Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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
      • 160 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

Help needed with PC World legal department


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5307 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 have commenced proceedings initially through the small claims court for the reimbursement of an HP Laptop purchased from PC World in 2007. The machine's motherboard failed after 12 months and 8 days. I took the laptop back to PC World and was informed that as it was out of manufacturers warranty PC World engineers had been informed not to repair any HP machine. Having initiated a complaint to PC World Customer Services in December 2008, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) stating that the durability of the machine was not fit for purpose nor had the life expectancy one would associate with such a purchase, no suitable solution was offered by them. So, in March 2009 I started a claim against DSG Retail Limited for the sum of £959 including the sourt fee of £60. DSG filed a defence of the claim and I have now received correspondence from the local County Court.

 

They have stated that:

 

'Deputy District Judge G**** orders that this claim is stayed until 02 July 2009 to enable the parties to attempt settlement.

 

On or before 16 July 2009, one of the following steps must be taken:

either

the claimant must notify the court that the whole of the claim has been settled; (see note (i) below)

or

the claimant or defendant must write to the court requesting an extension of the stay period, explaining the steps being taken towards settlement and identify any mediator, expert, or other person helping with the proces. The letter should confirm the agreement of all the other parties. (see note (ii) below)

or

all the parties must file a completed allocation questionnaire at the court. Where a settlement of some of the issues in dispute has been reached, a list of those issues should be attached to the completed questionnaire. The list must be agreed with the other parties and must indicate that it has been agreed.

 

Note (i): Where settlement of the claim is achieved before the end of the period of stay, the following will be taken to include an application for the stay to be lifted:

(a) an application for a consent order to give effect to the settlement

(b) an application for approval of a settlement where one or more of the parties is a person undeer a disability: and

© the filing of a notice of acceptance of monies paid into court, or an application to accept monies paid into court out of time.

Note (ii): Extensions to the period of stay will generaly be no more than 1 month'

 

Not being that legally knowledgable, could someone please explain what all this means? I submitted an allocation questionnaire to the court back in April so will I need to submit another? Do I need to contact DSG Retail? What should my next step be?

 

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it been highlight to one of the site team for you they will do it

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to legal.

 

This looks like one of the parties (obviously not you, then :p) has asked the Court to stay the proceedings to allow settlement negotiations to continue. Now, if you have started them, you wouldn't be so confused, but there you go.

 

This has happened to me before, so I suggest you send this to DSG's Legal Team;

 

I am in receipt of the Courts Order, dated xx/xx/xxxx.

 

I note from the contents of the Order, that you have indicated on your Allocation Questionnaire that you wish to continue settlement negotiations on the issued claim.

 

I am a little bemused by this, as, as you are well aware of if you care to check your records, settlement negotiations were attempted prior the the issuing of a Court claim - as is required by the Courts pre-action protocols.

 

As such, I cannot see how negotiations can "continue" as suggested by your submissions to the Court.

 

While I remain confused, I welcome your commitment to settling this dispute by negotiation, rather than reverting to the Courts process. I therefore ask that you contact me, in writing, with your settlement offer within 7 days of your receipt of this letter.

 

Please take note that I intend, if you do not do so, to inform the Court that your actions are intended to frustrate the claim and is an abuse of the Courts process and that I will ask the Court to review this in light of its case management powers outlined in Civil Procedure Rules.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within 7 days.

 

You'll need to top/tail it with the usual details, etc.

 

We can cross the bridge of them not replying to you when we need to. ;)

 

By the way, it would be useful if you could post up the Particulars of Claim that you entered on the claim form when issuing the Court claim.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, it looks like dsg are just throwing a spanner in the works and that you have them on the back foot. i would do as car2403 has suggested and hopefully dsg should offer you an out of court settlement.

 

i would personally think that 7 days is a bit too small a period for someone to reply, maybe 14 days being more reasonable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

disclaimer:

 

I am not a legal expert Anything posted on this forum is for discussion purposes only. It should not be considered as legal advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may be different for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an legal expert who can advise you after finding out more about your situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks car2403,

 

I have sent the letter off to DSG Retail and will update with any news in the next 7 days.

