Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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

B&Q Returned drill Bought in Nov, They want me too pack it up and wait in all day for Bosch too collect it and test!


scouse12345
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4413 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

As per thread title, i;m fuming too be honest, took time off a job too return drill too B&Q, they put me on the phone too Bosch, who want me too wait around all day tomorrow for a courier too collect the drill and return it too them for testing, drill is 10 weeks old with reciept and they met yet decide that it's my fault it's become faulty according to the Bosch guy on the phone.

 

Anyone know if this is correct or if i'm being given the run around, as i feel the need for a little arguemnet now

 

Cheers

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ya didnt buy if of bosch .its upto b & q to return it back to bosch ,b & q are supplied with these on a sale or return basis,you have your receipt so demand to see the manager and make a scene at returns if neccassary.:sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi scouse

 

Read 10,12 and 13 in my signature.

 

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES CLICK HERE

 

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies people, nearly became one of my own pet hates "starts a thread and never ends it".

 

Phoned B&Q head office, and informed them i wouldnt be waiting in for a courier too collect damaged drill, took back too the same B&q depot, asked for manager and informed them of the hassle i had, they apologised, and refunded the drill in full and informed me i had in misinformed etc...

 

Thanks for the help.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a try on from the middle man.

Worthwhile to know your rights

 

At the risk of speaking out of turn actually I think it entirely possible the retailer acted appropriately in this case and there is not an issue of them acting wrongly.

 

The item was returned 10 weeks after it was bought. On most goods this far exceeds a 'reasonable time' which is usually deemed between 2 weeks and 28 days.

As the goods are actually a type bought with a requirement at hand (i.e. most people don't buy a drill on the offchance they need it, but instead buy it because they need to use it) - this means the goods are likely to have been tested and fully used within 7 days.

 

The fact that the item can have been used excessively in that time and used inappropriately (there are many ways to stress a drill and burn out the motor), means the fault may be nothing to do with fitness of purpose for the job or manufacturing faults.

 

I see none of the above posts ask about the fault itself, how it manifested or the condition of the drill!!! That might have left the retailer questioning how the drill was used and if the customer damaged rather than a fault.

 

I think B&Q may well have acted very well and the manager may have acted in the last instance in good faith to keep a customer happy rather than it having been a case of a 'try on' from the middle man.

 

I think it a case for people to ask a few more questions, otherwise we might find consumer rights changing for the worse because to many consumers 'try it on'.

I know far to many builders who freely admit to buying a tool and testing it to destruction on a few jobs before taking it back for a replacement and keeping the new one. It all adds to the cost of the goods us consumers buy!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of speaking out of turn actually I think it entirely possible the retailer acted appropriately in this case and there is not an issue of them acting wrongly.

 

The item was returned 10 weeks after it was bought. On most goods this far exceeds a 'reasonable time' which is usually deemed between 2 weeks and 28 days.

As the goods are actually a type bought with a requirement at hand (i.e. most people don't buy a drill on the offchance they need it, but instead buy it because they need to use it) - this means the goods are likely to have been tested and fully used within 7 days.

 

The fact that the item can have been used excessively in that time and used inappropriately (there are many ways to stress a drill and burn out the motor), means the fault may be nothing to do with fitness of purpose for the job or manufacturing faults.

 

I see none of the above posts ask about the fault itself, how it manifested or the condition of the drill!!! That might have left the retailer questioning how the drill was used and if the customer damaged rather than a fault.

 

I think B&Q may well have acted very well and the manager may have acted in the last instance in good faith to keep a customer happy rather than it having been a case of a 'try on' from the middle man.

 

I think it a case for people to ask a few more questions, otherwise we might find consumer rights changing for the worse because to many consumers 'try it on'.

I know far to many builders who freely admit to buying a tool and testing it to destruction on a few jobs before taking it back for a replacement and keeping the new one. It all adds to the cost of the goods us consumers buy!!

 

I think the problem is that B&Q should not have put the onus on the OP to have to wait all day for a Bosch courier. If the drill was indeed to be returned to Bosch, it was the retailers responsibility to do so, so B&Q should have taken the drill and had it collected from their store. If they are unable to provide this service, then they must provide either a refund or replacement. It's the responsibility of the retailer to do all this.

I must disagree with your opinion that B&Q acted appropriately in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies people, nearly became one of my own pet hates "starts a thread and never ends it".

 

Phoned B&Q head office, and informed them i wouldnt be waiting in for a courier too collect damaged drill, took back too the same B&q depot, asked for manager and informed them of the hassle i had, they apologised, and refunded the drill in full and informed me i had in misinformed etc...

 

Thanks for the help.

 

S.

 

Text in Bold confirms that they had acted innappropriately (though maybe spelt better) :)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...