Thanks Andy. I'm glad it's not just me who see's this as lenient. I have done some reading and found various examples in the High Court about failure to serve witness statements on time and the consequences... 29th June is less than 2 weeks before the date of the hearing... So it's likely that Amazon's sols will file now. I think the DJ knows this too but it goes to show the blatant disregard Amazon have for the process and the case. But then I also see it another way, maybe the order was made this way as the DJ actually wants to hear the case and see what Amazon and their sols have to say for themselves. I'll update the thread once I have / if I have their WS

Ok just had an update. It appears the court have not applied sanctions at all and instead have chosen to do an Unless Order (N34) giving the defendant until 16:00 on 29/06/2018 to file their WS. Is it just me or is that overly lenient? Their WS is currently almost 1 month late. Should I just accept this or is it worth speaking to the court again?

I assisted a couple of young people with a very similar issues for the same product and have also had it myself and had similar problems in cases with these forms. Make sure as part of your complaint that you require to have all your bills readjusted to account for the BT Basic Plan. They should do this automatically now the CEO is involved. You can also request to have any overpayments once the bills are adjusted credited back to your BT Account or Bank Account. I would always go for the latter. Also watch the usage of that 12GB. If you exceed it on a regular basis, they will upgrade your package to BT Broadband. You can still keep BT Basic line rental. But they will put your broadband on the Standard ADSL tariff. As a side note. This is a great scheme for people on low incomes / state support. But I think the forms they send are a very outdated way of doing things. They also don't allow enough time for the form to arrive, be read and signed and returned. As long as it is eventually returned with proof of postage they do accept it and readjust bills, even if it's 2 weeks - 1 month late. But it might take some pressing on the Customer Service team to readjust the bills. When applying for the Warm Home Discount with Gas and Electricity providers, they don't require such forms and it can all be done over the phone. The only thing that goes on the phone really is the National Insurance number of the account holder and a couple of tick boxes. Something that could be done over the phone or on a website. Virgin Media is certainly the better network operator. But currently their cheapest package is £33.00 a month at the time of writing for Broadband Only. That's steep considering that BT Basic + Broadband is currently £9.95 a month and includes £1.50 worth of calls every month capped at £10.00 a month. So your bill in any 1 month can be no more than £19.95 for an unlimited amount of 01, 02 and 03 calls and UK mobiles. Also what they don't tell you, is you can have a BT Basic Landline for £5.10 per month and then choose broadband from another provider which may have a more generous Bandwidth limit. Glad you got this sorted, but thought I'd leave this here for reference for those doing Google Searches and facing similar issues.

If you take a look at my Amazon thread under General Legal here: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?478052-Amazon-faulty-laptop-from-USA-issing-court-claim-under-CRA&p=5082594&viewfull=1#post5082594 You can see a real example of doing exactly this. There is some guidance here that Andy kindly linked in that thread: https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/creditor-and-claimant-questions-and-answers/can-I-change-the-defendant-name.aspx If they file an N244 Application to change the defendants name without a hearing, This will cost the claimant £100 It will be cheaper for them to discontinue the current claim and file against your father for any amount less than £1,500.01 regardless as to how the case was filed - https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees Hope that helps you understand the procedure better

In my opinion it is only ever acceptable to 'spit' is if an insect flew into your mouth and your body reacts instinctively. Even then I'm sure most people would try and do so in their hand or a tissue. I remember being told by an exam invigilator when I was around 15 that spitting is one of the fastest ways to spread Tuberculosis after witnessing a fellow pupil do this in front of the exam hall. As for the penalty, I will be blunt and say I don't have an awful lot of sympathy. You could appeal but I think you should chalk this up to experience and not repeat this in the manner you have told us. Whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing, you could have gone to the toilet in the premises you just left? You could have asked for a glass of water? Or asked someone for a tissue for your nose and disposed of it in the bin - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/catch-it-bin-it-kill-it-campaign-to-help-reduce-flu-infections I have a medical condition that causes spontaneous vomiting with very little warning as well as incontinence and can concur from experience that this is a valid defence. I have no idea how you can stop yourself from vomiting. If anyone has any techniques then I'm all ears. But sadly I have done exactly this within about 15 metres of 2 Police Officers... Whilst I certainly had to account for my actions as it was a Friday Evening in the city center and the initial thoughts were Drunk and Disorderly followed by drug abuse. I was not given an FPN or arrested. To put some context behind this, the bins in the area had been removed for security reasons as there was a large event going on in the area. The Public Toilets were around 10 minutes walk away and may not have been open and there was no 'area' that was the perfect area to vomit in. Back to the topic at hand though, it seems this was a choice rather than an uncontrollable event and I don't think you'll get anywhere apart from frustration by challenging this. If your finances are such that you cannot afford to pay, then you need to contact the council and provide them a statement of means. This is a bye law offence so this is a criminal matter and not a civil matter. Ignore the penalty and they will very likely pursue it. Byelaw 8 has a Fine Scale of Level 2 (Up to 500) so this could have been much worse for you. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-rule-and-government-model-byelaw-8

As someone who is legally license free and has been for nearly 10 years. I can tell you that TV Licensing have b*gg*r all powers. I would strongly advise against entering into any correspondence with them whether by letter or on the doorstep. You are under no legal obligation to do so or to furnish TVL with any personal details. This includes if they caution you under the Police and Criminal Evidence act. Those letters that threaten court action and search warrants? Scary aren't they?? Well no.. not really. Read them carefully, they are very cleverly worded psychological threatogram letters. Full of "we may" "we could" etc etc. I've had over 100 of those letters and still have never had a Search Warrant served on me. I actually sent a Freedon of Information act to the BBC a couple of years back and asked how many people were fined the 1,000 they spout on their letters in a 12 month period. It was 8 people. That is just the maximum penalty a magistrate could order for the office under the Communications Act 2003. Most offences tried and prosecuted under CA 2003 are in the region of a couple hundred pounds depending on circumstances. If you are ever caught off guard with TVL and a caution is read out to you. Exercise your right to Legal Representation and say nothing. This cannot be held against you until you've spoken with a Solicitor and it is your legal right. Also under no circumstances should you sign the record of interview form. They will use that as an admission of guilt and deliberately try and stitch you up. They cannot force you to sign the form. But the golden rule incase you hadn't gotten the point. No contact. Period. File their letters away in the bin or "return them sender - addressee unknown" and post it back to them. I do this deliberately as they don't write to me by my name. When they can write to me using my name, I shall reconsider my response. Just to add on a few other things as well. You only need a TV License if you are doing any of the following: Watching Live TV i.e. TV Being broadcast right now. Watching programs on the BBC iPlayer Actual ownership of a Television for the use of a DVD Player, Radio, Games Console, CCTV or for use as a Computer Monitor* does not require a license. *If you are watching Live Broadcasts or BBC iPlayer on a computer/mobile phone/games console etc etc then you DO need a TV License. My understanding is that a Search Warrant must be applied for under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) for TV Licensing to touch a laptop / computer and that the Communications Act 2003 does not cover this. So if you did by some miraculous form of bad luck end up with TVL on the doorstep with a SW and they ask you to demonstrate there are no live broadcasts etc then you are well within your legal rights to deny that request. If they tried without your permission this would be an offence under the Computer Misues Act 1990.

