are valid, because in my view they are not applying consumer law correctly, but that's my biased opinion naturally, which is why I am asking on here for opinion on this. I do feel pursuing the CC is the most productive faster route, thought that doesn't preclude the small claims court route or FOS either.

No I didn't issue a court claim I simply went down the route of a sec 75 claim against the credit card as jointly liable with the supplier, I felt this would be a simpler and faster solution to achieve recompense for the costs incurred. Small claims court is an option but having purchased via a CC I believe the sec 75 route is more straightforward than the small claims court avenue. What aspect have I failed to demonstrate a breach of contract by the supplier that the CC can fell justified not to uphold a breach of contract and rely upon the good will of the suppliers bank agreeing to refund the money to the CC, rather than stating to the suppliers bank that a breach of 75 has occurred and they are reclaiming the monies? the CC said: ..." I sent all the email correspondence but some of the correspondence took place by SMS also, as well as verbally. However from the correspondence the merchant accepted parts were missing that the manufacturer had sent components and not a complete package, that it had taken over a month to send the missing parts and still haven't sent all the original documentation for the appliance. There is a written without prejudice offer from the manufacturer not the supplier and acceptance of the issue 35 days after the order was originally received. As I have previously stated the goods were not fit for purpose as originally sent they were incomplete and without documentation / instructions,Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all products must be ‘fit for purpose’, be of satisfactory quality and fit its description. This means that products must fulfil the purpose the customer has been led to expect and the reasons that led them to buy it, they weren't why isn't the CC acting on this? The Manufacturer promised to send the missing parts by the weekend on that basis and as time was pressing for the reasons previously stated the installation was started. Thereafter the wrong parts were sent and still no documentation, without documentation it was difficult to establish which parts were missing over a month later with numerous promises and denials in between the parts were finally all sent to enable completion of the installation. Once started it we were committed to the installation as the part of the room was constructed around this unit which is very large and very heavy it is not an easy thing to remove and replace and certainly not without cost. Six weeks without hot water with a new born child they couldn't stay in the property and had to stay elsewhere. I claimed a small portion for distress though I am not strictly entitled to such the claim I made was for costs in dealing with the issue and with failed attempts to install the appliance. The only information I can find on defective product is the guide to consumer protection act 1987 for product liability" A defective product is defined as one where the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. This definition provides an objective test of defectiveness and refers neither to the particular injured person nor to the particular producer. A product will not be considered defective solely because it is of poor quality. A product will not be considered defective simply because a safer version is subsequently put on the market. Without a gas isolation valve the appliance is unsafe for connection to the gas supply and therefore defective. With out the control panel the appliance is defective. With regards to proving a fault SOGA states Equally the goods were accepted on the basis the correct parts would be issued, this then dragged on and on and it became unreasonable and more costly to replace the goods and un-install and reinstall a replacement appliance. Further the manufacturer did not want the original appliance which left me with a cost to dispose of this appliance. SOGA again: Given the above, what grounds do the CC have to not be upholding my claim?

They have only temporarily refunded the 1.5k subject to the goodwill of the suppliers bank approving. They should be refunding this under sec75 on the basis the product was in breach, not in feigning goodwill on the part of the suppliers bank who has not made such an offer, nor was one expected. The question was what further proof does the CC require to show breach of contract? The item was not of merchantable quality or fit for purpose therefore under the sales and goods act as amended that is breach in itself. But the CC is implying that the goods have to be "faulty" to be in breach, in my opinion missing a controller and gas valve along with many other items the unit was faulty by virtue it was incomplete and couldn't be installed let alone be operated. The initial good deal was not sold on the basis it was missing parts and therefore some how reduced, it was a new unit complete at a reduced price, which is not what I received. I am not simply trying to get it for nothing. I want to recover the costs incurred in sorting this out, the extra costs involved in the numerous attempts at installing it, and the knock on effects that had to the build costs around the installation.

