Pugsley v Land of leather,Open and Direct

[pugsley]

this company is on my hit list so will be putting down any info I find on them to try and sort this extortionate agreement I have with them, they have given me excessive charges and have never answered one of my letters, they are Belfast

 

 

 

 

OFT gets fairer deal from Land of Leather

 

 

129/04 19 August 2004

Furniture company Land of Leather has agreed to give consumers a fairer deal following action by the OFT.

 

The OFT had received complaints about the use of unfair terms in Land of Leather's contracts, delay in delivery of goods, goods being supplied that were not of satisfactory quality and misleading advertising of 'interest-free' credit.

 

Kent trading standards service contacted the OFT about terms and conditions being used by Land of Leather including terms that:

• gave unequal cancellation rights - cancellation had to be agreed by the company and incurred a minimum 25 per cent charge even when the supplier was in breach
  
• explicitly disclaimed liability for employees' oral statements
  
• sought to restrict liability for faulty goods by imposing a refundable £25 charge for making a claim for goods between one month and a year old.

Credit deals were advertised as 'free until 2004', 'free for a whole year' and 'everything's free until 2005' when in fact interest accrued from the beginning of the agreement if the whole balance was not paid off within a specified period. The OFT considered this to be misleading under of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and in breach of the Consumer Credit (Advertisement) Regulations 1989.

 

The OFT approached Land of Leather which reacted positively to the OFT's approach and is putting in place a number of measures to improve compliance with the legislation.

 

In addition Land of Leather has signed undertakings that it will no longer use the unfair terms, will amend its credit advertising and will not breach certain terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

Welcoming the undertakings Christine Wade, OFT Consumer Regulation Enforcement Director, said:

 

'Consumers have a right to expect goods to be of satisfactory quality and delivered on time, for advertising to be accurate and not to have their legal rights undermined by unfair terms. Where companies breach consumer legislation we will take action to protect consumers.'

NOTES

 

1. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) came into force in 1999 (superseding the UTCCRs 1994) and apply to standard contract terms used with consumers in contracts made after 1 July 1995. The UTCCRs protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts they make with traders.

The OFT, together with certain other bodies, can take legal action to prevent the use of potentially unfair terms. A term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers. Standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs but must also take account of the interests and rights of consumers by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests. An unfair term in a contract covered by the UTCCRs is not binding on the consumer. Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair.

2. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 prohibits credit advertisements which convey information which in a material respect is false or misleading.

 

In addition the OFT took the view that the use of 'free until 2004', 'free for a whole year' and 'everything's free until 2005' breached the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 1989. Effectively, the regulations ban any advert that indicates that the consumer would be liable to pay no more on credit than he would if he bought it for cash where that is not in fact the case.

 

The Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 1989 are to be replaced by the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 2004 as from 31 October 2004. However the new regulations will still ban such adverts.

3. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 sets out the law governing contracts for the sale of goods including formation of contract, implied terms, remedies for breach and performance of the contract. Under s.14(2) there is a term implied into contracts that the goods must be of satisfactory quality. This includes, amongst other things, being fit for the purpose(s) they are commonly supplied for and being satisfactory taking into account the description of the goods. Where goods supplied are faulty the consumer is entitled to reject them and claim a refund providing they are not deemed to have accepted the fault. Consumers also have the right to require the seller to repair or replace faulty goods, provided this is possible and not disproportionate, and that this is carried out within a reasonable time. Under s.29 where the seller is to send goods to the consumer but there is no fixed time for sending them then there is also a term implied into the consumer's contract that they will be sent within a reasonable time.

4. Part 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 came into force in June 2003 and improves consumer protection by giving enforcers such as the OFT and trading standards services strengthened powers to obtain court orders against traders that breach a range of specified consumer legislation to the detriment of the collective interests of consumers.

[pugsley]

watchdog website

24 October 2005

 

More than 600 customers have contacted Watchdog to complain about Land of Leather.