I do qualify for Help with Fees so this isn't too much of an issue if it would save time. I have now just sent the Court an email informally asking them to impose their own sanctions from the order and strike the defence out. I'll keep an eye on my email and post the outcome.

Thanks Andy. I gave the Court a call today and it appears they have NOT filed their WS with the court. Is it worth making an N244 application to strike out the defence and request summary judgment as per Fons HF –v- Corporal Ltd & Pillar Securitisation [2013] EWHC 1278 (Ch) Or should I just send the court an email advising of the situation and request sanctions. Thanks

Submitted my WS on 24/05/2018 after getting a final OK from Andy. (Was due by 25/05/2018) Also sent in the trial fee help with fees form so all set for a hearing on 10th July 2018. Hwoever, in a twist to the proceedings. It appears Amazon's Solicitors have not served me with their witness statement on time... Not sure how I want to go about this now... Obviously at this late stage I don't want to make a fatal mistake or appear as unreasonable. But on the flip side I am a litigant in person and Amazon have instructed an Internatonal firm of Solicitors who breached PAP right at the start and now failed to comply with N157 order. So do I send the defendants sols a polite email notifying them of their mistake and requesting disclosure of their WS? Or do I notify the court and request sanctions for failure to serve a WS on time? I'm on the fence for what to do. My gut tells me they are now playing games and have no regard for legislation and instructions of the DJ. So I should now remove all offers of settlement from the table and request sanctions from the court. But the other side they have far more resources than I do and will likely find a way to show me as being unreasonable. That said they are sols and should know the law and the rules...

Thanks for the answers. I don't believe naming companies involved in cases like these is a breach of CAG rules unless there is some embargo or injunction in place. However the site team knows more about this than I do so don't quote me on that. The reason I asked what service you purchased is because certain services that Heart Internet offer, their response would be correct. For example if you rented a Dedicated Server with root access that was unmanaged. The customer would be fully responsible for this type of problem. However from reading the Reseller Hosting page you've linked, assuming you are using their simple web hosting (i.e. servers managed by Heart Internet) and not an unmanaged VPS / Dedicated Server then I would say undoubtedly that you have some form of case. What is interesting is the following: We're responsible for... Server hardware and software Power and network availability Server security Webserver and mail server configuration So all you need to worry about is... Setting up hosting packages Scheduling your website back ups Setting up customer accounts Adding domains to your packages My emphasis in bold. So by the sounds of what you have written, if my understanding is correct. They are failing to provide the service for which you are paying for. If you hover over the 2 points I've bolded you see the following: Security: We’re responsible for ensuring the security of our hosting platform and protecting it from Internet-based threats. We will actively monitor services to prevent intrusions and ensure all server software is kept up-to-date with the latest patches. Webserver and Mail Server Configuration: We’re responsible for configuring the webserver and mail server. We will provide you the facility to add hosting packages, domains, and to allow your customers to manage their email and hosting accounts. Which it sounds like they have allowed to become compromised and thus failing to provide the service you are paying for. Now depending on how you have your account setup, you may have a business account or personal one, which will affect how you go about tackling this. Assuming you have a personal account, then you could bring your claim to the Web Host under Consumer Rights Act 2015 for failure to deliver the advertised service. I personally would tempted to claim from when the problem started. As for consequential losses, I'm not 100% sure if you could claim for these so the experts would need to advise on that. I do have alot of experience working with Web Hosts and have successfully sued 2 web hosts for failure to deliver advertised service and won both cases. So it is definitely possible to hold them to account. For now though, I personally would write a very strongly worded letter to the CEO Craig Cotter demanding a refund for services rendered since this problem began. His email is: [email protected] Don't waffle too much, just tell him the problems you've faced, how the support team think this is not their problem, how they are failing to deliver the advertised service etc. Give him 14 days to respond. If you don't get a satisfactory response then you could make a claim against Heart Internet using Money Claim Online.

Presumably to wipe the £350 charge for equipment and obtain the £90 owed to the OP? I would personally write to the CEO. I've done this before with a Virgin Media Business account after a severely botched install and had good success. Failing that you could take the equipment with you and order the bags to your new house? I wouldn't worry too much about capping the COAX cables. Every apartment I've lived in with VM has never had those things capped. When I moved house and took my services with me, they did not provide me a cap for the old address. But told me to take the router when I moved.

As BF asks, it would help to know if the company are UK based, USA based or Europe based as this will alter how you do things moving forward. Some web hosts have head offices in the US or Europe, but they do have UK companies for any UK operations and datacenters they have. You mention that you rent a server. Could you also clarify if this is a "Fully Managed" server or "Unmanaged" server? I'm a little confused on your explanation of how the IMAP webmail is provided. Is this something the ISP provide as a completely seperate product? Or are they providing you with something like Plesk where you have a web interface that does everything for you? Again it would be helpful to know if this a Managed Plesk or Unmanaged. It would also help if you could name the Web Host in question if you don't mind?

