Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, all I can add is that I was a victim of a Backdoor CCJ from Capquest, my fault for moving and not writing to them with my new address.  It sounds counter intuitive but the Best and most important thing to stay protected is to let your creditors know you are moving. Always in writing too, good old fashioned Royal Mail.
    • Sorry to pile more of the brown stuff onto your head – but I think that this speaks volumes. You are not an "ex customer" of Currys. To suggest that you are is effectively accepting that Currys' responsibilities to you ended the moment that they took your money and you walked away with the cooker. Currys' responsibilities are ongoing for the reasonably expected lifespan of the item which you bought and this means that you continue to be their customer for at least that period of time.   If you can start to adopt this mindset, you will start to find yourself pointing in the right direction. We will help to keep you focused
    • In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100. These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.  
    • I think I have to add some clarification to the advice which has been given by my site team colleague above. Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act does not replace the existing law of contract. It simply supplements it and adds some additional solutions such as the short-term right to reject – and the right to reject within six months after giving a single opportunity to repair. These remedies are meant to be solutions but in fact we are finding – especially with car dealers – that the law is simply being ignored and frankly from that point of view the Consumer Rights Act is not a great success. There really ought to be in place a punitive measure for retailers who don't respect the 30 day rule and the six-month rule. But there aren't. So what is left is that even after six months, the item which has been sold to you must be of satisfactory quality and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period of time depends on the reasonable expectations of a reasonable consumer. If the item starts to develop problems early on in its life then I think it can be generally taken beyond doubt that the item has failed the test of "satisfactory quality" because it has not remained that way for a reasonable period of time. Where an item starts to fail towards the end of its reasonable life expectancy, then you have a more difficult problem and that is where as my site team colleague has suggested, that you would ideally have to find some expert evidence to show that the item had failed because there was an existing defect. You could do this by getting an independent inspection or else by finding other examples over the Internet to show that this was a known problem. My site team colleague is right that you would have to demonstrate a defect even if the item fails at an early stage in its life – but I think that if you are taking a cooker with a reasonable life expectancy of probably, say, eight years – then I think the fact that it has developed a serious defect in the first 12 months would be taken by any County Court judge as clear evidence that it had failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act – that it was not satisfactory quality. If the judge accepted that failure as evidence, then it would be up to the retailer to counter the presumption with evidence that there was nothing wrong with it. So what I'm saying is that in the first instance, I think that the defect speaks for itself and the question now is how to proceed. I'm sure that we can help you and I'm sure that we can help you get a result. I have to say now that you've been here since 2015 and I'm extremely disappointed to find that you seem to be unaware of the fact that you enjoy ample statutory rights to deal with this and that you seem to be lamenting the fact that you didn't take out an extended warranty and that furthermore you seem to be prepared to rely on a so-called 12 month guarantee provided by the manufacturer. You are asking how these companies can get away ripping off "innocent people" and I suppose that you are referring to "innocence" in the sense that people don't deserve it. Frankly I tend to see "innocence" in the sense of a certain naïveté – especially when people know about this forum. I don't particularly understand why you have put up with this for a pretty well five months instead of coming here. If you want to take that as a slapped wrist – then please do. Also it's a message to other people who visit this thread. Can you please tell us about the price you paid and any exchange you had with Currys. I understand that they have simply knocked you back to the manufacturer? Are you surprised? You're dealing with Currys. Another example of innocence. Blesséd are the meek. I don't fully understand the fault. Maybe you could put up a picture of the fault – in PDF format please. It will help us get a better idea what we are doing. Also, have you had anybody coming to have a look and see if it is actually repairable?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Annyfog v Northern Rock

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4072 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

hi davey77, I need some advice please. I have 2 loans with Northern Rock which were taken out 2004 & 2005. Whilst reading some of the post on CAG about what is enforceable or not i did some calculations on mine. Both are fixed interest rates for the duration of the loans, however the amount i pay each month does not calculate properly to he interest rate and the total amount payable shown on the agreement does not match up. Would this be unenforceable.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Annyfrog


Not quite my area but i'll try and point you in the right direction and give an opinion.


If you are sure everything else is in order re the agreements (prescribed terms/signatures etc) and the problem is with the calculated interest rate then i would say the amount in question is the issue.


If it's a small minor discrepancy (a few pounds more or less) then i doubt a Judge would come down very hard on the creditor for it even if technically the agreement is not in order. (And likewise the creditor won't be too concerned if you push it, or look like you are pushing it towards a court room.)


If on the other hand the amount is considerable in relation to the loan amount (Difference between what the paperwork says and what your actually paying) then at least you have a good bargaining tool to use against the creditor and a situation that creditor would prefer not to be looked at by a Judge. So they will/could be likely to come to a compromise (eventually) to avoid that happening. Depends on how much money we are talking about as to how much the creditor digs their heals in.


You can use a major discrepancy in the agreement as leverage to get a better deal/full & final.. maybe a write off although that last one is tough to get and depends on how confident you are about your stance and what you want to try to achieve as well as the state of the legal issues currently of which i am no expert and i certainly haven't been watching very closely for a few months.


In the first instance i would post up here your agreement (minus personal details) for others more in tune with these specific issues to view and give their opinion on. They might see other potentially helpful flaws to use against the creditor.


In the mean time here are a couple of threads i have found with similar issues you might find useful to read through. Hope that's of some help.





:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1


Never Sign Anything


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...