Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

CSL Sofas Problem, help please.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4806 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

Hi, I need help, I'm not getting anywhere with CSL or Trading Standards

 

Forgive me, I'm writing this in rage and the time line might not be that accurate.

 

I bought 2 sofas from CSL on 15 November 08, they were delivered 7th December 08 by the beginning of January 09 the cushions were half as firm as when they were delivered and one of the bases was showing signs of sagging on one side.

 

I reported this to them and they sent out a "Technician" who saw the cushions and thought they were fibre filled they were that soft when in fact they are foam filled cushions, thats how soft they had become. He reported that the cushions would need to be replaced and then CSL said we would have to wait 6-8 weeks for new cushions to arrive.

 

By the time the replacement cushions had arrived the sofas looked terrible and were terribly uncomfortable. When the new cushions were installed, I said they were no better than the original ones were when I complained originally. I was asked to wait and see, well I wasn't given a choice.

 

A few weeks later I contacted them again, and they sent the "Technician" out, again, and he ordered 4 more cushions again.

 

Here we are in May, 2 weeks ago, the "Technician" arrived with 4 new cushions, installed them in the sofa that was the worst of the 2 and could clearly see that there was something wrong, not just with the cushions, but with the base. These cushions were thicker and firmer than any of the previous ones but they were still slumped down on one side. He sat on the sofa, and changed sides repeatedly, it was obvious that one side was sitting a good 6 inches lower than the other. He took photos of the sofa and took a bunch while sitting on the cushions showing clearly how little support the sofa was giving. He said it wasn't worth installing the other 2 cushions as there was clearly a fault, he just wasn't sure what it is.

 

Now CSL are saying that they aren't happy with his report, that it or the photos don't tell them anything and that they have to send another different "technician" to come, examine the sofas and give them yet another report before they can make any decisions as what to do next.

 

In my opinion he will just be a yes man who will tell them what they want to hear so they wont have to take any further action.

 

For the last 3 weeks I have been asking them to take the sofas away, cancel the credit agreement and give me a refund, I have no faith in the product or the company and don't want anything more to do with them. They are being evasive, promising to call back and not doing so, and having spoke to at least 3 different people, contradicting themselves in each phone call.

 

I contacted consumer direct, they pretty much said CSL can do what they want and I have no chance of a refund. The only advice they could offer is that I should write a letter to CSL, explaining the situation (again) and asking for a refund or a resolution.

 

This isn't going to help me, they know what's going on repeating it isn't going to solve anything and ultimately consumer law is allowing them to do what they want.

 

Now my mother and I both suffer from back problems and they have been aggravated by the furniture. I didn't take the purchase of these sofas lightly, I had been round all of the different retailers trying out furniture and when I found these sofas in CSL the sofas in the show room were so comfortable and supportive and after 45 minutes of sitting on them we had made the decision that they suited our needs.

 

After 6 months of discomfort and pratting around I just want this over.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also try speacking to the finance company that CSL arranged your finance with, in my experiance they may freeze the account due to the dispute and also withdraw the payment that they have made too CSL. Look in the terms and conditions for unsatisfactory goods and services. Trading standards should be more helpful and point you in the right direction and help you get an independent inspection done also. I am also pretty sure there is an independent furniture company out there who can also step in, I can't remember their name at the moment but I will get it when i am at work later today. Don't worry I am a manager within this industry. I will post this company details when I get back tonight.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

HERE IT IS ,iAM A FURNITURE EXPERT WITH ALL THE CERTIFICATES UNDER THE SUN AND i EVEN PUT AN ADVERT IN THE Newspaper offering my expertise to the public to avoid such problems and I got one phone call.

The problem we have , is that we have decimated the furniture industry because it was expensive.

Those, old enough, must remember the British Kite Mark of quality that used to stamped on the bottom of furniture assuring quality and fit for purpose.

But this was remove and cheap inports were encouraged,this resulted in no quality control or fit for purpose, the furniture itself is detrimental to world ecology ,ie its not from susstainable resources, thus not green.

The producers are poorly paid, the consumer at home here still pay the equivalent ,as though they are manufactured here in GB, AND THE ONLY LAUGHIN BOY IS THE MIDDLE MAN.

Now we come to the prescription for these poorly manufacture items.

THE CONSUMER CONPLAINTS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES, THAT INFACT SELL FURNITURE RESTORATION FRANCHISES SUCH AS FURNITURE PRO AND FURNITURE MEDIC, AND THEN THEY EMPLOY THEM AS FURNITURE EXPERT WHO HAVE ATTENDED A 6 WEEK RESIDENTIAL COURSE TO COME AND EXAMINE YOUR £30000 SUITE

FUNNY OLD WORLD, GET AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT AS MYSELF AND CHECK THEIR CREDENTIALS. IE QUALIFICATIONS.

CHECK OUT diamondrestorationco.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...