Thank you SuperVillian. I have taken your advice onboard and reworded things. I've put some of the arguments at the end and explained the process over the last 2 years in detail. Is it worth expanding on the faults more? Anything I should add or remove? Many thanks in advance 1. From my understanding, the defendant believes the claim should have been filed against Amazon Services Europe SARL rather than Amazon UK Services Ltd. The claimant obtained Amazon’s details from Companies House by way of a search for “Amazon.co.uk” (Exhibit 1) and filed the claim in the belief they were the correct entity. 2. The Claimant altered the claim and changed the defendant from Amazon UK Services Ltd to Amazon Services Europe SARL by way of an N244 Application without a hearing, using the CPR 17.1.(2) (b). procedure. This application was granted by Judge xxx on xx / xx / xxxx and there were no objections. 3. Had Amazon UK Services Ltd followed the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules, the above points 1 and 2 would have been completely avoided. In addition, the defendant would not have put the claimant in the position where they had to further waste the courts time with an N244 Application. Amazon received my Letter Before Claim on xx / xx / xxxx (Exhibit 2) but did not respond in any capacity. (Something the defendant denies in their defence) Having provided proof of postage and delivery receipt, the claimant believes the defendant is mistaken. 4. The claimant believes that Amazon are the correct defendants in this claim, as they allowed the claimant to facilitate the procurement of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop (The “Laptop”) via the defendants website Amazon.co.uk – Amazon were advertising the laptop for sale on behalf of a company called HIDevolution UK. 5. The timeline of events throughout the whole of the transaction are as follows: 6.1 The claimant procured an ASUS ROG GL552VW via the amazon.co.uk website on xx / xx / xxxx at a cost of £2,054.11 including postage and packaging. This was received by the claimant on xx / xx / xxxx 6.2 Almost immediately the Laptop started to develop various faults. One such fault was the keys detaching themselves from the keyboard as shown in Exhibit X. 6.3 The laptop also had an RJ45 LAN Port that was unusable because the laptop would produce a BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) error. This would cause the laptop to lose any unsaved documents / game progress / mid downloaded files. An example of this process is shown in Exhibit X. 6.4 The Laptop Battery life was poor and in some cases lasted less than 1 hour. To put this into context for the assistance of the court. The claimants HP ProBook 4725s which is nearly 7 years old has a battery life in excess of 2 hours. 6.5 The laptop refused to run some games in Full Screen mode without producing a very strange ‘flickering’ that after several minutes resulted in the user receiving intense eye strain and a headache. This is a problem related to the Intel HD Graphics module within the laptop and is documented in Exhibit X on the Intel User Forums. 6.6 On xx / xx / xxxx The Claimant signalled their intention to return the laptop as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Which is inside the 90 days returns policy of Amazon A-Z Guarentee) and were advised that as 30 days had passed they were only able to offer a repair. The claimant insisted on a replacement as is their statutory right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 6.7 The company HIDevolution UK requested that the claimant pay $99.00 to return the faulty laptop to them. The claimant under the belief they were dealing with a UK company investigated further and then became aware that they were dealing with an American Company and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (a vital piece of statutory consumer protection legislation) was not going to apply, thus putting the claimant at considerable disadvantage. 6.8 The claimant did not have the $99.00 available and therefore was unable to send the laptop back. At no point did Amazon explain that the claimant was eligible to file an A-Z guarantee as the seller was attempting to charge return delivery for faulty goods. This was only explained to the claimant AFTER the timelimit for this had passed. 6.9 On 05 / 10 / 2016 the Laptop was returned to HIDevolution at the expense of the claimant. The claimant entered into a contract with DHL to return the laptop to HIDevolution in the USA at their Torrance, Calafornia Service Centre. (Exhibit X) 6.10 The claimant became aware that laptop had not left Heathrow and contacted DHL for an update. The laptop was held in DHL Customs Clearance for reasons unknown to the claimant. When the claimant contacted DHL for an explanation, they required the claimant to send an e-mail stating that “no license was required.” (Exhibit X) which was done on 07/10/2016 (Exhibit X) 6.11 HIDevolution received the laptop on xx / xx / xxxx and provided the claimant with photographs of the condition of the laptop. It was obvious that the laptop was been damaged in transit. The claimant immediately requested photographs of the packaging which HIDevolution had already disposed of, putting the claimant at further disadvantage. 6.12 A claim was raised with DHL and they requested a quote for the repair of the laptop. On xx / xx / xxxx I contacted HIDevolution advising them I required a repair quote. They did not respond. Eventually HIDevolution made a generic response asking “Can you give us an update on how to proceed?” and it was obvious the person dealing with the ticket had not read the ticket nor my previous response of requesting a repair quote, as the claimant had been very clear on what was required. 6.13 Further emails were sent to HIDevolution on 16/10/2016, 20/10/2016, 31/10/2016 and 02/11/2016 and eventually the Claimant became so frustrated that they proceeded to make another formal complaint to Amazon on 05/11/2017 6.14 On 05/11/2017 a member of staff at Amazon named Deepam said the following key statements: 6.14.1 “In the unlikely event that the Seller doesn't provide a satisfactory response to your query, or if a response isn't received within 2 business days, we offer our A-to-z Safe Buying Guarantee for your protection.” – To put this into better context, this email was sent on 05/11/2016 regarding an order made 08/11/2015, this is 363 days after the transaction sale and Amazon have previously stated that A-Z Guarentee applies for 90 days only. So this was both unhelpful and incorrect advice. Therefore this statement is irrelevant to the claim. 6.14.2 “Please be assure that seller will contact you and will issue a full refund as soon as possible. However, if you haven't received a refund or reply from seller please let us know and we'll assist you with every possibilities.” – The claimant believes legal action would not have been necessary if this statement were an accurate reflection of events post 05/11/2018. 6.15 On 06/11/2016 the claimant was advised the following by Manoj at Amazon: 6.15.1 “Please be assured that you will receive the refund.” – To date the defendant believes this statement is an apology for poor customer service as per their defence point x.x.x However the claimant strong disagrees as the wording is very specific. 6.15.2 “In case if you haven't receive any satisfactory response. You can file a claim here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/a-z-guarantee/submit-claim.html” – The A-Z Guarentee that the claimant is apparently inelidgable for is mentioned again and is of no relevance at this point. 6.16 The claimant contacted Amazon again on 26/05/2017 and they again advised the claimant about the A-Z guarantee and then advised the claimant they had passed a message onto the Seller to issue a refund. The Amazon representative Jefrin attempted to discredit the claimant for using inappropriate language. While reviewing the who correspondence provided in Exhibit X. It is clear that this allegation is unfounded and the claimant wishes this to be noted and the allegation withdrawn as they are of good character. 6.17 From the above points, it is the claimants’ belief the defendants are making the rules up as they go along to suit them, which would constitute the provisions of an Unfair Contract should the Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply in this case. The defendants have consistently advised of schemes and options that are of no benefit or are not available to the claimant. There are also inconsistencies in their advice where one agent says the A-Z Guarantee applies only if the seller is contacted within 14 days (Exhibit X), yet other agents have advised this limit is 30 days. Exhibits X 6.18 On 08/11/2016 the claimant contacted the defendant for an update on the case as by this time, HIDevolution had ignored the claimant entirely and had held the laptop within their service center for over 1 month. In this email (Exhibit X) I advised the defendants on the following points 6.18.1 “I don't want the repaired one back anymore as it's been out of my care for over 1 month and the warranty has expired in their care. This makes me nervous as if they send the laptop back and the repair is not of satisfactory standards they will claim that it's out of warranty and they will not assist further.” 6.18.2 The claimant had forseen this being a potential issue and, regrettably, is exactly what happened. The replacement was rejected and HIDevolution advised the following on 31/05/2017: 6.18.3 “but please understand the product is now out of warranty and any repairs would need to be paid for.” 6.19 By this time the claimant had become immensely frustrated and lodged a complaint with the Amazon Executive Office on 11/05/2017 to escalate the complaints procedure. Exhibit X. The claimant was ignored when requesting a refund of solely the delivery charge. The claimant repeatedly had to ask the defendant on several occasions (Exhibits X, Y and Z) directly for an answer, as the defendants did not respond to this query. Considering the catalogue of broken promises, inconsistent information and incorrect advice it is the claimants belief that this was quite deliberate to avoid dealing with the case. 6.20 Amazon denied the complaint and refused to enter into any further correspondence despite when asked. The claimant advised of their intention to make a claim against Amazon UK Services Ltd on 15/05/2017. This was a clear opportunity to advise the claimant to claim against Amazon Services Europe SARL. The defendant failed to respond to this email and to the postal Letter before action. 