Jump to content

leedslad83

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About leedslad83

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi, I paid the £70 to initiate the claim an then was advised that the fees to take it to court, should mediation fail, would be around £170. I think the amount varies from court to court and I'm not sure exactly what they are for, maybe processing or something, but that is the current cost for Leeds.
  2. Joey - I tried Pm'ing you but don't have enough posts to do so..I'm not sure if that would stop you sending me one too?
  3. Hi Joey, Is that a Mr Carlisle? I addressed my Letter Before Action to him but it obviously got intercepted and delegated to someone else so maybe he isn't aware of it.If you could send me the number by PM that would be great as it seems it's my last chance to try and get something from this. I'd be happy to give him a call and politely give him a quick overview and then listen to what he thinks is an appropriate resolution.Yes I know it was a mistake to have everything stored in one place, lesson learnt, but the fact remains that my data was likely recoverable.Arran
  4. So is this 'if the drive was not found to be faulty it would have been returned to you.' yet another inconsistency or symbol of their ineptitude that they still asked for the drive back despite agreeing there was a fault with it prior to requesting it back?They also said previously that they have a report but were unable/unwilling to provide it as the RMA was closed. This was only about 8 months ago so presumably a company would keep such things electronically for some time and therefore they should still have it, rather than having to rely on the technicians memory?
  5. But Ebuyer were aware the drive had a fault before they requested it back as they had previously accepted TRC Data's report which indicated as such.
  6. As suspected - 'We have looked into this for you but unfortunately we are unable to provide you with a fault report, this is not something we do as standard on any return. However, we do know that the drive was found to be faulty, if the drive was not found to be faulty it would have been returned to you. As you can appreciate, especially been the Christmas period, our technicians get many returns a week. Due to the time that has passed the technician who processed your return is unable to remember exactly what tests were carried out and how exactly this was processed.'
  7. Ebuyer did say in my last direct emails to them on 18th Dec that they would check with their technician to see what testing was done. I just emailed them to ask if they have been able to ascertain what was done. I'm not holding my breath as we (me & ebuyer) all know by now that no testing was done, but this is what is annoying, how they can just refuse to answer questions which in my mind clearly paints them as been guilty of incompetence at best and malice at worst and therefore I should, in principal if not in law, be entitled to claim the £417 in music plus the £70 I paid to initiate the claim (and £170 if taken further).
  8. Hi, Yes I asked for it back in the meantime towards the start of this saga while I thought they were still umming and arring about paying out and they confirmed that they no longer have the drive. Perhaps they had it and could have sent it back if they so desired, but I think they probably sent the drive to a third party to be destroyed immediately without wiping/testing as they claimed, hence their inability to provide their mysterious diagnostic report. They did say initially when I asked for the report that they couldn't provide it as the RMA was closed, which doesn't make much sense really unless they have something to hide, so that's yet another inconsistency. Regardless of the outcome their conduct certainly does stink.
  9. Sorry about the block of text, the computer at work does it like that for some reason, whereas the original post was done at home and was formatted ok..
  10. No that's fine, I'd rather get the facts/constructive feedback good or bad so I can make an objective decision about whether to cut my losses or invest further time and money.So in your experience, do you think it is worth pursuing, in principal based on: their refusal to provide their diagnostic report, their claim that they tested the drive after wiping the data which would have been impossible, their disregard for my wishes to have the data recovered (given that this was probable), their stance that they were right to destroy it because recovery wasn't explicitly guaranteed (though it was clearly implied it was likely) and seemingly their main defence that data should be backed up in more than one place when I'm quite sure I could prove that that isn't something which is generally done by the majority of people?And also just the general lack of consistency in their counter arguments/statements which, along with their refusal to provide basic information (e.g. the report or how they could test the drive after the data was wiped) potentially paints them as clutching at straws rather than having a strong central argument?
  11. Apologies if I have come across as defensive at all, it's just hard for me to get my head around them not been at fault or liable for some kind of damages/compensation in light of their blatant disregard for my wishes and shady tactics (not providing report, lying about testing the drive etc.), and that I can prove monetary loss to the value of £417, but of course I'm not approaching it from a law based perspective, hence why I'm posting it here for guidance from those that are
  12. I understand hard drives fail, but the kicker for me is knowing (for almost certain) that I would have the data now if ebuyer had simply either said no to funding the recovery, in which case I would have saved up, done it myself and attempted to claim it back retrospectively, or they had just fulfilled their obligations under the Sales of Goods Act.
  13. Well, I'm sure it could (be brought in to question) but I guess it's probably not worth an additional £170 just to hope for some kind of moral victory, when I already know they have acted improperly.
  14. Hi, I had the mediation yesterday so now I'm at the stage where I need to decide whether to take it to court and pay the £170 fees this would entail, hence I'm just trying to get clarity on my position.Sorry I should have mentioned that while I accept that it is not possible to put a price on/claim for sentimental loss, I have managed to find £417 worth of receipts for purchased mp3's which were lost and were purchased from stores that now don't exist, primarily AudioJelly.It's just a bitter pill to swallow, on top of the obvious loss, that they seem to be able to just get away with lying (e.g. testing the drive) and blatantly refusing to provide any kind of report on what they did with the drive. It seems clear now they performed no such tests and probably farmed the drive to a third party to just be destroyed.Can their conduct not be brought in to question?
  15. They just don't seem to stick to one story. At first they said they had to wipe the data for data protection reasons, which the Data Commissioners office confirmed shouldn't have been relevant in this case as the clear intention was to have the data restored. Then they said they wipe data before the drive was tested, and that the drive was tested and was found to have a fault, even though testing the drive would have been impossible if they had wiped the data.Then they said is this is a backup then you should have the original copy which isn't possible due to the aforementioned internal hard drive size.Then they said their defence is that data of significant important should be stored in one than one place, trying to make it seem like I am in the minority of people who only save their data in one place when that isn't the case.Then they said that TRC Data didn't categorically guarantee the data could be recovered so they were right to wipe in, even though anyone apart from them would have seen that at least attempting the recovery was the only appropriate course of action.They initially tried fobbing me off to speak to the manufacturer.They said they needed the outer casing before they could accept it for testing, after they had received the drive, I said I couldn't send it to them as I was away on holiday then all of a sudden they could accept it as it is.Surely this stuff should count against them?
×
×
  • Create New...