Hello, I recently purchased a gas boiler that was brand new but old stock and heavily discounted from 7k - 1.5k On the face of it a great deal complete with warranty from a quality manufacturer, on offer from a supplier I use at least once a year, this time for my personal property. In a nutshell the boiler arrived minus gas shut off valve, minus controller, connection pipes and manuals, guarantees etc. The boiler was being installed and was required urgently due to a new arrival, this was made clear at the time of purchase and that time was of the essence.. It took numerous emails and calls and texts to get in dribs and drabs all the various components to enable the installation to be completed, This was a 300kg boiler (domestic complete with cylinder in a single package -in case you're wondering). Due to the missing parts the boiler took some time to install which increased costs not to mention the inconvenience of all the chasing of the parts and being without hot water and heating etc for the new arrival meant staying elsewhere. I claimed for costs from the supplier/manufacturer (two different entities) The manufacturer finally offered without prejudice another unit but to remove the first one and then to have to dispose of it and then install the second unit would have just increased costs further so this was rejected (what am I going to do with 2 boilers 300kg each 2m tall 70cm square?. My claim for costs is far less than the cost of the purchase about half. A claim has been made against the CC under sec75 for the cost of the boiler and costs, however they are stating that they are reliant on goodwill of the 3rd parties bank and the retailer to respond as they need me to provide proof of breach of contract or misrepresentation but have temporarily refunded the 1.5k only and wont entertain the consequential loss. They go on to say they are totally reliant on the goodwill because the goods are in my possession and there is no documentary evidence to prove the goods are faulty, therefore they can't guarantee the outcome. The unit was supplied faulty by virtue the parts required for it to operate were missing surely it was faulty, the correspondence covers this from both sides my raising the complaint and their accepting that parts were missing.. It seems clear to me there was a breach, the goods were not as described ie a new complete boiler, they were missing various components critical to the installation and commissioning of the appliance, without them the boiler could not be fully installed or operated. This is clear and accepted by the 3rd parties, that the missing parts and delays were unacceptable and the goods were not as described. The CC has had copies of TCs and all email correspondence some 30 pages of documents were sent and yet the CC is finding it difficult to establish documentary evidence of a breach has taken place. The boiler is currently installed 6 weeks after its arrival yet it is still missing the original manuals and warranty documents.. what are my options? I am aware that deductions can be made for any use of the appliance subsequently..

I think the questions to be asked are: Why would a person go to all the trouble of hacking into their system merely ( I say merely in context) to cause you distress? Surely if someone were to hack in to the system and to have that ability they would be far more interested in more than altering one particular credit file. A disgruntled employee? why would they be disgruntled with you an individual to which they have no connection? Assuming it were a rogue employee that employee would now be known to the police and the police would be able to confirm they have at least cautioned a person relating to this hack. Had they hacked in then there would be a multiple number of attempts that would be identifiable as a malicious hack which would warrant far more attention and necessitate a complete system wide review to identify how and prevent that breach from occurring again. This would be a notifiable breach of security due to the nature of the data held or potentially accessible. They would with any sense not be blagging their system is hackable they would be the target of every potential hacker out there. I recently had a site hacked, the host provider had all sorts of excuses and reasons for why it could have occurred, and at one point insisted our ftp access had been hacked, when asked to present this evidence from the logs they backed down, they had been lying and got caught with their pants down. It seems to me that this is the case here, they are covering up something, if they were hacked they would have the logs and the police will have them as evidence to take to the isp of the IP address that allegedly hacked their system to identify that person. Frankly though a proficient hacker would be coming from an IP address that is routed through multiple Tor hidden servers and or compromised computers on the web. It would have to be forensically traced to be identifiable even to a region. I follow this with interest, don't be fobbed off with this lame excuse which clearly demonstrates they are not a fit company to be operating.

The installer no longer exists and I have to write to CIGA to set out the issue, may be sometime beforeI have an answer!

Ok let's hope things go smoothly and as they should I'll post the result.

Yes I agree I should be able to but were they to argue the clause 2 then my argument would be that the work I did may have disturbed some of the insulation but it could not have rendered the guarantee invalid because there is clearly areas where no insulation material was blown in. And yes under the sales of goods act then the original installation clearly was not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality. Would you expect that to suffice along with photographs I really don't want to battle this through and hopefully I wont have to but a robust assertion of my rights to start should dissuade them from that approach was my thought? Thank you for your assistance and congrats on the forthcoming 10,000.

I didn't pay for the installation the previous owner did so Restitution wouldn't apply, would it? The new policy gauarntee on the CIGA website is different from mine slightly but essentially the same. These notes are for general guidance only, and you should refer to the CIGA guarantee for precise details of the cover on your installation. Each certificate has a unique number which should be quoted on all correspondence Any claim under the Guarantee must be notified to CIGA within 25 years of the installation date. All problems relating to the installation must be reported to teh installer as soon as practicable and CIGA must be informed if the matter is not resolved satisfactorily within 2 months. The guarantee is not valid if the insulation has been altered or disturbed. - This is similar but refers to the insulation rather than installation. Your statutory rights are not affected by the guarantee. The guarantee remains valid for subsequent owners or occupiers of the property. The maximum value of rectification work is £15,000.- Mines £10,000

The air bricks were room ventilation only not floor or roof ventilation. Windows were/are double glazed with trickle vents, to be changed for new windows later.

