OK. That makes it serious money. Doesn't change the principles involved but means there's more at stake for you in getting this right. I understand why you might be a bit anxious. See what others have to say (Forgive me asking, but from your opening post I assume this wasn't a frivolous "playboy lifestyle" purchase? It's a dream car and it's taken years of sacrifice from you to be able to save up for the deposit? So this money is REALLY important? And just to be clear - I'm not making any judgement at all about how you spend your money. I perfectly understand it).

Hmmm. If I'm looking at the correct website I'm assuming we are talking a LOT of money? (The cheapest pre-owned currently on the website is £89,900 if I'm looking in the right place. And going up to around 400k?). Personally I'd want out. If it ends up in a dispute that's WAY over small claims limit, and I'd be getting prepared to get paid for legal advice if necessary. (Hopefully I've misunderstood your reference to an "Italian horse" and I'm looking at the wrong website, or I've vastly over-inflated the money involved... ?)

Much as I would love to own a prancing horse I suspect they are rather fragile, and a fault that manifests itself on day 1 of ownership is not a good omen. Also likely to be v expensive in the long run? Personally I'd reject it now otherwise you'll be constantly anxious that something else is just about to break. Draft a letter of rejection as @BankFodder suggested and post it up for comment. Don't send anything to them yet. I don't think there is any issue posting up the docs or @dx100uk wouldn't have asked for them. Redact anything that could identify you. (I'm not sure if you need to redact the dealer and finance company - I think we know who the dealer is from the title of this thread?). I'm not sure if it being HP complicates matters. Others probably want to check the contrcat details. I understand you need to post the documents up in PDF format. There's a guide to doing it somewhere on the website if you don't know how. (I think I'd go German. An old 911 would be very nice... )

@axil123 - don't panic! What you need to do is to draft a letter to send to the dealer you bought it from. Post the draft up here for people like @BankFodder to read and give you guidance. Don't send anything without letting people read it and comment on it. All you need to do is to briefly refer to the purchase, outline the faults you notified to the dealer, and highlight their failure to fix them (and even make matters worse by introducing new faults). Tell them that as the faults appeared within the first six months, and as the dealer has had the single opportunity afforded to them under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to put right the fault(s), but has failed to do so, you are now exercising your right under the same legislation to reject the car. As I say, just draft it but don't send it off until others have had a chance to comment on it. There might be two problems: (1) I think that if you reject the car you need to stop using it immediately and arrange to retruen it to the dealer (2) I'm not sure of the significance of it being HP. Others will know better than me. Wait to see what they have to say.

Regarding the 6 months I think you are covered because you notified them immediately you took delivery of the car and you've reminded them several times since then by asking for updates on progress. I don't think the dealer could argue that the fault didn't manifest itself within the first 6 months and that you hadn't notified them of it. But in any case I'm sure @BankFodder's advice in #3 to get something formal in writing to the dealer sooner rather than later is correct. (Post a draft up here before sending anything) NB - post up the agreement as requested by @dx100uk. HP agreements can be different regarding the approach you take as I don't think you've actually bought the car until you've made the last payment...

If @axil123 wants his money back, can't he just reject the car now? Seems like both the selling dealer in manchester and the dealer in Newcastle (authorised by the selling dealer?) have each had a go at fixing the car and have either (a) not fixed the problem or (b) made it worse - if I've understood axil correctly. As it's all within 6 months can't he just reject it for a full refund? (I'm never sure but might he have to pay mileage for the use of the car in the 6 months? I'm never sure if cars are treated differently from everything else, and if they are, why... ) @axil123 - out of interest, it's not a Jag or a Range rover is it?

Your consumer rights are enforceable against the dealer you bought it from. But you may have muddied the waters by bringing it to a second dealer while the first dealer was still trying to fix the original problem. I'm afraid your post is a bit confusing as to which dealer has done what to the car and when. Your consumer rights sometimes depend on the timeline - so it might be useful if you provided one. eg date bought from dealer 1; date issue identified by you; date you notified the issue to dealer 1; what dealer 1 did and when; date car returned to you; date car referred by you to dealer 2; what dealer 2 did and when; etc etc; where the car is now The two most important time periods are (1) the period up to 30 days after you took possession of the car, and (2) the period up to 6 months after you took possession.

