Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'supreme'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 9 results

  1. The following is taken from the Law Gazette website: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/supreme-court-ruling-on-litigants-in-person-could-redraw-cpr/5063855.article
  2. We purchased 2 Supreme leather sofas from DFS in November 2016, and within 12 months the painted coating on the leather had removed from several areas at the seams, mostly on the side of the seats which are seldom used or areas that do not come into contact with the person sitting on them. We reported the problem to DFS and they sent out a DFS manager whom cleaned the areas and repainted them with touch up paint. The workmanship was very poor, the colour of the paint was not the same shade and the repair lasted no more than 5 weeks before it had worn off. The problem with the painted coating coming off has progressively got worse and now we have the paint peeling off one of the head rests. As the 2 year guarantee is up this November we contacted DFS again to come and see the problem. To keep this story short DFS has said that the painted coating on the seams is due to abrasion and the leather peeling on the headrest is from oils/grease from the scalp. After several telephone calls, emails and letters requesting a refund (reasoning that leather shouldn’t wear that quickly in these areas and not being fit for purpose if you put your head on the head rest), the current position is that DFS are saying that my rights to a refund or replacement ceased after I had these sofas 30 days, but they would come out and touch-up the paint as a goodwill gesture. We have since gone back to DFS and offered them an opportunity to repair the sofas, but with the following guarantees; The work is carried out by a professional repair person, as the repair carried out previously was unacceptable (different shade, poor, and lasted approximately 5 weeks) The paint/dye is mixed to correctly match the colour/shade of our Sofas. The paint/dye is applied in the required number of coats to the correct thickness. The repair areas are sealed after coating. The repairs are guaranteed for a minimum of 1 year and any other areas of the Sofas that show similar signs of peeling in the next 3 years will also be repaired free of charge to the same standard. Early indications are that they are not going to agree to this and also not give me any guarantees. Since researching leather finishes I have discovered that these sofas are pigmented leather (painted and lacquered) and that oils from the scalp can cause peeling. As putting your head on the headrest is a natural thing to do and as I was never told this when I purchased the sofas, can I request a refund or replacement under them being not fit for purpose? The sofas have been cleaned exactly to DFS’s requirements (dry wipe once a week and a 6 monthly clean with the leather cleaning kit supplied by DFS. If DFS are not going to budge on their goodwill gesture, I would like to take this further and I am prepared to take it through the small claims card, but I am not sure if I have a case. Does anyone have more details on similar cases that have successfully gone through the small claims courts that I could cite in further correspondence to DFS?
  3. To put it bluntly Councils have been saying to people faced with homelessness that you will have the same issues as the street homeless have now so are not more vulnerable. Also because you have these issues before you become homeless there will be no risk soi we do not have to help you. Judge says [naughty word]! http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2015/05/vulnerability-a-fresh-start/
  4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36845617 This Supreme court ruling will affect how Insurers deal with claims where Policyholders have been found to have told lies. " Lying on an insurance claim should not necessarily invalidate it, the Supreme Court has said, in a judgement likely to affect all household policies.It said collateral lies - which are untrue, but do not affect the validity of the claim - can be acceptable. The judges voted by four to one to change one of the important principles behind current insurance law. The insurance industry called it a "blow for honest customers", and warned that the price of policies could rise. The precise case involved a Dutch cargo ship, which ran into difficulty after its engine room was flooded. The owners deliberately lied, by saying the crew couldn't investigate an alarm, because the ship was rolling in heavy seas. In fact the accident was caused by bad weather, so the lie was irrelevant, the court ruled. The judge in the original court case said the lie amounted to a "fraudulent device", which invalidated the claim. The Court of Appeal upheld that judgement, but the Supreme Court has now overturned it."