Tammy and Dewbien Hlabangana purchased a sofa set from Land of Leather for £699 in May 2004. They were told the set would be delivered in August, 12 weeks later. When August arrived, the family were given just 24 hours' notice to prepare for delivery. Yet the Land of Leather terms and conditions allow for three days to arrange a convenient time, so the Hlabanganas asked for the sofa to be delivered the following week. Despite this, 21 weeks have passed and the sofas still haven't been delivered.

Louise White purchased her sofa from Land of Leather in April 2005. When the suite was delivered, each sofa had extensive markings on the leather. In addition, when White attempted to recline the sofas, she discovered that some of the feet at the bottom of the sofa were missing and that whenever she reclined the chair it scraped her wooden floorboards. Land of Leather refused to acknowledge White's complaint that her sofas are damaged and billed her for £2,998.

Watchdog has also heard from a number of customers who purchased sofas from Land of Leather on a 'buy-now, pay-later' agreement, where payment isn't due until 12 months after purchase. It seems that some customers aren't sent reminders advising that payment is due, while others received their reminders almost eight months prior to the payment date. In all of these cases, once the customer has failed to make the payment by the specified date, interest for the previous 12 months is accrued. In one example, a customer who purchased a sofa for £1,188 missed the payment date by 20 days and now has to pay a total bill of £2,333.

This isn't the first time Land of Leather has been criticised by customers. In 2004, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) received complaints about Land of Leather contracts, delays in delivery, unsatisfactory goods and misleading advertising of interest-free credit. At that point, Land of Leather, promised to improve things.

Land of Leather is disappointed to hear we've had so many complaints about the company because it shifts 400,000 items of furniture a year and has high customer satisfaction. It's had a problem with one supplier which affected the Hlabanganas. White will get a full refund and costs paid. Land of Leather says it has made several changes in its procedures since the OFT statement last year. As to the interest reminders, these are the responsibility of its finance company.

[pugsley]

IT's finance company is Open and Direct Finance and I can't find anything on them as yet, I have sent them countless letters though which they have not replied to any. all the while my balance has been going up very fast, i.e if they send me a letter they charge me £100

[pugsley]

I have signed this credit agreement wrong!!!!!!!!! I signed accepted the payment protection plan then signed waiving the payment protection plan, it should have been sent back to me surely???? this is on the main credit agreement!

 

 

[pugsley]

over £700 interest wow that's over 100%

[pugsley]

default notice 11 april 2006 £1800.40

 

charges applied

 

jan 06 arrears £75.00 + admin fee of £30 applied and debited to my agreement

 

th feb arrears £125.

 

an admin letter of £25 added for sending letter

 

I sent them a letter offering £10 per month, no reply

 

25th april offering new management plan, standard letter not acknowledging my earlier letters, this will clear all my arrears incorporate all your agreements together at a reduced interest rate giving me a single monthly repayment, think this might be some sot of ploy

 

solictors letter admin fee £100 /04/06

tracing fee £30 5th march 2006 after I had wrote making an offer, my address hasn't changed, I wrote a few time to them but they never acknowledge any letters

 

01 feb 06 admin fee £25.00 for letter

12 may 2006 open and direct letter send an administration fee of £100 has been added to facilitate transfer under the terms and conditions

balance now £1940

consumer collection limited send me a letter charging £25 admin fee they have been instructed by open and direct services ltd to recover a payment

 

 

 

I sent them a letter -02-06 saying income low and making an offer to pay 10 monthly

 

1-03-06 wrote a letter complaining about tracing fee, no reply

[pugsley]

-06-06 sent them a letter offering £10 again this time to Rockwell debt recovery, asked for a means test form, which I haven't filled in as yet

[pugsley]

I need some advice on how to proceed with this complicated agreement? Please

[pugsley]

aggrement signed by me on 1/11/04

 

posted to them and they have signed it on 1/11/04 too

[JonCris]

just linking

[pugsley]

should I do a SAR first? the ppi wasn't done properly so shlould be taken off surely its about £211 + interest at about 100% was put on this amount. If I can get this taken off it will help. Now i know that unsigned agreement are unforceable but this was signed and not signed all at the same time, trust me lol

[pugsley]

I haven not acknowledged the debt only made offers to pay a reduced monthy fee, saying i'm skint etc, and haven't seen anything on my experian credit file even though a default, of course it might be on equifax or call credit.