6.21 In the majority of correspondence the defendants have concluded with tag lines such as “I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one.” And “Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk” yet the defendants claim that I did business with HIDevolution. This is confusing to the claimant as it is unclear exactly what capacity the defendants operate in. 6.22 The defendants claim that the claimant is ineligible for any relief because of their company’s policies. However these same policies are not applied to the seller and they are allowed to mistreat the claimant with no repercussions and the claimant is simply told they have no case. 7 From the above version of events, which the claimant believes to be an accurate and true reflection of events. The claimant asserts the following factors: 7.1 Amazon allowed the company HIDevolution to appear on their website as HIDevolution UK with a UK Address (Exhibit 3). This gives a very clear message that the company is UK based. When the claimant notified Amazon of intentions to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it transpired that the company was infact based in the United States of America, where the UK Law of Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply. Thus leaving the claimant at a serious disadvantage. In correspondence the defendant was advised to contact Trading Standards and the Retail Ombudsman, who would not have any jurisdiction against HIDevolution. 7.2 The Claimant would not have entered into the contract had the correct details of the company been listed on Amazon.co.uk As they would have known that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would not apply to this transaction. 7.3 The defendant rejects that the claimant filed a return within the Amazon A-Z Guarantee time period. This is incorrect as the claimant did infact create a return on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) within the 90 day period. The claimant (Still believing he was still dealing with a UK Company) Was surprised to discover that he was expected to return the laptop to a USA Address. But in order to comply with the buyers obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Where the buyer must give the seller a single opportunity to repair / replace before issuing a refund – Exhibit X) the claimant began saving money to prepare to send the laptop back to what they believed was the manufacturers address. At no point did the defendants advise filing an A-Z guarantee claim within this 90 day period. This only happened after the event. 7.4 The claimant is of the belief that the defendant and the defendants solicitors believe that HIDevolution UK is a UK company. Therefore the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to Amazon and instead to HIDevolution UK. In order to ensure the defendant and defendants solicitors are aware, the claimant sent an e-mail on 25/04/2018 asking about early settlement opportunities to avoid further use of the Courts time and to make them aware that they were allowing a USA company to masquerade on their Marketplace Platform as a UK company. 7.5 The defendants solicitors have responded to my request for early settlement on xx / xx / xxxx and advised the claimant that the defendants have no interest in settling the case. Furthermore the solicitors instructed that I am no longer to contact the defendant directly and relay all correspondence to them. This would breach the order of Judge xxxx made on xx / xx / xxxx where the claimant must file the witness statement with ALL parties to the claim and the court. The claimant chose not to respond but for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules will send copies to both the defendant and defendants solicitors. 7.6 Amazon advised the claimant that they would be refunding him on several occasions or that HIDevolution would refund the claimant. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) and then later backtracked and provided a generic template response denying the claimant the sort after relief. The claimant puts the defendant to strict proof as to what authority they had to enforce such a request against the seller and why they seem unwilling to sanction HIDevolution and/or assist the claimant for ignoring the instruction multiple times. 7.7 The claimant is aware that Amazon have taken responsibility for poor quality products by the same seller on at least 2 occasions as listed on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) Therefore the claimant does not understand why he is being treated differently. It is also apparent that the seller is no longer supplying goods on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) 7.8 The defendant state in their defence that the claimant did not file an A-Z guarantee claim within the 90 day period. The claimant followed the usual procedure to return goods on the Amazon.co.uk website as documented in exhibit X. This was well within the 90 day timeframe. The claimant was not aware they needed to escalate the case to Amazon under the A-Z guarantee. When they found out this was the correct action to take, despite a return being requested within the 90 days, the claimant was advised he was out of time. 7.9 The claimant has found several examples of A-Z claims being filed outside of the 90 day period on Amazon Seller Forums. One such case was issued 3 years from the sale of goods. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) This leads the claimant to believe that Amazon could do more to help in this situation but are choosing not to. 7.10 The defendants’ behaviour was highlighted in a Guardian Newspaper article on xx / xx / xxxx and the case for Mr Doe was resolved after media attention. However from the claimants own case it is apparent that this behaviour continues and Amazon have no interest in enforcement on sellers to adopt the Amazon ethos of a Customer Service Focused Company. It is also worth nothing that in Mr Does case, he was dealing with a UK seller so would not have unknowingly forfeited his statutory consumer rights. 7.11 The Claimant was advised to file a charge back or claim against their credit card provider under section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. However this advice given by the defendant to resolve the matter would fail based on payment not being made directly to the merchant. (Exhibit X) Thus causing a Section 75 claim to be irrelevant to this matter. The claimant believes the defendant is merely passing the buck and washing their hands of the case. 7.12 Although the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not have jurisdiction on a USA seller. It does require that goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Failure of components in a laptop valued at £2,054.11 within days of ownership cannot be argued as “fit for purpose” and “lasting a reasonable length of time”. 7.13 The defendants state that the discrepancy of the replacement laptop was not reported in a timely manner. They further state that the claimant allowed a delay of “nearly 6 months” described in their defence (Exhibit X). However this point is irrelevant as the Limitations Act 1980 allows the claimant to bring a claim within 6 years since delivery of the goods under simple contract. The claimant believes this was highlighted purely to embarrass their case and is a point that is irrelevant to this claim. a. The claimant wishes to inform all parties that the delay in notifying of rejection of goods was due to a house move around the time the replacement arrived (Which took in excess of 1 month to arrive) in December 2016. The laptop was not used by the claimant until they completed moving. During this time the claimant was also travelling to see a specialist for medical treatment on a regular basis. This is one of many conditions that persist to the present day. It is disappointing to note that the claimant does not enjoy good health. 7.14 The defendant has raised that the claimant was offered a replacement SSD drive and a partial delivery charge reimbursement. The claimant was unaware of this as they do not recall receiving notification of this email. Thus the offer was not accepted. In any case the claimant would have rejected the offer as it did not cover the full costs of the delivery charge incurred by the claimant. It also did not resolve other issues with the laptop that reappeared during use. 7.15 The defendant correctly state that although HIDevolution offered to cover return shipping costs, they offered to pay the delivery fee but refused to pay for the tracking and insurance. The claimant was not prepared to send the laptop at their own expense without insurance and tracking for obvious reasons. Ironically the laptop was damaged in transit and a claim was filed with DHL. However HIDevolution / Amazon failed to provide the claimant with the documents (namely a repair quote) requested by DHL to satisfy a claim. Therefore the claimant was prevented from claiming a refund on delivery charges from DHL. 7.16 It is the claimants belief that Amazon and their seller HIDevolution have been as obstructive as possible throughout the entire case from point of sale to the current legal action. The claimant believes that Amazon.co.uk must be held accountable for allowing the seller to blatantly flout Amazon Policies, yet seem to strictly apply to the customer unless they benefit the claimant in any way. 7.17 The claimant has evidenced various levels of contempt by the defendants by making assurances that were never followed through (Mainly refunds and closing of the matter). Providing conflicting information (14 days vs 30 days A-Z), advising of policies irrelevant to the case (A-Z guarantee) and refusal to accept responsibility for the delivery charges under their own policy. The claimant therefore believes he has entered into an unfair contract with the seller on Amazon.co.uk website because they were grossly misled as to what statutory rights they would forfeit while trading with a US seller pretending to be a UK seller. 7.20 The claimant suggests that in order to prevent similar buying experiences happening to other customers that Amazon be required to state that Consumer Rights Act 2015 does NOT apply when buying from an overseas seller and be required to “check a box” that they have understood that they are forfeiting a potential statutory right. 7.21 The defendant have also acted unfairly to the claimant by interpreting their own policy to suit them. They denied the claimant be entitled to relief for delivery charges despite this being covered in Amazon Marketplace policy (Exhibit X). They stated this needed to be filed within 90 days. However this is of little help when Amazon do not communicate this policy to the claimant until after the timelimit has expired. 7.22 The claimant believes they have followed all the correct procedures in conducting its case against the defendant and acted as reasonable as possible throughout. This is despite the defendants refusing to discuss the matter, put forward any sensible proposal of mediation, breaching Pre Action Protocol and refusing to participate in any Court Appointed Mediation. 7.23 The claimant seeks interest at the Statutory Rate of 8% per annum because they have been deprived of funds rightly theirs for in excess of 2½ years. The claimant would have been happy to waive the interest had Amazon settled the matter at an early stage as it is not the intention of the claimant to profit from this case, merely to see reimbursement of their losses. The claimant advised on intent of legal action several times and regrettably had to follow through and start Legal proceedings in the Small Claims Court. 8 The claimant makes it’s case as a litigant in person and asks the court to note this on the case file. 9 I certify the above is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge

