But the OP doesn't have a contract with Evri to deliver it.  So what is the legal basis of the claim? 

If A purchased B from C, but C used D to deliver B to A, and the delivery failed, what is the basis of A's  claim against D?

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the OP's legal rights are against the trader (C), not the courier (D). 

So what is the basis of the claim?  If the seller doesn't cough up, how does the OP persuade a UK court that Evri should pay up?

Is it Torts (Interference with Goods) legislation?  You haven't answered which (1) doesn't help the OP if they need to claim and (2) makes me think you don't know...

But what would be the basis of a legal claim against DHL?  There's no contract with the OP.

Would it be under Torts (Interference with Goods) legislation?

See #17 and #18...

[Edit: it's the fabric under the sofa.  Usually plain hessian]

4 hours ago, dx100uk said:

doesnt apply unless they are registered and trading in the uk.

go after dhl.

dx

 

Perhaps.  But it can't do any harm to spell out to the UK based operation what the legal position is.  That would be my next step.

What would be the cause of action against DHL in any case?  Was @Andyorch wrong when he said

On 12/07/2023 at 14:45, Andyorch said:

... DHL is their problem not yours they are their approved carrier.

https://www.thekooples.com/gb/en_GB/CGV_page.html

?

24 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

I don't agree.

As far as I'm aware, I'm not asking the court to make a decision. I'm asking the court to enforce a decision. The legally binding decision has already been decided, the court are just enforcing it.

 

Courts enforce the law - they don't enforce ADR decisions except incidentally insofar as those decisions align with the law.

If the retailer won't cough up you will be suing them because they have breached s29 of the legislation I linked to above, not because they haven't complied with some ADR decision.

So you don't need to look it up:

"29 Passing of risk

(1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a) the consumer, or

(b) a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods"

What this means is that the goods remain the responsibility of the seller until they have been delivered into your "physical possession".  If they are never delivered to you, you are entitled to a full refund.  That's what will form the basis of any legal claim you make, and I don't think it will do any harm to make that clear in your letter before claim.  It makes it look like you know what you are talking about, which always helps...

At the same time it can't do any harm to remind the retailer that they have already lost the ADR decision - but I don't think that is the main plank of your case.

Was the legal position not covered when you prepared your ADR complaint?

Anyway, see what @BankFodder suggests tomorrow regarding the content of your letter before claim

[NB - I was in the middle of editing my post #28 when you replied to the unedited version with your post #29]

I don't think you are suing them to enforce the ADR decision.

You are suing them because under s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) the goods remain at the seller's risk until they are delivered into the physical possession of the consumer.  That means that you are entitled to a full refund for any goods you have paid for that are never delivered to you.

You are basically making the same case that you must have made to the ADR service for them to find in your favour...

[You can mention the ADR decision in support of your case, but the legal substance of any court claim you make is based on the law as outlined above, not on the ADR decision itself]

Ah.  So it's neither of the things I thought it would be...

Assuming that the torn dust sheet and missing legs meant that the delivered sofa did not conform to contract (eg it was not of satisfactory quality) I think if I were you I'd be arguing with Natuzzi that when you

On 25/06/2023 at 17:56, Tweedie85 said:

... contacted Nuttuzi by telephone and email on the same day to seek a refund...

you were exercising your statutory right under s20 and s22 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to make a "short-term rejection" of the sofa for a full refund, and that they should have refunded you then.  The legislation doesn't give the retailer any right not to accept your rejection when you exercise the short-term right to reject.  The retailer plays no part in it.

See what others (eg @BankFodder) think, but I'd be inclined to take the position that when you telephoned them to ask for a refund you were clearly exercising your statutory short-term right to reject the goods and you are owed a full refund.

If they won't play ball you'll have to consider suing them.  (I assume you do not want to accept the repaired sofa and their offer of £300?  You have to remember that it can always be a bit of a lottery if these things get to court - you can't necessarily predict with certainty that you would win)

[NB - all the above is based on the assumption that the torn dust sheet and missing legs justified your rejection of the sofa in the first place.  Obviously Natuzzi will argue that they didn't.  I can't say either way as I wasn't there...]