  5. Currently in the active section of the Supreme Court is a case regarding the use of the wheelchair area on public transport in this case buses. See this link for the case >> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1573.html Short link >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/hjjhjyn Lord Justice Lewison : Introduction This appeal has attracted some public interest, so it is important to be clear about the issue. It is not about whether non-wheelchair users should move out of the wheelchair space on a bus in order to accommodate a passenger in a wheelchair. Of course they should if that is possible. Nor is it about whether mothers standing in the wheelchair space with a child in a folding buggy should fold their buggies in order to make way for a wheelchair user. Of course they should if that is possible. Non-wheelchair users, unlike wheelchair users, will normally have a choice about which part of the bus to sit or stand in. Common decency and respect for wheelchair users should mean that other passengers make way for them. What is at issue is whether the bus company must have a policy to compel all other passengers to vacate the wheelchair space irrespective of the reason why they are in it, on pain of being made to leave the bus if they do not, leaving no discretion to the driver. For the reasons that follow I have concluded that that is a step too far.
  6. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/06/motorist-takes-parking-charge-challenge-to-highest-uk-court I would now argue that if any PPC try to use the current judgement in their claim that the defendant highlights that an appeal has now been filed and the reference to Bevis be inappropriate until the supreme court make a ruling. Let us hope common sense prevails.
  7. I have just read a thread which i can only contemplate as a travesty of natural justice Does anybody know if Richard Durkin has had his appeal in the Supreme Court, and if not, when the appeal is being heard. This matter really does need case law to decide the issue of unlawful defaults It is all to do with this case that was heard in Scotland RICHARD DURKIN v. DGS RETAIL LIMITED+HFC BANK PLC, 26 March 2008, Sheriff J K Tierney
  8. SOURCE: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/june/commission-welcomes-supreme-court-ruling-on-armed-forces-and-human-rights-protection/ 19 June 2013 In a landmark judgment today (Wednesday 19 June) the Supreme Court ruled that British soldiers killed while serving in Iraq were still under UK jurisdiction and so were entitled to human rights protection to the extent that is reasonable and does not interfere with the demands of active service. Serving in the armed forces inevitably involves risks and dangers which our servicemen and women take on willingly. This ruling will extend the same protections of their rights to members of the armed forces on operations abroad which already exist when they are in the UK or an overseas base. So for example, if their equipment is proven to be faulty then they should be protected from that at home and abroad. Simply being in active service should not mean our armed forces lose all protections of their rights. It will be for the courts to determine whether there were human rights violations or negligence in particular cases. However, the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a reasonable balance between the operational needs of our armed forces and the rights of those serving in our armed forces to be protected in the same way as we expect them to protect the rights of civilians abroad. The Court unanimously accepted the Equality and Human Rights Commission submission that members of the armed forces are under the authority and control of the state and should be subject to the obligations and benefits imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights wherever they are in the world. The case at the Supreme Court involved the mother of Private Phillip Hewett and other families against the MOD. Their relatives were all soldiers killed in action and are seeking to bring claims of negligence and breaches of the duty to protect life against the Ministry. However, their ability to do this rested on the Court finding that Article 1 of the European Convention, which provides that rights and freedoms should be available to all within the State’s jurisdiction, reasonably applied to the men whilst in Iraq. The Court found that it did meaning that their cases can proceed to trial. Lord Hope, Court Deputy President said: “The extra-territorial obligation of the contracting state is to ensure the observance of the rights and freedoms that are relevant to the individual who is under its agents’ authority and control, and it does not need to be more than that.” This case is one of several the Commission has intervened in as an expert third party to ensure human rights protections cover UK armed forces abroad to the extent that it is reasonable to impose such a duty on the state. The Commission made no submissions in relation to the families’ other claims. Commission deputy director, legal, Wendy Hewitt said: The Supreme Court’s ruling means that human rights protections have been levelled up so that we are no longer expecting our armed forces to fully respect the rights of civilians abroad while not being properly protected themselves. “From this basic principle it is now up to the courts to decide how this should apply in practice. “This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve.”
×
×
  • Create New...