Would love some advice on the witness statement please as it's due by 25th May 2018. (This Friday) thanks

First attempt at a witness statement: 1. I nuclearshark being the Claimant in this case will state as follows: 2. I make this witness statement in support of my claim against Amazon Services Europe (SARL) (“Amazon”) and in response to the defendants defence submitted on xx / xx / xxxx which was submitted to County Court Money Claims Centre 1. From my understanding, the defendant believes the claim should have been filed against Amazon Services Europe SARL rather than Amazon UK Services Ltd. The claimant obtained Amazon’s details from Companies House by way of a search for “Amazon.co.uk” (Exhibit 1) and filed the claim in the belief they were the correct entity. 2. The Claimant altered the claim and changed the defendant from Amazon UK Services Ltd to Amazon Services Europe SARL by way of an N244 Application without a hearing, using the CPR 17.1.(2) (b). procedure. This application was granted by Judge xxx on xx / xx / xxxx and there were no objections. 3. Had Amazon UK Services Ltd followed the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules, the above points 1 and 2 would have been completely avoided. In addition, the defendant would not have put the claimant in the position where they had to further waste the courts time with an N244 Application. Amazon received my Letter Before Claim on xx / xx / xxxx (Exhibit 2) but did not respond in any capacity. (Something the defendant denies in their defence) Having provided proof of postage and delivery receipt, the claimant believes the defendant is mistaken. 4. The claimant believes that Amazon are the correct defendants in this claim, as they allowed the claimant to facilitate the procurement of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop (The “Laptop”) via their website Amazon.co.uk 5. Furthermore to the above point 4. The claimant believes Amazon misrepresented the contract to the claimant, thus the contract formed was grossly unfair to the claimant, as it did not make clear that it removes their vital Consumer Rights Act 2015 protections. 6. Amazon allowed the company HIDevolution to appear on their website as HIDevolution UK with a UK Address (Exhibit 3). This gives a very clear message that the company is UK based. When the claimant notified Amazon of intentions to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it transpired that the company was infact based in the United States of America, where the UK Law of Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply. Thus leaving the claimant at a serious disadvantage. 7. The Claimant would not have entered into the contract had the correct details of the company been listed on Amazon.co.uk As they would have known that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would not apply to this transaction. 8. The defendant rejects that the claimant filed a return within the Amazon A-Z Guarantee time period. This is incorrect as the claimant did infact create a return on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) within the 90 day period. The claimant (Still believing he was still dealing with a UK Company) Was surprised to discover that he was expected to return the laptop to a USA Address. But in order to comply with the buyers obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Where the buyer must give the seller a single opportunity to repair / replace before issuing a refund – Exhibit X) the claimant began saving money to prepare to send the laptop back to what they believed was the manufacturers address. 9. The claimant is of the opinion that the defendant and the defendants solicitors believe that HIDevolution UK is a UK company. Therefore the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to Amazon and instead to HIDevolution UK. In order to ensure the defendant and defendants solicitors are aware, the claimant sent an e-mail on xx/xx/xxxx asking about early settlement opportunities to avoid further use of the Courts time and to make them aware that they were allowing a USA company to masquerade on their Marketplace Platform as a UK company. 10. The defendants solicitors have responded to my request for early settlement on xx / xx / xxxx and advised the claimant that Amazon have no interest in settling the case. Furthermore the solicitors instructed that I am no longer to contact the defendant directly and relay all correspondence to them. This would breach the order of Judge xxxx made on xx / xx / xxxx where the claimant must file the witness statement with ALL parties to the claim and the court. 11. Notwithstanding the above, Amazon advised the claimant that they would be refunding him on several occasions. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) and then later backtracked and provided a generic template response denying the claimant the sort after relief. 12. The claimant is aware that Amazon have taken responsibility for poor quality products by the same seller on at least 2 occasions as listed on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) Therefore the claimant does not understand why he is being treated differently. It is also apparent that the seller is no longer supplying goods on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) 13. The defendant state in their defence that the claimant did not file an A-Z guarantee claim within the 90 day period. The claimant followed the usual procedure to return goods on the Amazon.co.uk website as documented in exhibit X. This was well within the 90 day timeframe. The claimant was not aware they needed to escalate the case to Amazon under the A-Z guarantee. When they found out this was the correct action to take, despite a return being requested within the 90 days, the claimant was advised he was out of time. 14. The claimant has found several examples of A-Z claims being filed outside of the 90 day period on Amazon Seller Forums. One such case was issued 3 years from the sale of goods. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) This leads the claimant to believe that Amazon could do more to help in this situation but are choosing not to. 15. The defendants’ behaviour was highlighted in a Guardian Newspaper article on xx / xx / xxxx and the case for Mr Doe was resolved after media attention. However from the claimants own case it is apparent that this behaviour continues and Amazon have no interest in enforcement on sellers to adopt the Amazon ethos of Customer Service Focused. 16. The Claimant was advised to file a claim against their credit card provider under section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. However this advice given by the defendant to resolve the matter would fail based on payment not being made directly to the merchant. (Exhibit X) Thus causing a Section 75 claim to be irrelevant to this matter. The claimant believes the defendant is merely passing the buck and washing their hands of the case. 17. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Failure of components in a laptop valued at £2,054.11 within days of ownership cannot be argued as “fit for purpose” and “lasting a reasonable length of time”. 18. The defendants make-out that the discrepancy of the replacement laptop was not reported in a timely manner. They further state that the claimant allowed a delay of “nearly 6 months” described in their defence (Exhibit X). However this point of delay is irrelevant as the Limitations Act 1980 allows the claimant to bring a claim within 6 years since delivery of the goods. The claimant believes this was highlighted purely to embarrass their case as it is irrelevant to this claim. 19. In order to assist the court, the claimant wishes to inform all parties that the delay in notifying of rejection of goods was due to a house move around the time the replacement arrived (Which took in excess of 1 month to arrive) in December. The laptop was not used by the claimant until the home move was complete. During this time the claimant was also travelling to see a specialist for medical treatment on a regular basis. This is one of many conditions that persist to the present day. It is disappointing to admit that the claimant does not enjoy good health. 20. The claimant has other grounds to reject the replacement laptop as not a like for like model. The Laptop was missing a 2TB Samsung Evo Solid State Drive with does not use moving parts. (Valued at around £600 – Exhibit X). However this fact was not immediately obvious to the claimant as this is an internal component inside the laptop. The claimant noticed the laptop was not running his preferred version of Windows 10. During a reinstallation of Windows 10 the claimant discovered that the Samsung Evo 2TB SSD was infact a Seagate 2TB HDD which is slower, costs around £60.00 and has moving parts. 21. The provider of goods, HIDevolution, were notified immediately but did not respond. The claimant then contacted Amazon who instructed HIDevolution to provide a refund as they had done several times previous. They refused and advised any further repairs would have to be paid for as the warranty had now expired. 22. The defendant has raised that the claimant was offered a replacement SSD drive. The claimant was unaware of this as they do not recall receiving notification of this email. Thus the offer was not accepted. This would also not solve other existing faults which the replacement laptop produced which include: a. Overheating sometimes to severity that the claimant cannot use it on their lap b. Blue Screens of Death causing the loss data and running application states c. Broken latch which prevents the LAN cable from staying firmly attached d. Poor battery life (Less than 1 hour) e. Keys falling off the keyboard and not staying re-attached f. Poor FPS (Frames per Second) that make some PC Games unplayable. (A Gaming Laptop of this specification is more than capable of running most games over 30 FPS however the claimant frequently receives FPS rates of 10 – 20 making even a simple Train Driving Simulator unplayable) 23. The defendant correctly state that although HIDevolution offered to cover return shipping costs, they offered to pay the delivery fee but refused to pay for the tracking and insurance. The claimant was not prepared to send the laptop at their own expense without insurance and tracking. Ironically the laptop was damaged in transit and a claim was filed with DHL. However HIDevolution / Amazon failed to provide the claimant with the documents (namely a repair quote) requested by DHL to satisfy a claim. Therefore the claimant was prevented from claiming a refund on delivery charges from DHL. 24. It is the claimants belief that Amazon and their seller HIDevolution have been as obstructive as possible throughout the entire case from point of sale to the current legal action. The claimant believes that Amazon.co.uk must be held accountable for allowing the seller to blatantly flout Amazon Policies. They have also shown contempt to the claimant by making assurances that were never followed through (Mainly refunds and closing of the matter). The claimant therefore believes the claimant has entered into an unfair contract with the seller on Amazon.co.uk website because they were grossly misled as to what statutory rights they would forfeit while trading with a US seller pretending to be a UK seller. 25. The claimant suggests that in order to prevent similar buying experiences happening to other customers that Amazon be required to state that Consumer Rights Act 2015 does NOT apply when buying from an overseas seller and be required to “check a box” that they have understood that they are forfeiting a potential statutory right. 26. The defendant have also acted unfairly to the claimant by interpreting their own policy to suit them. They denied the claimant be entitled to relief for delivery charges despite this being covered in Amazon Marketplace policy (Exhibit X). They stated this needed to be filed within 90 days. This potentially (and actually in this case) created the unfair condition for the claimant to be put to significant expense to return a faulty product. The claimant had to push very hard by asking the claimant (no less than 6 times) as to why they were not due a refund of only the courier invoice. 27. The claimant believes they have followed all the correct procedures in conducting its case against the defendant and acted as reasonable as possible throughout. This is despite the defendants refusing to discuss the matter, put forward any sensible proposal of mediation and breaching pre action protocol. 28. The claimant seeks interest at the Statutory Rate of 8% per annum because they have been deprived of funds rightly theirs for in excess of 2 years. The claimant would have been happy to waive the interest had Amazon settled the case at an early stage. Regrettably the defendants put the claimant into the position that there was no other choice but to start Legal proceedings in the Small Claims Court. 29. The claimant makes it’s case as a litigant in person and asks the court to note this on the case file, but also advise the claimant if they have at any point failed to make their obligations under Pre Action Protocol or Civil Procedure Rules. The claimant will then make all reasonable attempts to rectify that action. 30. The claimant has significant physical, mental health and learning disabilities. As such the claimant respectfully asks the court and any party attending as defendant to consider this if the claimant appears to be acting oddly, is slow to respond or asks for questions to be worded in different ways. The claimant will be in possession of a hot drink for the use of “grounding” purposes (technique explained in exhibit X) as this greatly assists the claimants mental health and keeping them focused. 31. District Judge xxxx advised in their order dated xx / xx / xxxx that the hearing will take 2.5 hours. Should the case continue for more than 1 hour, the claimant will be required to take a personal needs break no longer than 10 minutes and this may happen on more than 1 occasion if the proceeding lasts the full 2.5 hours. This is due to a medical condition and is beyond the control of the claimant. The claimant has taken steps to notify the Court in advance of proceedings and will advise the presiding Judge and Court Usher on the day of the trial. The claimant invites the court to make further enquires should this be necessary prior to trial. 32. I certify the above is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