On 04/07/2023 at 11:56, Tweedie85 said:

We have received a call from Nuttuzi attempting to redeliver and said it was only the dust sheet ripped and the legs but it was not fit for purpose on the day of delivery...

2 hours ago, Tweedie85 said:

1. It is accepted that the dust sheet was torn. This is something that does on occasion happen. The dust sheet is designed so that when access to the underside of the sofa is required it can be easily removed and replaced. The dust sheet is not an integral part of the sofa and the fact that it was torn does not render your goods of unsatisfactory quality or make them unfit for purpose...

What do Natuzzi mean when they refer to the "dust sheet"?

Are they referring to the actual fabric covering of the sofa itself, or do they mean a temporary dust sheet put over the sofa to protect its fabric covering during transport?

If the former then I think you still have a remedy and you might even still be able to exercise the short-term right to reject.

When was the sofa originally delivered?  And was it returned on the same day?  And I presume Natuzzi still have it in their possession - it hasn't been returned to you yet?

@jk2054  -  are you sure the decision is legally binding on the retailer?

I ask because in #8 you posted a quote saying:  "Whilst the Final Determination is legally binding on the trader once it is accepted, RetailADR does not have the express power to enforce traders to oblige with our Final Determination. This power is reserved strictly for the Courts."

What does the bit in bold mean?  Is a decision only legally binding on the retailer once they've accepted it?  I presume this retailer is not accepting the decision and therefroe it is not legally binding?  (I'm asking because I don't understandwhat that bit means)

I note rule 8.6 of the scheme says it will fine members £100 ( ) if they don't adhere to a decision.  Have you asked the scheme if they are fining the retailer and - if not - why not?

If the retailer isn't going to cough up you I think you'll have to sue them.

(Out of interest - what was the substance of the complaint?  Goods not received?  Can you explain what happened?0

If I were you I'd simply go back and quote s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to them:

"29  Passing of risk

(1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a) the consumer, or

(b) a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods."

If they (Kooples) are saying that the courier left the goods unattended outside your house, then they are rather stupidly admitting that the goods were never delivered into your "physical possession"  from the outset, and that they remained liable for them.  You can further point out to them that the legislation says nothing about you having to provide proof of identity in order to get your refund.  Who you are is irrelevant anyway.  All they need to do is to process the refund to the card you originally paid with.

If they still won't cough up you'll need to send a Letter Before Claim and sue them.

[Edit:  a Declaration of Honour sounds decidedly French.  Perhaps that - plus proof of ID - is how they do things in France]

On 26/06/2023 at 01:55, Manxman in exile said:

...Also - if the OP still has his motorbike and if it's on a public road, couldn't it be seized without any forced entry?

(As I say, I'm not 100% certain on these issues and just want to try to ensure the OP fully understands the situation).

On 26/06/2023 at 03:56, dx100uk said:

.... i doubt a bike would ever be left on a public road...but thats irrelevant once forms are accepted.

dx

On 06/07/2023 at 07:25, BillyS said:

To be clear, my vehicles (and other goods) are in publicly accessible areas.  'Forced entry' would not be necessary to gain access. 

So back to the question, does anyone know what the process is, in terms of communication points that should be expected, if any.

I hope this forum has not given questionable advice...

@BillyS  -  assuming you follow dx100's advice, please let us know how your application gets on. 

Although he says:

15 hours ago, dx100uk said:

... it doesnt matter that you forgot to update your V5C, ...

I suspect that if you were at fault in not updating your V5C, then you might find that the TEC will not automatically accept it, and will instead "... contact the local authority to ask them whether or not they will allow the motorist to" make the application.  If you have failed to update your V5C when you should have done, it's vitally important that you give an acceptable explanation as to why you are out of time, otherwise the LA will likely tell the court that they should not accept the application.  (See post #4 by @Bailiff Advice in the thread linked to by dx100.)