[nathal]

interest is charged on ppi, is that allowed

 

i am also in same boat with creditcover(ppi), sent letters to cancel ppi but got standard letters charging 20-30pound for reply, so i sent a letter saying i lost my job and would like to avail of the ppi

 

prob will cancel it now

[pugsley]

I was charged interest on ppI

[nathal]

how frustrating,

after my attempts to cancel ppi

igot charged

 

1st letter £25

2nd 30

3rd £100.00

 

grrrrrr

[pugsley]

wow I thought my £100 letter charge was a record, what are you going to do about them?

[JonCris]

how frustrating,

after my attempts to cancel ppi

igot charged

 

1st letter £25

2nd 30

3rd £100.00

 

grrrrrr

 

Check this out!

 

http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Documents/Full%20case%20-%20London%20North%20Securities%20v%20Meadows.doc

[JonCris]

I was charged interest on ppI

 

Check this out

http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Documents/Full%20case%20-%20London%20North%20Securities%20v%20Meadows.doc

[nathal]

the £100 charge was for administration for sending out solicitor letter saying arrears had to be paid to the creditor. May have been inhouse solicitors

[JonCris]

the £100 charge was for administration for sending out solicitor letter saying arrears had to be paid to the creditor. May have been inhouse solicitors

 

Still not a lawful charge.

 

Anyway solicitors charge £13.50 per letter to their client, so this company are trying to rip you off again. Also legal fees if not by consent are only recoverable if claim issued.

[nathal]

open and direct are a drastic company, just waiting to c wat response i get from oft

[pugsley]

thanks Jon have read some of it, my contract isn't that bad and the insurance although included in the credit amount was with another company so a bit different. The extortionate side I really need to find out some more about this and get my old 2003 contract books out of the loft and print this case out and go through it all, I think I will take it as far as I can and possibly pay a solicitor at a later stage.

 

 

first things first is to get them to send the credit agreement to me, as they are so bad at answering letters it's got to be recorded. I have paid for my credit reference and am waiting to see what is on it from open and direct.

 

I did agree in the contract to pay £100 ( well I have a list of charges, but I'm not sure if they are in the credit agreement as such, just a separate sheet) for a solictors letter which they charged me, but they also charged for a normal letter the same price which wasn't in the terms.

 

this is going to be my most complicated claim I think, it's quite scary really

[nathal]

dont think anything will show on cra about o&d. I also think they will be very hard to deal with.

[JonCris]

PPI is always with a different company. The fact the seller has used a particular Insurance Company is irrelevant to you. The selling company is liable.

 

We ALL agreed to pay the charges until we found out they are unlawful as are the solicitors as believe me they do not represent the actual cost to the selling company.

[pugsley]

PPI is always with a different company. The fact the seller has used a particular Insurance Company is irrelevant to you. The selling company is liable.

 

We ALL agreed to pay the charges until we found out they are unlawful as are the solicitors as believe me they do not represent the actual cost to the selling company.

 

Thanks good points, at the time I never intended to go into the red anyway, but circumstances change, I was intending to pay it all off within the year, but my income went down considerably and unexpectedly (CSA!). The case mentions no insurance company (they couldn't find a policy with anyone) that is why I was getting confused.

 

Nathal I think open and direct are on my credit record for equifax, because I when I went through one of the questions asked for was have you a loan with open and direct, lombard etc and you had to chose a, b,or c etc.