I thought that would be the advice given and it's good advice. So I will do nothing until they try something. I had an off day and felt like rubbing salt into the wounds for failure to comply with CCA. But in hindsight that will only bite me in the long run, so just going to see what happens. Interestingly they stopped phoning me the moment they got my CCA request so I think they know I've found CAG

Cabot have replied saying they could not locate the CCA and thus the account is unenforceable in court. They have naturally invited me to setup a payment arrangement as I am still obliged to repay them... They stated they would keep trying to locate the documents and did not return the £1 PO. Is it worth writing to them again asking them to return the fee as they cannot comply with the CCA request? Or should I just completely ignore this until their next move?

Ok just a brief update on this one. Received the Notice of Allocation with the following dates: Need to pay the Court Hearing Fee by 16:00 on 12/06/2018 File the Witness Statements / Bundles no later than 25/05/2018 Amazons Solicitors (Eversheds Sutherland of Cardiff) declined Mediation. (I ticked yes to mediation) The hearing will take place on 10/07/2018 at 10:30 AM and is expected to last 2.5 Hours. That will be an issue as I have a medical condition which would require me to use a toilet within that length of time. Is it worth notifying the court of this in advance or should I just speak to the judge before the hearing starts? The last thing I want to do is 1 hour in and upset the judge by stepping out to use the bathroom and the case go against me on that basis. Is it worth requesting Amazons Solicitors to consider an out of court settlement bearing in mind they refused mediation? In theory I can then use this against them in my WS? Should I file my WS at 15:45 on 24/05/2018 or should I file sooner? I will be drafting up the WS over the next week and will post here when I've got a good draft copy.

