Update: Barclays have advised that unfortunately as the contract obligates SCS to supply materials and not fit said materials (regardless of if they supply the fitter), then in this case Section 75 cannot be used. That said, what Barclays are doing is taking this down as an official complaint and are going to send it to SCS themselves. They have advised once issued then SCS have 40 days in which to respond. If they do not, or do not respond satisfactorily, then I will have the option of taking this to the ombudsman who would be able to investigate the wider case more thoroughly. So long and short, not far from where I was originally, but maybe the official note of complain will be enough to stir SCS into offering a more satisfactory response. Otherwise, I may indeed have to take the fitter/SCS to small claims court.

Barclays partner finance. I've launched a section 75 claim.

I did wonder if that was the case, SCS are hiding behind the contract which basically absolves them of all responsibility if it goes wrong, however that doesn't strike me as right. Regardless of whether I had to pay the contractor direct, this was still a service organised by them. The downside is they can't replace themselves, as they don't have anything my wife wants, and as the vinyl needs replaced, the carpet will be going as well, which they argue has now been resolved (yes but it wasnt for over a year, and its still connected with the vinyl) I do have some photos, which I have supplied to SCS previously. That being said additional fitting attempted repair work has been done since, so I will take some more if I'm required to. As my flooring was paid for by finance, a guy over on MSE suggested I make a Section 75 claim against SCS. Am going to try this first and will move to Small Claims if it doesn't go ahead, I'd guess successful SCC would potentially offer a higher payout but be more long winded! Would SCS really be covered if their contract basically absolves them of responsibility with the fitter and they argue its the fitter's issue, or would this fall under unfair contract/supplied services?

Hi Guys, Hope you can give us a little advise. We moved into our property December 2013, and went with SCS, they organised the fitter as seems to generally be the case and all was well. Or that's what we thought up until fit. The fitter did a very, very poor job, and we've been working with SCS to try and get this resolved for over 2 years. The original fitter came again out once shortly after the original visit, repaired a few issues and tried to fob us off saying let it lie and it'll sort itself out, as time went by more and more flaws became glaringly obvious and with the fact he'd been quite willing to bluff, lie, SCS and do a bad job we completely lost faith that'd he'd do the job properly, as he never seemed to want to fix everything fully, just fire fight small issues, we went back to SCS to try and get this progressed. SCS dragged its heels and would go quiet, sometimes for weeks and months when trying to get this all resolved to which I'd have to chase and actually contact head office a number of times, as we stand now, we've had 2 alternate fitters and something like 9 or so visits trying to get the flooring into the condition it should have been after the initial fit. The first replacement fitter managed to get the carpet into an acceptable state approximately a year and a quarter/half after original fit, dubbed the vinyl/silicon a write off. The second fitter managed to remove some of the silicon and make some improvements, also inevitably reached conclusion the original vinyl fit and silicon job was so poor he'd not be able to repair it with the materials in place without a refit. He has also left it in a state with the silicon partly removed around the property, as he knew he could not finish the job and it would need to essentially be refitted. Both of these alternate fitters have left after the attempts with the opinion the original fit/finish was so bad it couldn't be corrected and the original fitter had done a very very bad job overall. (it has seriously been over 2 years and 9 visits, so that should give you some idea...) After over two years of me fighting to get this resolved, my wife is completely fed up with the flooring which was originally selected to be matching and stylistically consistant across both vinyl and carpet, and wants to replace the entire lot. SCS were willing to consider trying to get the vinyl replaced, after the experience we've had, my wife wants to move away to tiles and have a completely fresh start on the property. Unfortunately SCS seems to have a smaller flooring range than they did when we first selected them, and they don't have anything right now she is fond of, or any tiling at all. As this is the situation, SCS have offered £500 as a settlement towards the vinyl only (against a costing on the vinyl of around £750 apparently), or to provide the fitters details so we could essentially take him to small claims court to try and recover the entire figure that has been paid(around £2000), with the understanding this may be a long process and maybe not even successful. They have also offered to give us the £500 (to which they'd treat it as case closed/settlement as far as they are concerned) and still provide the original fitters details so we could chase him for the outstanding figure, with the awareness the £500 may affect the outcome of any case. Where I'm trying to go really is, where do we stand in terms of getting this resolved in the laws eyes? Even the carpet was not to an acceptable standard over a year after fit, and we have gone through a lot of stress, time and effort (and around 10 fitter visits) trying to get the property to the state it should have been after the first visit... SCS are falling back on they have just supplied the materials and the contract after supply of materials is with the fitter, and that the £500 is out of goodwill due to the time this has taken. That said, this seems insulting as the £500 is not even the full vinyl cost, nor does it cover we are going to have to pay someone to finish removing the poor silicon work before even fitting new flooring as the last fitter has left this partially complete. Additionally, SCS are essentially the service provider and have supplied this fitter, he wasn't chosen by us this would seem to place more responsibility on them for the quality of his work (I seem to remember hearing some time ago an unfair contract cannot be enforced?). If John Lewis subcontracted to a 3rd party to do work, and they fluffed up, I'd expect John Lewis to make good, not to have to chase their 3rd party to court... I'm torn on where to go, part of me says just take the £500 and start work elsewhere, but with the state of the silicon and flooring, and also the potential affect on a small claims court against the original fitter of accepting this £500 , I'm not even sure I should; or that I should have to. Anyone experienced similar, or has advice?

