Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

How long should boot last?


petethemanc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6006 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My girlfriend bought some boots from additions direct (south boots) after the first month she had to pay for the boots to be re-heeled. And yet they still wore down again very quickly, after two months usage the metal in the heel is showing and they need to be thrown out. My question is what is a reasonable time that boots should last given they were only worn to journeys to and from school?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is a piece of string? :razz:

 

It would depend on the price paid, on weather conditions, on type of boots, etc... Furthermore, it could also vary according to how your girlfriend walks (some people wear heels out, some the sides, some scuff the front, you get the picture...) As for price paid, catalogues charge a lot more than what high street shops charge, so you'd be expected to pay a higher price anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After buying the boots, following a short period the boots had to be re-heeled, hence were re-heeled at cost to urself, however again after another short period the boots need re-heeling, this tells me there was nothing wrong with the 1st heels on the boots just wear and tear, as the second heels only lasted the same period, yet were supplied seperatley from a shoe menders i guess, hence comes down to been heavy footed or heel walking as ladies tend to do.....The higher the cost of footwear doesn't mean better and longer usage, also the cheaper the footwear doesn't mean lesser the usage...

!2 years Tesco distribution supervisor

7 years Sainsburys Transport Manager

 

4 Years housing officer ( Lettings )

Partner... 23 Years social services depts

 

All advice is given through own opition, also by seeking/searching info on behalf of poster, and own personnel dealings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The higher the cost of footwear doesn't mean better and longer usage, also the cheaper the footwear doesn't mean lesser the usage

 

From SOGA point of view, it does, should someone want to make a case that the item wasn't suitable as regards durability and fitness for purpose, then the price would be part of the equation.

 

In this case, however, I agree that it is likely to be wear and tear on the heels and not a default with the boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless both the original heels and the repair were both faulty. I think to prove this, or even either one, would involve a fight. It may be worth a go, but I suspect blood pressure may rise more than your phone bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While I am not a lawyer, I believe that various organisations, for example trading standards, believe that goods should last a "reasonable" amount of time or they are not fit for purpose. Goods can be unfit for purpose even if they are not specifically "faulty", if the design is inadequate. In the case of boot heels wearing down after a month, I personally would think that these are not fit for purpose, and the OP should be refunded. Whether trading standards and/or other organisations agree is of course another matter.

 

I've returned quite a few cheap childrens toys for failing to last longer than a few hours of use by a typical child. Has so far worked every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the boots belong to the child, or the mother? you mentioned walking to school....if the said boot is being worn by a child, its pretty safe to say the retailer will claim it was due to abuse/wear and tear.

 

To be honest, You will be better off cutting your losses either way and buying a boot that is known to be more robust....a quick look at the website reveals that those boots are more fasion items than sensible day-to day boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the boots belong to the child, or the mother? you mentioned walking to school....if the said boot is being worn by a child, its pretty safe to say the retailer will claim it was due to abuse/wear and tear.

 

The retailer claiming this does not make it true. From what I've read, goods are "fit for purpose" if they can withstand normal wear and tear for a reasonable length of time. If boots are made for children, i.e. in child sizes, then they should be able to withstand the typical usage of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, but playing devils advocate, how does the OP intend to prove otherwise?

 

I dont belive its fair to assume any manufacturer can predict the typical use of children, Im not that old myself and can clearly remember my mother chastising me for destroying my new shoes....I belive it involved a game that meant scuffing and stamping on the new shoes.

 

 

I think some more details from the OP would help to clarify the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, but playing devils advocate, how does the OP intend to prove otherwise?

 

If the shop refused to refund, then a complaint to trading standards would be in order. I would think. Small claims court would be only for the really hard headed.

 

When I took broken childrens' toys back to toy shops, I sort of expected a "well, that's what happens to toys" response. But I always got a no-quibble refund. I even got a replacement once for one of those glowing light whirly things I bought at a fireworks display which stopped working at about half an hour.

 

I do seem to get surprised looks when I first bring back the item. I stopped buying no-brand things from Argos when they kept breaking or being substandard on me. I once even took a breadmaker back to them telling them that it made awful bread. Which it did, despite a "Which" review of the time saying that it made pretty decent bread. But they always refunded me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP wouldn't be able to go to retailer now anyway, as they got a repair done elsewhere before giving retailer a chance to examine the goods and determine what caused the problem, thereby losing their right to claim redress under SOGA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SATRA - (Shoe and Allied Trade & Research Association) do set guidelines to footwear manufacturers stating the 'hardness' of heel top peices, too soft and they wear out quickly, too hard and they can cause you to slip as no grip resistance. Unfortunately though as Bookworm has said the fact the the top peices have been replaced means that you now have no come back on teh retailer (unless of course you kept the old tips?).

I worked in customer services for Int shoe retailer for 7 years and have seen returns for the same reason that have worn out within hours but have been proved to be non faulty, it really is down to the type of heel and the wearer, if the two don't match it doesn't render the goods 'not fit for the purpose'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...