Just realised I didn't put the actual link to the article which is here: http://bit.ly/HowToChallengeParkingFines I'm more concerned about the opening header "A parking fine is never a fine!" It does however in the article link to the UK GOV website: https://www.gov.uk/parking-tickets Which gives more accurate descriptions than the Wonga article.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. But I felt it important to bring to the forums attention. I've just seen a grossly misleading advert in my Facebook News Feed from Wonga. Whilst this is absolutely true for Parking on Private Land, It is almost certainly not the case for Council Issued Penalty Charge Notices... But it gets better: "Especially when the charges seem extortionate" Pot kettle black there I think... Worth reporting to the ASA??

No response from Crapbot to date. However HSBC have sent me their SAR bundle. I've had a skim read through and there is no copy of the CCA, even a reconstructed one from the time of inception. I'll take a more detailed look when I get home and can examine the documents more thoroughly.

they have filed a defence at the very last minute. Copy and Pasted Verbatim below. I have annotated some of their points which are incorrect. 1. The Claim Form was served upon Amazon UK Services Ltd (“AUK”). AUK is not the correct defendant to the Claim. AUK is a company registered in England and Wales which provides services to the various Amazon entities referred to below, but is not responsible for operating the Marketplace (the “Marketplace”) on the Amazon.co.uk website (the “Website”). This is being altered by way of an N244 application 2. The Website is owned and operated by Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (“AEC”). The Marketplace, together with any other third party seller programs operated on the Website from time to time, is operated by Amazon Services Europe SARL (“ASE”). 2 and ASE (collectively, and individually, “Amazon”) are companies registered in Luxembourg and use the trading name ‘Amazon.co.uk’. 3. AUK has passed the Claim Form onto ASE, the company which operates the Marketplace. 4. ASE denies that it is the correct defendant to this Claim for the reasons set out below. However, in the interests of assisting the Court, ASE provides the information set out below. The Marketplace and the relevant facts 5. The Claimant opened an account with Amazon (the “Account”) [Defence Exhibit, Page 1] on for the purpose of being able to purchase products on the Marketplace. It is averred that the Claimant agreed to be bound by the Conditions of Use and Sale (the “Terms”) [Defence Exhibit, Pages 2-10]. The Marketplace allows individual third party sellers to list items for sale on the Website for customers to purchase. 6. The Claimant placed an order for the “ASUS ROG GL552VW 15.6 Laptop” (the “Goods”) , under order number (the “Order”) on 8 November 2015 (the “Contract”) [Defence Exhibit, Page 11]. The Claimant placed the Order on the Marketplace from the seller ‘’. The contract for the sale/purchase of the Goods was therefore formed between the Claimant and . Accordingly, was responsible for the sale and delivery of the Goods to the Claimant. 7. ASE is the host for the Marketplace facility as stated in Clause 12 of the Amazon.co.uk Conditions of Use: “the contract formed at the completion of a sale for [these] third party products is solely between buyer and seller. Amazon is not a party to this contract nor assumes any responsibility arising out of or in connection with it nor is it the seller's agent” [Defence Exhibit, Page 4] 8. Other than operating the A-Z guarantee scheme (defined below), ASE plays no other part in the sale and purchase of goods from third party sellers such as on the Marketplace. No contract was formed between ASE (or any other Amazon entity) and the Claimant. As a result, neither ASE nor any other Amazon entity supplied the Goods to the Claimant, as alleged by the Claimant in paragraph 1 of his Particulars of Claim, and the Claimant did not pay ASE (or any other Amazon entity) for the Goods, but paid the third party seller, 9. The Claimant alleges in paragraph 2 of his Particulars of Claim that the Goods were defective. ASE is not liable for the allegedly defective Goods as claimed by the Claimant. The contract that the Claimant entered into when he placed an order to purchase the Goods was with and not ASE or any other Amazon entity. 10. It was made clear to the Claimant at all times that he was purchasing the Goods from . This was made clear to the Claimant, (a) at the point of purchase where it was stated that the Goods were “Dispatched from and sold by ”, and (b) in the Claimant’s order summary [Defence Exhibit, Page 11] which made clear that the purchase was from (the “Seller”). 11. Amazon’s records show that the Claimant was allegedly dissatisfied with the Goods and contacted the Seller in order to arrange a return of the Goods. Amazon had limited involvement in the Claimant’s return of the Goods to the Seller, as Amazon’s role was limited to facilitating communication between the Claimant and the Seller. It is denied that Amazon is responsible to act as a mediator between the Claimant and the Seller. It is the Seller’s returns policy that applies to the Contract, and as such ASE is not liable to reimburse the Claimant for the alleged cost of returning the Goods to the Seller, as alleged, or at all. So why did they assure a refund if they were in no position to do so. Bear in mind this was 3 seperate people who assured a refund on different days. 12. The Claimant appears to allege that he is entitled to a refund under Amazon’s International Return Policy which can be found on ‘About Marketplace Returns & Refunds’ help-page [Defence Exhibit, Pages 12 to 15]. The Claimant appears to allege that the Seller did not do the following in respect of the return of the Goods: 1) provide a return address within the UK, 2) provide a pre-paid return label, or 3) offer a full refund without requesting the item to be returned. The ‘About Marketplace Returns & Refunds’ help-page states that if a seller does not offer these methods to return items, or if a customer’s “…return experience doesn’t match the return policy published by the Seller… ” the customer may file an A-to-Z claim with Amazon to open an investigation [Defence Exhibit, Page 12]. A-Z Safe Buying Guarantee 13. In order to protect Amazon’s customers, ASE provides them with the A-Z Safe Buying Guarantee (the “A-Z Guarantee”). This is referenced in clause 12 of the Conditions of Use which states that: "The seller is responsible for the sale of the products and for dealing with any buyer claims or any other issue arising out of or in connection with the contract between the buyer and seller. Because Amazon wants the buyer to have a safer buying experience, Amazon provides the Amazon A-to-z guarantee in addition to any contractual or other rights." [Defence Exhibit, Page 4] 14. The A-Z Guarantee provides coverage for items purchased from a Marketplace seller, provided that the customer has taken the necessary steps to file an A-Z Guarantee Claim. When customers have a problem with a transaction, ASE asks them to first contact the seller to give them a chance to address the issue at hand. If the seller does not respond or if the issue is not addressed to the customer's satisfaction, the customer can file an A-Z Guarantee Claim for consideration, which enables ASE to undertake an investigation into the customer’s order, and provide a refund to the customer depending on the outcome of that investigation. If the A-Z Guarantee Claim is successful, a customer refund will be processed from the seller, where a customer has purchased a defective item from a Marketplace seller and has met certain specified conditions. 15. The conditions that a customer must meet to file an A-Z Guarantee claim are set out on the ‘A-Z Claim Conditions’ help-page [Defence Exhibit, Pages 16 and 17]. The help page is publically available on the Website. One of the conditions that must be met is that “… [the customer has] waited no longer than 90 days from the Estimated Delivery Date to file [their] claim…” As the Claimant did not submit an A-Z Guarantee claim within that time or at all, he did not, and does not, qualify for a refund under the A-Z Guarantee. Any claim the Claimant may have in relation to the Goods should be made against , and not ASE. 16. For the reasons set out above, it is denied that ASE is liable to reimburse the Claimant for either the cost of the Goods or for the return of the Goods, as the Order was sold and fulfilled by a third-party seller. ASE explained this to the Claimant on 14 September 2016 “…Because [the] order wasn’t sold or fulfilled by Amazon we aren’t in a position to refund or replace it ourselves…” [Defence Exhibit, Page 20] and again on 5 November 2016 “…Since the seller fulfills your order… we do not have an option to take any action on such orders as these are independent orders dispatched directly by the seller…” [Defence Exhibit, Page 21] 17. Furthermore, ASE understands that the Claimant has already been offered by the Seller a reimbursement of the cost of shipping the Goods back to it [Defence Exhibit, Page 22]. This was news to me. Having viewed the document they agree only to refund the delivery charge and not the insurance. But it's perfectly acceptable for them to screw my DHL claim over by ignoring me and thus unable to proceed with a claim The Replacement Goods 18. ASE understands that the Claimant requested a refund from the Seller of the laptop originally purchased on 6 November 2016. ASE further understands that on 10 November 2016, HIDevolution UK offered to give the Claimant a suitable ‘like for like’ replacement product (the “Replacement Goods”), instead of a refund, as it appeared to have been too late for the Claimant to return the Goods to the Seller under its return policy. ASE understands that the Claimant accepted the Replacement Goods. 19. However, the Claimant emailed Amazon on 11 May 2017 requesting a refund of the Replacement Goods, alleging that the Replacement Goods were faulty. Amazon responded to the Claimant to explain that Amazon was not a party to the Contract for the sale/purchase of the Goods, and (as explained above), in such circumstances, Amazon’s involvement would be limited to the A-Z Guarantee it provides. 20. The Claimant was informed that the Order was no longer eligible for the A-Z Guarantee, and it was explained to the Claimant that Amazon’s role is not to act as a mediator; it is only responsible for facilitating the transactions between buyers and sellers on the Marketplace [Defence Exhibit, Page 23]. It is denied that any apology by Amazon to the Claimant for his customer experience with a third-party seller is an admission of liability in an any regard. Here is what one of the agents I spoke to said, quoted verbatim: Nuclearshark, I am positive you will receive your full refund. Please be assured you will receive the refund. That's not an apology, that is an assurance of resolution. So this point of there's is nonsense. 21. ASE’s records show that the Claimant then contacted the Seller again, on 26 May 2017, asserting that the Replacement Goods were allegedly faulty (over six months after having received the Replacement Goods). This is not true. Contact was made in February and was ignored. I did not open the replacement Laptop until early in 2017 due to a house move over Christmas and being in and out of hospital with a very persistent illness requiring several antibiotic courses to fix. So I had other issues to deal with. The Claimant alleged that the Replacement Goods were faulty because they were allegedly missing a “2TB Samsung SSD Hard drive” (the “Hard Drive”) Not true. There were other faults that returned 22. ASE’s records show that the Seller responded by stating that it was unable to provide a refund of the Replacement Goods to the Claimant, as it was “well past the returns policy”. ASE is unable to comment on the return policy provided by in respect of the Replacement Goods. Further, ASE’s records show that the Claimant was informed that the warranty provided by the Seller had expired. Although the Seller declined to refund the Claimant, the Claimant was offered technical support by the Seller and the Claimant was offered a replacement Hard Drive. It is unknown whether the Claimant accepted that offer. This is news to me. I'm trying to locate where this offer was made. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “Act”) 23. As the Claimant’s contract for the sale and purchase of the Goods was with the Seller , it is denied that ASE, or any other Amazon entity has breached the Act, as alleged or at all. Interest 24. In so far as the Claimant claims interest, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to interest as alleged or at all, as the Claimant is not entitled to any payment from ASE, or any other Amazon entity. The Claimant’s Letter Before Action 25. Amazon has no record of having received the Letter Before Action that the Claimant allegedly sent to Amazon. It is unclear to which address the Claimant allegedly sent the letter. It is, therefore, denied that Amazon has breached the Practice Direction for Pre Action Protocol, as alleged, or at all. Outright lie. This was sent by registered post to their London Office and was signed for by "Reception" and they've seen the evidence of that too Conclusion 26. ASE is the company that operates the Marketplace, however it has no contractual relationship with the Claimant as explained above. ASE denies that it is liable for the amount claimed or at all. The correct defendant to this claim is 27. The Claimant was not (and is not) eligible for a refund from Amazon under the A-Z Guarantee, as he did not file an A-Z Guarantee Claim within the time period required (or at all), and all liability to the Claimant is denied in this regard. A request to return was made within the timeframe, but not strictly by way of a guarentee. 28. To the extent that the Claimant is alleging that Amazon has not responded to his concerns, Amazon avers that it appropriately responded to the Claimant and informed him of Amazon’s limited role, and that his contract is with , and not ASE. Any claim in relation to the Goods should be made against and not ASE. 29. For the reasons explained in paragraphs 26-28 above, the Claimant is not entitled to interest from ASE. 30. It is denied that ASE has breached the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules. STATEMENT OF TRUTH The Defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this defence. Next steps are I assume to request the Court transfer the case for a hearing and draft a Witness Statement to file with the courts? Or do you think this is game over?

