Jump to content

IWonVsWoolwichBarclays

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Hi A local developer has received planning approval for a project that will place a side wall less than 3m from several of the properties. It will also build over a public sewer that we have an easement for. The community believes the decision was taken without proper consultation, and ignores rules and guidelines for local planning. In addition it was possibly rushed through to meet the deadline to avoid CIL in July. Due to the council being short staffed, by the time we had an opportunity to explore options with them, the decision had been made and also the time limit has passed for us to request a judicial review. Complaining to the council for an incorrect decision via the ombudsman will only result in a slap on the wrists and fine but won't undo the wrong. The developer has put forward several arguments to support keeping the plan as is, as opposed to a simple modification that will not cost much. The residents feel cornered by a system that is loaded against the people it should be there to protect. Any suggestions welcome.
  2. That will work. It will get you a call from his executive office (may take a week) but they will forward it to a uk specialist escalation team. They will do a much better job than normal routes. Interestingly the only way to get this type support is to a) go to the MD's office or B) threaten to cancel and ask for retentions. You would think a large co like this would have a big experienced support organisation in the uk but for broadband, there are only 17 people in the uk that take these type problems. The rest are offshore and are as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
  3. I was wondering if anyone had complained about Scottish Power setting Direct Debit levels too high. IE not based on previous or current usage, and/or current or future pricing. I have, and they continue to do the same thing despite always accepting my figures are more accurate than those that they generate automatically. It's basically them using you as a bank to lend money for free ! I complained to the ombudsman - the initial response was that they are acting within the rules. IE it is OK to take more money than they should, systematically without any logic, reason or explanation. I have read the rules (called the gas supply licence) and believe that Scottish Power are acting outside their licence. see here and refer to section 27.14 27.15 and 27.16 I have now replied back to the ombudsman saying I don't accept their finding and recommendation to reject my complaint. I would be interested to hear of others in a similar situation either with Scottish Power or other companies. I see that nPower have been caught out doing this to the tune of £400 MILLION See here I wonder how much Scottish Power have in the bank from taking too much out of their customers accounts. Feels like highway robbery if you ask me.
  4. Hi Heliosuk. re not giving the full story I see where you are coming from. I didn't omit that deliberately - I just tried to keep it short in my initial posting and hadn't had occasion to mention it before. Re planned programme and who the manufacturer is, the dealer has spoken to the manufacturer and the manufacturer agreed they can have a motor for the window - but this was authorised by non technical support staff who don't know what a window is let alone what the sale of goods act is. They did not lookup the recalibration process and have not told the garage about it. I did contact the manufacturer and they basically said sod off as there is nothing they can do for me as I am a customer of their customer - which I accept. I actually rang the manufacturer to support the dealer as they are the one who are stuck in the middle. Anyway, today I had confirmation from 2 solicitors that I am absolutely correct and entitled to a full refund. Section 48 seems to be the mainstay of the case. So I refute your assertion about protocol !! However I have asked the dealer for a repair with several conditions including if the repairs fail they accept my letter of rejection. This is not something I wanted to do but something I have had to do. So if you have a contact at Honda who can wave a magic wand then now is the time to wave it. Cos if I have to accept a repair and the manufacturer doesn't support the dealer with a replacement vehicle then the world will be entitled to know about it.
  5. @heliosuk - What did I not declare ? @heliosuk - How would naming the manufacturer resolve it any quicker unless the manufacturer is going to suddenly jump in to avoid the embarrassment of bad PR ? (I don't think so) Oh and by the way we love the car but the dealers refusal to act within the law has spolit it. @postggj OK understood and I appreciate your input. I'm trying to establish whether my understanding is correct around rejection NOT repair. Should it be proven wrong by someone on here then I may have to accept a repair. However I think I'm right in saying that nobody has said my understanding of rejection is actually wrong just that it may a) be difficult or b) may be challenged because of case law etc.