15 hours ago, dx100uk said:

... so not alot they can do and things will be reset once your forms are accepted by the authority. if you wish tell then you have sent the forms off. if they dont like it TOUGH!!

I must admit I'm not 100% sure about this, but if the bailffs have a warrant, doesn't it remain enforceable up to and until any statutory declaration is accepted by the TEC?  The fact the OP has submited forms doesn't of itself make any order unenforceable does it?  (Also I'm not sure from the thread you linked to that the local authority will accept the forms.  How can you be so certain?)

15 hours ago, dx100uk said:

... as for the bailiff, there is no right of forced entry, so not alot they can do...

Also - if the OP still has his motorbike and if it's on a public road, couldn't it be seized without any forced entry?

(As I say, I'm not 100% certain on these issues and just want to try to ensure the OP fully understands the situation).

6 hours ago, dx100uk said:

... your theory works both ways too. it's not automatically assumed it was present at time of manu...

 

If that is true, can you explain what this is intended to mean?

"19  Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods...

... (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. [my bold]"

see: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

Like the OP I took it to mean what it appears to say.  That if goods fail to conform* to contract within 6 months of purchase, then there is a statutory presumption that the non-conformity (or "fault" - call it what you will) was present at purchase**.  If the wording does not mean that, what do you think it means?

Under s19(15)(a) it is - of course - open to the retailer to rebut the statutory presumption.

*   The screen is faulty.

** Do you think there is a significant distinction between "... was present at purchase..." and what you describe as "... at time of manu..."?

If so, what is the distinction, and why is it important?

7 hours ago, Neo1 said:

Thx but surely they have to prove that this was the case. Making assumptions is not proof. I know for a fact that I did not trap any cable in any laptop. Looks like I may have to go to the Retail Ombudsman.

1.  I don't believe there is any such thing as "the Retail Ombudsman".  If you can't persuade JL that the product had some sort of inherent fault at purchase then your only recourse is to sue them.  (Although if you paid by credit card you might have a valid s75 claim against your card provider, but you'd have to persuade them that the product had an inherent or latent defect at time of purchase.  If you paid by debit card, in January, I'm not sure if you are still within the timescale to make a chargeback claim).

2.  Depends what you mean by "... surely they have to prove that this was the case... "   All s19(15)(a) says is that the retailer can rebut the statutory presumption that the "fault" (or whatever you want to call it) was present at purchase by establishing that it wasn't.  All this means is that JL need to persuade a court - on the balance of probabilities (ie more likely than not) - that the fault was not present at purchase.  It does not mean they have to prove it 100%.  50.1% would be enough. 

If you can't persuade JL that this was an inherent fault, and if you have no s75 or chargeback claim open to you, you'll have to sue JL.  A court might believe you that you've never caught the cable when closing it, or it might think it more likely that Apple and JL are correct and you've caused the damage yourself by closing it carelessly.  Who knows?  Once you get to court any decision is possible and I won't presume to predict an outcome with unjustified optimism or pessimism.

Press your argument with JL.  If they won't listen to you and you are positive you haven't caused the damage yourself, try suing them.

(NB - If you can get an independent report from somebody who knows what they're talking about and that says the product was inherently faulty, that can only bolster your case) 

2 hours ago, Neo1 said:

... I immediately returned to JL stating consumer rights act that any fault which is discovered within 6 months of purchase is assumed to be present when the product was purchased and the onus is on the retailer to prove it wasn’t...

That's correct.  It's in s19(14) and (15)(a) here: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk).  s19(14) creates the presumption and (15)(a) allows the retailer to rebut that presumption

The difficulty you have is that Apple appear to have already confirmed that the "fault" was not present at purchase from JL, but was probably caused by you trapping the cable when closing it:

2 hours ago, Neo1 said:

...I went straight to the Apple store. They took the laptop and sent it to their technical team. Within 14 days they returned laptop stating that laptop had a small crack at the bottom left of screen probably due as a result of charging cable getting trapped in laptop whilst closing. To fix would cost nearly £500...

You might find it difficult to convince JL on the balance of probabilities that this fault was present or inherent when you bought it..