Having slept on this, I've decided that pursuing the avenues of Compensation and Injunctions will be more hassle than it's worth. Has this individual caused me financial losses and serious inconvenience? Yes to both. But if I pursue this further it's just "another thing to do" when I've already got enough things to deal with as it is. Plus it's a distraction from providing a community for my gaming members. So yes walking away is the right thing to do in this case. That said, I will still feedback to my local constabulary that my request for an injunction at the time needed to be in my statement and it wasn't. Other than that I would call this issue resolved and it can now be marked as such.

Had the following email from this outfit in my Spam earlier today pasted verbatim: Yawn

Just to update the thread, a complaint was made to the Police and it was handed over to the perpetrators' local constabulary. They were arrested and had their IT equipment seized. In interview they fully admitted all allegations made against them. As they fully cooperated with the Police and had a spotless record they were issued with a Caution. This unfortunately means I didn't get the injunction or compensation as I had requested and this was apparently a failure on my local Police Constabulary to put this into my Statement. It was requested during interview and a discussion was held between myself and the Police Officer going into great detail on the subject. So I'm going to feed that back to them as if that is indeed the correct procedure it should've been in the statement. I'm partially unsure how to move forward. I think I would still like an injunction to satisfy my mental health and assist my Anxiety which is poor at the best of times. But I'm also minded that a caution and seizure of the individuals equipment very likely gave them the scare of their life that it caught up with them. So I'm leaning on should I be the bigger person here and leave it hoping that its a closed matter?