I think the law says that to exercise your 30 day short term-right to reject you have to establish that the sofa actually does not conform to contract in some way. (eg actually is faulty, not as described, not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose etc). Your 30 day right to reject entitles you to a full refund. After 30 days and up to 6 months it's slightly different. If a fault etc develops there is a presumption in law that the fault was present at purchase (although the trader can challenge this) and the trader then has just one opportunity either to replace or to repair. If that doesn't fix the problem you can then insist on a full refund. (After 6 months the position is different again but doesn't apply here) With your mother's settee it doesn't seem clear that it's faulty, but you might be able to argue it wasn't fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality. Only you and your mum can really judge if it's of satisfactory quality or not, but if the cushions keep collapsing that might be a sign that it isn't. You might be able to argue it wasn't fit for purpose if you'd explained to the salesman that it needed to be easy to maintain and to sit in for an elderly and arthritic woman, and the salesman had told you that it was. You say that the display settees don't appear to suffer from this problem? Is it at all possible that their cushions have a different filling from those on your mother's settee? eg do those cushions have a firmer foam "slab" filling whereas your mother's settee uses a loose filling such as feathers or kapok or similar? If so you might be able to argue that the settee sold to your mum didn't match a sample or model that she had examined before deciding to buy. (See s13 and s14 here: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk). Obviously if you try a demo settee in a shop for firmness etc you expect the one you buy to show the same level of firmness, not less. You can really only argue the points as best you can with Sofology, and/or try the Furniture ombudsman as suggested by dx100. [Edit: If you get nowhere with sofology and the ombudsman and you are still unhappy, you could always try suing them. But I think you'd probably need to get some kind of independent report from an expert (a furniture maker?) saying that there was something wrong with the settee before you'd get anywhere]

Out of curiosity, can you provide anything to back up the assertion that if a consumer claims within 30 days that a product has a fault that the trader has no option other than to accept the claim that the item is faulty? You seem to be stating that the trader cannot at all challenge such a claim... (You aren't by any chance confusing the short term right to reject under the 2015 Act with the right to cancel under the 2013 Regulations are you?)

@kendo4423 - When these sofas were selected, did you or your mother (or sofology) discuss their suitability for her? eg; was it explained that your 76 year old mother suffered form arthritis and therefore a sofa where the cushions required daily plumping would be unsuitable for her? Did the sofology salesman suggest that the sofa would be "low maintenance" and not require plumping? Speaking personally I can't stand any sort of chair or sofa where an integral part of it uses feathers (or any other loose material) as a filling. They give no support and need constant adjustment. Also anything like that can be very difficult for older people to stand up from. Edot: cross posted with Kendo #5

But doesn't the short term right to reject only apply if the goods actually don't comply to contract in some way? It's not necessarily enough for the consumer to assert that they do if the retailer doesn't agree with the consumer If the retailer maintains that they do comply (and it would appear that the retailer is saying there is nothing wrong with the sofas) what does the OP do next?

I think that what @frustrated1972 needs to clarify is: What was the original description when the camera was first listed; When was the description amended (looks like 17:07 BST on 05 June according to PDF page 15 of the defence document);and When did the buyer place their winning bid. As I said in my previous post, if I were the buyer I'd want a refund too if the description had been significantly amended after I'd placed the winning bid. I can't comment on whether eBay acted correctly whatever the timing of events, but if the OP changed the description after the buyer placed their bid I can understand what eBay have done. I think the OP should focus his efforts on getting the camera back from the Buyer. (The Buyer certainly shouldn't be keeping it and the OP might be better advised to enrol eBay's assistance in trying to achieve that rather than suing them).

But did the description say it was faulty before the buyer placed his bid, and did he actually say what you think he did?? In your first post you stated: "...The description on Ebay of the camera was added to whilst the auction was running which answered some questions I had received... " [my emphasis in bold]; and, according to the messages presented in the Defence document, the buyer told you that he "... honestly didn’t see the additional description down there." [My emphasis in bold]. I might be entirely wrong, but how I interpret all that is that you amended the description of the item after the auction started, and the buyer is saying that he didn't read the amended description, not that he didn't read the description at all. If I'd placed a successful bid on an item and discovered that the description had been changed to show that the item was faulty after I'd placed my bid , I'd want a refund too. Is that what the buyer is saying has happened here? It's also not clear to me whether the fault you described ( "The only thing I have been unable to do is to get the shutter to work. I don’t know if I’m doing it correctly or if it needs a bit of work. I have wound the wheel that works the shutter and it does ‘wind up’.") is the same fault as that identified by the buyer, which seems to be more specific ("However the shutter speed ring is jammed even when it sitting in unlocked position. Which is not mentioned in the description. I’m not too sure if that’s connected with the shutter issue." ) It might have been better to say - as I think others have suggested - that it didn't work and was sold as spares, or for repair rather than to say that the only thing that didn't work was the shutter - a somewhat significant part of a camera mechanism... (I know all the above is a bit off-topic from your original question, but you might want to give it some consideration before going further) [Edit: I can't comment on whether you or eBay complied with eBay's T&Cs here]

@frustrated1972 - your personal details are still visible on the claim form at #6...