 

As far as the particulars of my claim are concerned, this is my submission:

 

'I am claiming for the reimbursement of my purchase, my costs and time invoved. Having purchased a HP DV2530EA Notebook from PC World Oxford on 14/10/2007, on 23/10/2008 I started experiencing difficulties as display screen would sporadically not illuminate. I took the laptop to PC World in Watford and was advised that the laptop was out of warranty, 1 year from purchase, therefore engineers had been advised they cannot touch HP laptops. An engineer was given in Harrow as the initial feeling was the backlight had failed. I took the laptop to an independent engineer for diagnosis, £45 cost, and was advised that the motherboard/GFX chipset was faulty. I wrote a letter of complaint to PC World Customer Services in respect of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), stating the durability of the product was not fit for purpose. It would be reasonable to expect a longer life expectancy of a computer that I paid £700 for.'

 

I have a file of letters and communications that I had with PC World Customer Services prior to issuing the claim. None of which makes sense from their perspective as I received conflicting comments and responses throughout.

 

My complaint was specifically regarding the durability of the product and the fact that I had, at one stage, been telephoned by PC World Customer Services and instructed to take my laptop to PC World Watford where the engineers would carry out a 'voucher repair'. I did this and the manager had no record of any communication from Customer Services and could not carry out the repair. He was very helpful and e-mailed Customer Services who denied any knowledge of the telephone call. However, on 18.02.09 I telephoned Customer Services again, and Diane Fitzgibbons of DSG Retail Limited stated my file recorded the vouchers had been issued to the Watford store on 27.01.09 to the value of £220 for the repair. The manager has since confirmed that no vouchers were ever sent.

 

I feel they have been fobbing me off all along hoping I would just go away. Unfortunately for them, I won't and will gfo to court if necessary to receive my refund and costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would personally think that 7 days is a bit too small a period for someone to reply, maybe 14 days being more reasonable?

 

Well, this is one for discussion, but I think 7 days is more than enough for them to contact the OP as requested - plus we have to think that;

 

- This is a ploy to drag the Court's process out unnecessarily (god forbid!)

- If the stay isn't objected to within this period, the OP will have to wait a month for the stay to be lifted and proceedings to start from where it was left off

- In the meantime, DSG haven't resolved the dispute

 

I can see why you'd offer more time, but, I'm sure, in these circumstances, any Judge would find 7 days more than reasonable.

 

The next steps will be to bring all this to the Court's attention, object to the stay and have directions issued to progress the claim appropriately, should they not agree to a settlement...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car i agree with all of your points, i just think that when you are in the right and have the full weight of the law behind you that in such situations you can use time to your own benefit. so by showing the court you have given the defendant ample time, it can only be taken in your favour and not the defendants should the claim ever come before a judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car i agree with all of your points, i just think that when you are in the right and have the full weight of the law behind you that in such situations you can use time to your own benefit. so by showing the court you have given the defendant ample time, it can only be taken in your favour and not the defendants should the claim ever come before a judge.

 

Agreed.

 

The issue with this is that the claim shouldn't be needed - in fact, DSG have forced the OP's hand by refusing to negotiate - and to allow them to "misuse" the Courts process isn't in anyone's interests.

 

I have a feeling that we could apply for the stay to be removed and have some very favourable directions ordered, if we were so minded to push the issue, on the basis that whatever has been submitted suggesting a stay is necessary is completely unfounded.

 

It's because we're being reasonable that we're giving them the option to put their "obvious error" right, before involving the Court further.

 

All I'm suggesting is that, sometimes, you can be too reasonable, where you just get taken a lend of. (I also feel these companies sometimes rely on this reasonableness, which is an insult)

 

You could also apply the saying "give them enough rope..." :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car, unless i read wrong, i think that dsg have asked the court to give both parties time to try and reach a settlement.

 

the point of dsg doing this, is not to misuse the courts process, they are being clever, what they are doing is trying to make strong a weak case by showing their "willingness" to co operate and try to make an agreement out of court with the claimant.

 

which will be in their favour in case the claim does come before a judge.

 

this is why i suggested the 14 days so the court and judge can see you are also being reasonable and would like to settle out of court.

 

but i know where you are coming from, being too soft can give the wrong impression to dsg, but our aim should not be to think about dsg, instead we should be thinking how the court/judge will view our actions or letters in case the claim goes further.

 

so if the court/judge can see we are the ones being fair and reasonable they will take favour on us, especially considering we are litigants in person, who can not afford to hire solicitors compared to a huge company with unlimited resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car, unless i read wrong, i think that dsg have asked the court to give both parties time to try and reach a settlement.