Two minutes going to Havering's website and searching for "S8 permit" shows it's to do with school parking enforcement on Farm Road and Shade Mews in respect of Parsonage Farm school.  (Is that where you are talking about?)

The page tells you how to apply for a permit and what documents you need in order to do so.   (And it looks like you can apply via MiPermit?)

If you are going to drive along Farm Road and/or Shade Mews you obviously need a permit.

I don't see how you can challenge the PCN.  The signage seems quite clear and the photo shows you driving past the two signs at the entrance to the road in question.

You probably need to pay up before it escalates futher to bailiffs, but see if any other posters have any good ideas re a challenge.

(PS - you might want to explore why MiPermit wouldn't let you buy a permit.  That might form the basis of a challenge, but I simply don't know)

Just to add, I've followed the application instructions on the Havering website I linked to in my previous post and it seems straightforward to apply for a "Resident Access Virtual Permit - School Street S8 (Parsonage Farm)" for the "Restricted Streets" Farm Road, Rainham and Shade Mews, Rainham.  Havering London Borough Digital Permits and Cashless Parking (mipermit.com)

Not sure why you had so much difficulty finding a permit...

Forgive my ignorance, but who are "Mipermit" and what do they have to do with a council permit?

Why didn't you just apply direct to Havering Borough Council for a permit like your housemate told you he had done in his email - "In September last year, a fellow housemate mentioned via email that there were restrictions in our area coming, they'd applied for a permit and I should to."

I know you go on to say that it was unclear who you should apply to, but his email to you clearly shows forwarded confirmation from Havering that they had accepted his online application for a permit.  Why didn't you just do the same?

The signage seems quite clear to me.

But see what others suggest.

(If you still live there, do you now have a S8 permit from Havering?)

10 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

This all rests on what was previously legally agreed in the original rights of usage of the road ...

 

You'd think so, wouldn't you?  But what I don't understand is that although the claimant's particulars of claim seem to be seeking a declaration about the original right of way granted in July 1987, the OP seems to be implying that they (the OP) were deceived into granting further access rights during mediation in 2018.   (I'm afraid I've found the OP's account of what has happened very confusing and very difficult to follow).

10 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

... You should not reverse a vehicle onto a main road. Not allowed per the highway code...

 

@The Skiing Gardener said post #14:  "We know about the reversing but both neighbours fitted gates which has stopped us turning. All the delivery drivers are also reversing into the main road too."

This happens all the time in my neighbourhood.  The answer is to reverse into your drive and not out of it.

19 hours ago, The Skiing Gardener said:

Thank you for your advise and if you could recommend any steps forward we can take suing the former solicitor we would really welcome your advice. It has been a really bad experience...  

8 hours ago, The Skiing Gardener said:

He admitted he had made a mistake and told us to take independent legal advise. He sent us his bundle but with all things happening in our lives we only sent it to one legal company to look at it on a no win no fee. They needed a deposit of around £2,000 to look at the case...

Well if you've already complained to them and all they did was suggest you seek legal advice, then I suggest you seek that advice and consider suing them.  

You said previously that you've already spent £25k, but that your solicitor waived a further £5k in fees that was due to them.  Were there any conditions attached to them not charging you that £5k?  What was that £5k in respect of?

8 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

This is from the legal ombudsman's pdf that I found online.

From 1 April 2023, the time limits for referring a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman will be no later than:
• one year from the date of the act or omission being complained about; or
• one year from the date when the complainant should have realised that there was cause for complaint. [My italics]

HB

 

I don't know about complaints to the legal ombudsman, but the OP should also be complaining to the Solicitors Regulation Authority  (SRA | Problems with law firms and individuals | Solicitors Regulation Authority)

The problem is that I suspect the OP wants to complain about what their solicitor did (or failed to do...) back in 2018.

If the OP wants to sue their former solicitor they need to do it within 6 years of whatever it is they're complaining about.

@The Skiing Gardener  - a couple of questions for you.  (Please number your answers appropriately.  DO NOT simply quote my questions and then add your answers within the body of the quote.  It makes it VERY confusing to follow your answers.)