I think you are making the wrong decision but understand 100% why you are doing so. Unfortunately even the Labour Party are no longer interested in helping the "little working man", and would prefer to pursue meaningless issues regarding "identity politics" rather than support their true core supporters.

You are wrong. 120 days applies only to Chargebacks, which are governed by internal rules set by the debit and credit card providers themselves - Visa and Mastercard. s75 claims are entirely different and are governed by statute in England and Wales, and apply to credit cards , not debit cards. There is no time limit beyond the normal statute of limitations of 6 years.

@moneydragon - apologies if this has already been covered, but I don't think you've explained what you are claiming and why the defendant (whether the correct one or not) is contesting it? I assume from the set aside application that you eventually posted that you were claiming the return of your deposit, but the (wrong) defendant seems to be suggesting that you were in breach of the T&Cs of hire, and that you aren't entitled to a refund. Bearing in mind you may already have chucked £35 away by suing the wrong defendant, are you certain that you have a valid claim in the first place? Yes - not all deposits that are described as "non-refundable" are always non--refundable, but sometimes they are. What is the precise reason why the hire firm won't refund you? It might save you chucking away another £35.

Can't you just travel by public transport once a week and stay in a hotel, Premier Inn, or Travel Lodge, or rent a flat, bed-sit, or other room during the week? If it's the best job you've ever had, it might be better incurring that additional expense during a ban rather than losing your job. Or couldn't a friend or relative drive you to work during your ban? Or couldn't you pay somebody to drive you? (A "chauffeur". I'm serious - I'm not kidding!)

Did you simply just crash on your own or were the police chasing you down at the time? Is the "something else" relevant here? (Odd way of expressing it...)

If amazon are going to deliver "it" tomorrow, I don't think you have any option but to wait until you've got it (whatever it turns out to be), and then return it to them for a full refund. You do it by telling amazon that you are exercising your statutory right to cancel a distance sale under s29 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) I presume you have evidence (1) from Harper Collins that book #3 was never published and (2) that despite this fact, amazon still allowed you to place an order for book #3?

I don't know, but shouldn't you have sued who you paid the deposit to? In other words, the defendant should have been the limited company t/a whatever. eg Acme Limited t/a Acme Properties. The point of a limited company is that you can't (usually) sue the individuals behind it. The company is an entirely separate legal "person" from the people who run it or own it.

I might be mistaken but all I can see in the second attachment appears to be just an extract of the court papers? It only refers to "Project 2" and to "Agreement 2" and there is no mention of the underpinning which I thought was one of the issues at the centre of this dispute? I can't really be bothered wasting time trying to make sense of this stuff or having to turn my head sideways...

Assuming the defendant never complied* with your original GDPR request, then I'd have thought @BankFodder is correct that it is a continuing breach. Presumably you can keep suing them until they comply. (I'm not certain of that but I'm sure BF can either confirm or disconfirm). *I can't imagine you would have sued them again if they had subsequently complied. Would you?

I may be mistaken, but if I've understood correctly the link provided by @stu007 in #7, is there any need for you or any other individuals to suggest recognition of a union to your employer? Doesn't the link say that it's the union that approaches the employer for recognition, not the employees? So the first step for interested employees is to identify the appropriate union, and then get them to approach your employer on your behalf? The only possible issue is that the union must(?) identify to the employer the employees (the bargaining unit) that the union will represent*. Obviously the more of your colleagues you can get onside, the better. But if there are only two or three of you, you might be exposing yourselves, depending how vindictive your employer is. I agree with others that there is nothing an employer can do to prevent you joining a union. It's getting the union recognised that is an issue... * At least I think the union has to identify the individuals it will represent? The guidance says the union must identify the employees in "the bargaining unit", but it also talks about the union and employer agreeing which employees are in that bargaining unit, and I'm not sure why the employer would be able to agree that as it seems to imply they can say some employees can't be represented by the union? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I find a lot of "guidance" on .gov.uk confusing if not plain wrong. I'm sure others will know better then me what the position is

Can I ask what stage your claim is currently at?