I recently purchased a house which I am carrying out renovations to. The House had cavity wall insulation fitted in 1999, it carries a 25 year guarantee. Both the original installation company and the CIGA guarantee are in operation. In starting the renovations we stripped some walls back to brick, exposing cavities around the windows. The cavity wall insulation is patchy in places and there is none at all in some areas (Big area). Also the Air bricks on the first floor were not sealed. Before I contact the installer and CIGA I imagine they may try to wriggle on condition 2 of the policy " The guarantee is not valid if the installation has been altered or disturbed after the installation was completed." What would you suggest should be a reasonable counter should this occur? Because without exposing the cavity it would, without a thermal camera or signs of damp, been impossible to tell these issues existed! Yet condition 2 seems to be a catch all..? I am in the process of raising the insulation to try to achieve Enerphit standard so I would hope that they would come back and refill the cavity properly under the guarantee.

Was the £190 made aware to you at the time of the contract if not and you have grounds to prove it it could be considered an unfair contract term voiding the contract but you'd need to do some research on here to establish that, probably its a long shot. Re Perfect well no car is going to be perfect after five years, so it will fall down to what is reasonable to expect the condition to be in, subject to mileage and fair wear and tear. Best is to speak to dealers and look at similar aged and mileage cars that are in excellent or v good condition, you will note in glasses guide or Parkers for example there is no pricing for Perfect! And establish where your car falls in that. Take your car along to several dealers and ask for a trade in value and get their view on the condition try to get something in writing expressing that. Perhaps post your contract conditions on line for more legal view points on the contract and its fairness.

It's not entirely clear from your post whether you paid only for the work for the MOT or to have the window fixed. I am assuming you didn't accept their offer and only paid for the MOT related work. On that basis, I would agree with Buzby, the window could have broken at anytime that is the nature of things. I would argue that it was fair of them to offer the labour free if you bought the part. You don't say how old the car is but it is at least 3 years. If they replaced the mechanism and the labour they would be putting you back in a better position than when the vehicle entered the garage because the window mechanism would be brand new and not at least 3 years old for example - to do so would have been classed as "Betterment". Regarding the door and loose screws, clearly they took the panel off to determine the fault, not putting it back properly is something you can ask them to rectify as buzby said. However in my opinion, I would accept their offer of free labour source the part as cheaply as you can and accept that the part broke and it was coincidental, an unfortunate happen stance.

I haven't had third party for 20 years or so but then even third party you deny liability to the insurer and ask them to pursue the other driver. Things may have changed since then but they should be pursuing the other driver on your behalf. Failing that if you can take photographs of the junction even screen shots from google street view with cars in the street you should be able to show what you stated that it would be impossible to have been changing lane due to width of the road. I take it there were no independent witnesses? Do you have documents to show that they initially accepted liability since they sent out an assessor? lent you a car etc. They wouldn't have done that if they were initially denying liability I wouldn't have thought. It may be you have to put a claim together with all the facts to had and submit that with a 14day deadline, otherwise you will seek through the small claims court your costs (repairs etc) and the time off work, inconvenience etc.

Sorry to bump this but I have another question and I would appreciate help with this and questions posted earlier. my fully comp policy has the following in it. Firstly a definition: Territorial Limits means Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and includes transit between any of these. Secondly I have replacement car hire on the policy: Jii Temporary Replacement Car This section only applies if it is shown on Your motor insurance Schedule. Definitions that apply to Temporary Replacement Car Hire Vehicle – A car or van registered as a private light goods vehicle that is supplied to You by the hire car company. Hire Car Company – The company that We instruct to give You the hire vehicle. Hire Period – The period We will pay for the hire vehicle, up to 21 days in a row, for any one incident. What is covered If Your vehicle is damaged as a result of an accident, fire or theft, or if it is stolen and not recovered,We will arrange for the Hire Car Company to provide You with a hire vehicle, as long as the loss takes place on the UKmainland and We are dealing with Your claim under Sections B or C of Your policy. You may be charged a refundable deposit, when You take delivery of the hire vehicle. The deposit will be refunded on return of the Hire Vehicle to the Hire Car Company, subject to the Hire Car Company’s terms and conditions. The Hire Vehicle should keep You mobile. Although We hope to provide You with a Hire Vehicle that is a similar physical size to Your vehicle,We do not guarantee that this will occur. Therefore, Your Hire Vehicle may not be the same as Your own vehicle in terms of its size, type, value or status. Thirdly I paid for fully comprehensive cover in Europe as requested for the agreed period. Section G – Foreign Use Gi Use Abroad Subject to Our consent and to the payment of any additional premium requested,We will issue an International Motor Insurance Certificate/Green Card in respect of Your Car. This Policy will then provide the same level of cover as You have in the Territorial Limits for the agreed period: (a) In any country specified (and not deleted) in the Green Card. (b) In direct connection with the transit by sea, rail or air between such countries by a recognised carrier. Gii European Union (E.U.) Compulsory Cover We will provide the minimum insurance to allow You to use Your Car: (a) In any member country of the E.U. (b) In any other country which the Commission of the E.U. is satisfied has made arrangements to meet the requirements of Article 7(2) of the E.C. Directive on Insurance of Civil Liberties arising from the use of Motor Vehicles (no. 72/166/CEE). To me it seems clear I should have replacement car hire in europe. In red you can see the terms I am referring to. How would this be interpreted I have hire car cover in Europe or not?