  6. @postggj The dealer does not have 3 chances if the goods are rejected because the buyer can choose whether to accept a repair. We have rejected the goods in writing already. The dealer has 3 chances if I don't reject in time (doesn't apply as I have) and they choose to repair it. @postggj Re "returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork" - this was done but they refused to accept the rejection. @ postggj Re "Darren Egan vs. Motor Services - In that case the reason it was not accepted was because it was deemed of satisfactory quality because "the sensitivity of the car to camber was in fact normal for that type of car" I would consider that it is not unreasonable for this car to be assembled carefully, and for the windows to work @postggj You seem to be looking at the same site as me for your information. If you are connected to this case it would be inappropriate not to admit that now. @helios - I have given the garage a chance to inspect the vehicle and they did leave it in a worse state than it was given to them. This does go some way to prove they might mess up the repair but as you say I can't (and didn't) reject it for that reason. The fact that their sales director said he would repair it at another branch that had better skilled technicians suggests that they don't rate the skills of their own staff either. @helios the manufacturer has not identified or accepted any faults into a planned program. Equally they have not informed the dealer of a possible window re-calibration procedure that avoids replacing the window motor so they're as bad as each other. @Conniff - The car has been rejected in writing and we stopped using it at that point. Thanks for taking the time to reply chaps. I'm still looking for a solicitor by the way !
  7. see comments in my thread entitled Rejectiing new car due to faults SOGA - need some professional advice - any recommendations ?
  8. Hi Chaps, Thanks for your responses. Please let me comment to each point "That is a consultation paper not regulation." Yes it is a consultation that makes suggestions starting on page 63. The bit on page 40 that I am talking about is the law as it stands today in a readily understandible form. It is also a consultation in relation to digital goods. Yes but it IS a consultatation on GOODS, AND services AND digital goods not only on digital goods. plus a note "(A) The reasonable time for acceptance excludes time spent repairing the good " Yep I'm fine with that and well within everything I have seen on the subject. "there are certain protocols which need to be followed such as the opportunity to rectify actual or perceived defects." But if I follow the rejection route I do NOT have to allow the seller the opportunity to rectify the faults it is up to ME. If however I do not notify them promptly I am forced to go down the repair route where they can determine whether they repair it or not - well that is my understanding and I am looking for someone who has experience of that path. (see page 40) Is there a solicitor in the house who knows about rejecting goods under the sale of goods act ?? The reason for the rejection is based on the faults but behind that is my experience in the past with incapable "technicians" who made a similar situation much worse than it was in the first place. Therefore as I have the right not to accept a repair because I have moved quickley I am trying to be amicable by making the vehicle available for inspection but I have not authorised a repair. It might look like I am steaming in but I MUST reject quickley otherwise I loose the right to reject and ask for a full refund. Thanks for the support.
  9. Oh yeah !!! A simple flow chart. google the file 12-937-enhancing-consumer-consultation-supply-of-goods-services-digital.pdf and look at page 40 It clearly shows I can reject and get a full refund.
  10. Do a google for the file 12-937-enhancing-consumer-consultation-supply-of-goods-services-digital.pdf and look at page 40 It clearly shows your rights. I can't put a link as I haven't posted enough times on this forum
  11. Thanks for the replies. Conniff - thanks for the good point re reserving right to reject later. I understand I can get a refund if I have rejected the goods - which I have done. Heliosuk can you give a reference to a manufacturer having proved the case that it's OK to deliver with minor deects. I'd be quite interested. The reason I say this is that actually I have seen case law that says that AFTER repairs a rejection can still stick but other case law says can't reject after a longer period of time than I have rejected in. So I'm looking for reference points to determine how reasonible it is to continue to reject. This is not a warranty issue it's a "not as described and not free from minor defects" case. I'm not naming the brand as I don't want the dealer or manufacturer being party to this public conversation and really it shouldn't make a difference as to what the position is. Thanks
  12. SOGA states goods should be free from minor defects and I don't have to accept a repair if rejected and the faults were there from new. there is caselaw to say so. Yes it's covered by warranty but that's not the point. Ripping the car apart will result in all sorts of rattles and noises and it possibly will not go back together the same way it was made. Looking at the dealers performance so far this is a very likely to happen. Why should I accept damaged goods ? What I really need is a tame solicitor who can help me ensure this nightmare doesn't get any worse eg they repair it and later on after well and truely having messed it up they claim I should have claimed at the outset. This has happened in the past. Sorry I don't want to reveal the manufacturer but it's a quality brand that you should not expect this kind of issue with.
  13. 1Dashboard panel not fitted correctly 2 Electric window does not close properly and auto close button causes window to close and then re-open 3 door seals on one side appear mal formed or flapping about. It's not really about the chances of losing. I have a strong case as the reject letter was put in within 10 days of collection. It's more a case of inconvenience + cost for a solicitor and time. I have photographic evidence and detailed log of all events/conversations.
×
×
  • Create New...