 

The way I read it is that DSG have indicated they want to try to reach a settlement, but have totally ignored the OP's attempts to do that to date and have failed to contact them to begin these negotiations.

 

To my mind, that is an abuse of process if they don't do what they have indicated they intend to do. ;)

 

Of couse, though, I'm battle hardened to these types of approaches. :eek:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car, your right, these big companies enjoy bullying people about.

 

i mean for them £900 might not be alot but for us non mp's and non bankers, £900 takes alot of time and effort to save up.

 

please accept my apologies, you made a good point i missed, by the op writing to dsg prior to the claim he followed all the required pd's set out by the cpr and to which dsg failed to reply. if i am not wrong the op could make this point to the court who should be able to penalise dsg for this. so you are absolutely right from their failure to follow pd's and reply prior to the claim being made it is a bit dodgy that they now want to try and come to a "settlement" with the op.

 

thanks for the clarification

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi car, your right, these big companies enjoy bullying people about.

 

i mean for them £900 might not be alot but for us non mp's and non bankers, £900 takes alot of time and effort to save up.

 

please accept my apologies, you made a good point i missed, by the op writing to dsg prior to the claim he followed all the required pd's set out by the cpr and to which dsg failed to reply. if i am not wrong the op could make this point to the court who should be able to penalise dsg for this. so you are absolutely right from their failure to follow pd's and reply prior to the claim being made it is a bit dodgy that they now want to try and come to a "settlement" with the op.

 

thanks for the clarification

 

NP.

 

Usually, this tickbox is only ticked when both parties have already came to the table to discuss settlement - this isn't the case here, so you're right, I think DSG have exposed themselves if they don't now negotiate.

 

This can only be a good thing for the OP, though, as they either negotiate, in which case it will probably be settled, or they won't, in which he can claim their behaviour has been unreasonable, opening them up to a wasted costs order when he goes on to win. (There's little chance this will be lost)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of the posts. I was very interested in the BBC News item. I will keep you updated of any news regarding this claim, especially if I receive a response to the letter I sent to DSG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Just to let you know that having sent the letter as advised by car2403 I have yet to receive any response from DSG. I sent the letter to the legal department for the attention of the person dealing with the matter.

 

What would be my next step to resolve this ongoing issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that trooper68.

 

I have already commenced legal proceedings against DSG Retails based upon the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) as the laptop did not have the durability that would be expected of a machine costing £700. It was therefore, not fit for purpose.

 

I submitted two independent engineers reports as requested and was told they would not entertain a repair or compensation as the laptop was out of manufacturers 12 month warranty. Albeit by 8 days.

 

This has been going on since November 2008 and my patience eventually wore thin with DSG who, I beleive, felt they could just keep delaying and being unhelpful in the hope I would give up. Unfortuantely for them, that was never going to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that trooper68.

 

I have already commenced legal proceedings against DSG Retails based upon the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) as the laptop did not have the durability that would be expected of a machine costing £700. It was therefore, not fit for purpose.

 

I submitted two independent engineers reports as requested and was told they would not entertain a repair or compensation as the laptop was out of manufacturers 12 month warranty. Albeit by 8 days.

 

This has been going on since November 2008 and my patience eventually wore thin with DSG who, I beleive, felt they could just keep delaying and being unhelpful in the hope I would give up. Unfortuantely for them, that was never going to be the case.

 

 

Hi Geeman62

 

Have you raised this issue directly with HP at the time of the fault?

Usally thay are flexable.

Did the notebook at anytime go back to PC world before the fault developed, say, due to it "Blue Screening" and the "engineer" tested it for any other fault?

 

The reason I ask is that they think its "not our problem". The Complaints department did issue vouchers, to me they took it seriously. If you could show that they would address the situation, i think they will fold.

 

Trooper68

Trooper68:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only really 2 options - either wait for the stay period to expire and for the Court proceedings to take their natural course, or apply to have the stay lifted so the proceedings will continue.

 

IMHO, you're better off just waiting as making an application now will cost you £40/£75, plus the time it will take to hear the application which will take longer than just waiting for the stay to expire.

 

It's your claim, so only you can decide ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys,

 

DSG have failed to make an offer of settlement to my claim, despite my letter sent as advised above, and I have to now advise the court as such. Is there anything in particular that I should include in the letter, or is there a standard response I should use. This has to be at the court by Thursday 16th July so would appreciate any assistance.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...