I think it would be unlikely and unreasonable to expect the dealer to assist when the OP was out of the country in France? Equally I think it would be fair to only notify them on return as no work was carried out other than a diagnosis? Sorry!

The OP didn't mention he had had it repaired only diagnosed.

Any opinions on using loss of enjoyment? Am I correct in making the case for it although it is as I have said previously common place in Holiday contracts I have seen that this type of non pecuniary loss has been considered. Is my use of loss of enjoyment weakened because it wasn't a specifically "holiday" contract? A judge may take the opinion it was a consumer contract for cover abroad (beakdown recovery) which would generally be taken to cover holidaying in europe when driving abroad. therefore any non performance would amount to a loss of enjoyment. does my argument persuade?

That's excellent Mightymouse thank you. Yes they were well aware I virtually begged them to consider the circumstances and err in my favour because of it. Can I use the freedom of information act to get copies of all the telephone conversations I know they have them from communications since?

There are several issues I can clarify: The holiday trip was booked independently by myself ie I booked the ferry etc to get to Europe. I had full European breakdown cover and I extended my policy to fully comp in Europe. Both afforded me a car there is no dispute on this now but the insurer at the time disputed this. Because of this they breached their contract and failed to recover me or provide a replacement vehicle. Because of this I was deprived of transport to continue with my holiday. If they had of fulfilled their contract then I would not have been affected. I'll also quote this. The holiday was in itself a one off event, it is one of the events below. The someone to blame is the insurer for not providing the insured(myself) with the contractual support paid for. Money can't make it better but nor will doing nothing and letting them get away with it. The following cases also highlight examples where a situation cannot be cured or a replacement purchased yet they were compensated this is related to holidays Jarvis v Swan’s Tours [1973] QB 233) These are not Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 Farley v Skinner [2001] 3 WLR 899 I am considering the following case Milner v Carnival Plc (t/a Cunard) [2010] EWCA Civ 389 (Lawtel, 20 April), where the Court of Appeal set out comprehensive and helpful guidance on the assessment of damages." Which is why I asked about the loss of enjoyment being pertinent. "Lord Justice Ward stressed that damages awarded under this head needed to be consistent with damages awarded in other cases. He considered that awards in other holiday claims would not be particularly good comparables, as the facts in such cases were infinitely different. However, in paragraph 37 of his judgment he went on to refer to different ‘brackets’ of awards which had been extracted from other decisions by counsel for Carnival, showing that awards were highest for holidays involving a marriage abroad (where awards had ranged from £4,360 to £4,406 after adjustment for inflation), then for honeymoons (£321 to £1,890), then for special holidays (£264 to £1,161), and finally for ‘run of the mill’ holidays (£83 to £876)." In this case the holiday was terminated by agreement there were no consequential losses this is not the case in my instance. Courts can be unreliable but the ombudsman from what I have read more so. I hope so! No I am intending to pursue for more, the amounts you are referring to are for holidays. This was rather more than a holiday, This is the case, if they had I would not be in the position I find myself nor would I have suffered at the time. They behaved disgracefully it is not simply a breach of contract but how they behaved and continue to do so. Therefore yes I will seek compensation to put me back in the position I would have been in had it not occurred, but given the damage it caused to me in distress and the irreplaceable time and event I believe compensation for loss of enjoyment is fully deserved. My main concern on loss of enjoyment was that, is it or isn't it a ‘a major or important object of the contract’. This is the case in a holiday as in the quote from ZOOTSCOOT above, that thread was about a holiday booking, but does breakdown and fully comp car insurance fall in this bracket. In so much as I took out the cover to ensure I had no loss of enjoyment, if I had a breakdown, accident, the vehicle was stolen etc I could then carry on with my 'holiday', then I believe it does as it seems to in the 2 non holiday cases cited above. I would be interested to hear views on how 'remoteness' may affect my position if at all? and further on compensation examples. I am sincerely grateful for your time and views, even if I disagree with some it enables me to formulate my opinions, thank you.

I concur with that.