Sorry I do appreciate this has also been posted under the online stores section but Im getting incredibly stressed by the whole procedure and it's absolutely doing my proverbial head in, so any help and advice would be appreciated Without wanting to go too techy on people, I bought a laptop from Alienware approximately 2 months ago. The laptop was fine for about 2-3 weeks before one of the parts developed a fault, rendering the laptop unusable (less than 30 days after arrival of the goods, and quite possibly within 30 days of ordering the goods, the goods took about 1 1/2 weeks to come). Customer service was appalling and it took 3-4 weeks for the replacement part to come out to myself, despite initial promises of less than a week and various other hassle I had with them. When the parts arrived, it turned out they had sent faulty parts, which I was less than happy with. I was unhappy, but aware that under SOGA I was required to let them attempt to repair the laptop so the machine was sent back to thier Ireland base. The 'repair' process took approximately 2 weeks, however upon arrival the machine turned out to be dead on arrival, with no display, virtually the fault it had gone in with and the whole process had been over. The machine has now been out of action 6 weeks out of the period I have owned it. My understanding is that as a repair has been attempted; they no longer sell the machine I own (nor have they offered a replacement), and the next comparable model to the one I bought is more expensive, so replacement is unavailable, that under the sales of good acts (varying) I am entitled to a refund (at least a partial one to exclude the several weeks use I did get, especially as I experienced the fault in the first 30 days). They are trying to basically get them to keep returning the machine for repair until it works, which simply isnt acceptable, and they have already had the option to repair the machine. Can anyone help me out over this, or at least provide some pointers?

Without wanting to go too techy on people, I bought a laptop from Alienware approximately 2 months ago. The laptop was fine for about 2-3 weeks before one of the parts developed a fault, rendering the laptop unusable. Customer service was appalling and it took 3-4 weeks for the replacement part to come out to myself, despite initial promises of less than a week and various other hassle I had with them. When the parts arrived, it turned out they had sent faulty parts, which I was less than happy with. I was unhappy, but aware that under SOGA I was required to let them attempt to repair the laptop so the machine was sent back to thier Ireland base. The 'repair' process took approximately 2 weeks, however upon arrival the machine turned out to be dead on arrival, with no display, virtually the fault it had gone in with and the whole process had been over. The machine has now been out of action 6 weeks out of the period I have owned it. My understanding is that as a repair has been attempted; they no longer sell the machine I own (nor have they offered a replacement), and the next comparable model to the one I bought is more expensive, so replacement is unavailable, that under the sales of good acts (varying) I am entitled to a refund (at least a partial one to exclude the several weeks use I did get, especially as I experienced the fault in the first 30 days). They are trying to basically get them to keep returning the machine for repair until it works, which simply isnt acceptable, and they have already had the option to repair the machine. Can anyone help me out over this, or at least provide some pointers?