1.  Ref posts #3and #8:  Are you saying that the terms of the final Tomlin Order you signed during mediation on 30 May 2018 were different from the terms you thought you had agreed on?  I don't understand this.  Did you not read what you were signing?  Did the solicitor representing you not explain to you what you were signing?

2.  What exactly in the Tomlin Order are you unhappy about?  Is it the bit about access being increased at some point from 3m to 5.5m?  Is it that increased width that the current claim is about?  Or are you unhappy about the resurfacing and maintenance work?  (It seems to me that everybody is contributing to the costs so I'm not sure what the issue might be?)

3.  When you discovered (in 2018?) that the terms of the Tomlin Order were different from what you thought you'd agreed to, what steps did you or your solicitor take?

4.  What outcome are you hoping for?  The current claim seems only to be for £240 (and statutory interest) plus a declaration that the claimant "... enjoys a right of way over the whole of the Access (coloured grey on the plan attached to the transfer dated 31st July 1987)".  Are you disputing the 1987 right of access?

5.  I'm not being funny, but what have you spent £25k in legal fees on?  So far as I can tell there was some sort of initial claim in 2018(?) but that was resolved (or should have been resolved) by the Tomlin order.  Did legal representation for that cost you £25k?

6.  You say you now have to reverse out of your property because of electric gates installed by the claimant.  If the gates have been installed on the claimant's property, how do they affect you?  Are they blocking a right of access you had?  I don't understand how their installation has caused a problem.

I hate to say this, but if you've already spent £25k on legal fees and to no avail, I'm not sure what you can expect from posters on an internet forum.

Disputes about property law issues can be very complex and very expensive and I'd suggest really require paid for professional advice.

But see what others say.  @BankFodder is usually very good in terms of giving reliable advice.

(I think if I were you I'd be considering suing my - former? - solicitor...)

12 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Is that any better, Manxman?

HB

Thanks but I think it would be a bit easier to understand the problem and the sequence of events if the OP could give an itemised timeline of what has happened and when. 

eg:

"1.  The right of access which is the subject of this dispute was created on dd/mm/yyyy when the then owner of property A granted it to the then owner of property B.  The land the right of access was granted over was defined as...

2.  We bought property A on .......

3.  We had no problems with the then owners of propety B...

3.  The claimant bought property B on ...

4.  Starting in mm/yy the claimant has repeatedly complained about...

etc etc".

At the moment I'm not sure if there have been two claims made, and one has already gone to mediation, or what.  The OP made no mention of mediation in the first post and just attached three documents with no real background explanation of what it was about.

And the hearing is less than two weeks away.

Why has the claimant retained a QC for a right of way dispute?

Has the OP really already paid over £25k to their solicitor - who seems to have had the wool pulled over their eyes?

I think more detail and background is required.

I think you should redo your second post as the way it's come out is more than a little confusing...

And I suspect that also goes for the other people whose Amazon accounts the OP has implicated...

[Edit:  And because other people are involved in this I think it might be unwise for the OP just to ignore it and not try to get to the bottom of it.  I think they owe it to the others to try to bottom this out...]

39 minutes ago, ryanwheels said:

Ok I'm with you now, I thought the SAR was to obtain all information the solicitor had.

I'll send back the response you wrote out - thanks for your continued patience and assistance 

Before you send* anything to amazon:

Are you saying that you actually submitted your SAR request to the solicitors (not to Amazon) and that you are presuming that the solicitors have passed it onto Amazon?  Hence the email to you from amazon asking for proof of identity?

*I think BankFodder's draft in #58 was based on the premise that you had made your SAR direct to Amazon itself and not to the solicitors.  I'm not certain the tone is 100% appropriate if you didn't address the original SAR direct to Amazon.  (Like BankFodder I'm getting more confused about what has actually happened and what you are doing...)

@jenin2  -  have the police given you a timescalse for getting back to them?

If you still have some time left I'd be inclined to agree with @honeybee13 that you should wait to see whether @Man in the middle turns up with good advice.