Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I could be wrong here so could @namedisplay please clarify if I am correct or completely wrong?   In your post#1 you mention that due to your health issues and your mental state at the time you rang the Training Room and was told it would cost and initial £200 and then £15 per month until you finished the course.   Then further in post#1 The Training Room told you you were not eligible for an extension because you hadn't completed enough of the course.   With the above I now refer Post#12 which mentions your circumstances are covered by 13 in the TTR Terms and Conditions.   What is mentioned above seems conflicting from TTR for the following:   1. IMO that money of £200 and then £15 per month (on top of original Course Fees) was them at that time agreeing to an extension as per 13 in TTR Terms and Conditions   2. Them stating you can't extend Course as not completed enough of Course is not in TTR Terms and Conditions (that I and others can see) (Note they could be referring to 15 in TTR Terms and Conditions)   Can you clarify the above and were you informed those extra costs were due to an extension of your Course.   Again I will ask did you provide the Training Room with Medical Evidence when you asked the above?   We also still need to see the Letter from Training Room Threatening Legal Action (fully redacted) which you still haven't posted?   You need to send The Training Room a Subject Access Request (SAR) asking for 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase means whatever format they hold that data in whether it be written, email, recorded phone calls etc.   They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond to your SAR Request and that Time Limit only starts once they have acknowledged your SAR Request. They can extend that Time Limit if they need to prove identity before actioning the SAR Request so be aware of that.   A SAR Request is now FREE and make sure you get Free Proof of Posting from the Post Office     Your right of access ICO.ORG.UK   Can you please make sure you answer the questions asked of Caggers to assist you    
    • I've been trying to resolve a issue with 8 PCN issued by Tyne Tunnel 2 (tt2.co.uk). Tyne Tunnel 2 is a gated toll charged tunnel to cross the River Tyne in Newcastle. We moved in recently so all a bit new to us. My dad had been using the tunnel about twice a week and he had been paying cash for the toll fee at the booths. At some point in November 2021 they had done some constructions where the gates had been closed and payments had transitioned to online methods. My dad had been oblivious to this and been on his merry way multiple times thinking that he doesn't need to pay. So he received the first PCN some where end of November which had been issue on the 26th after which point I went on alert and sorted out the online accounts and such. However the current total of fines has amounted to £255.20 and I have appealed explaining that soon as the letters were received we have resolved the issue but they insist on us paying 8 PCN. I feel it's unfair that the fine is for the same offence which we couldn't have rectified or known until we received the first PCN letter and after the first PCN we have rectified it so feel they are being bit draconic. Any advice on this matter? 
    • No need to apologise! I am extremely grateful for both your help   Gosh very good attention to detail going on here   Great thank you, i will put them back as below   Good evening to you   DEFENCE   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with Lloyds TSB. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either, having failed to provide an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   3.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      4.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or Lloyds TSB pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any Notice of default served.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14.    Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 5th of January 2022 I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 5th of January 2022 I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of 27/01/22 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • std letter the court send simply telling you the claimant has 28 days to do 'something' else the claim get autostayed.   go read a goof few 10's of PCN claimform threads.    
    • Update. I get the feeling they will try and take me all the way. Just have to wait and see. court letter..pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Broken dishwasher 22 month old....... ***RESULT***


spartagates
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5523 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

Got home tonight to a message on the answer phone. Currys finally decided to acknowledge the letter. Basicaslly, they are only willing to offer part of the cost to fix of £95 that the engineer report quotes (quoted at £145 to fix, had to pay £35 to get them out to give an estimate). Also, he stated that the £95 INCLUDES the £35 to get the quote; so effectively they are offering £60.

 

To be honest, I felt as though this was an insult at first, but then I started thinking along the lines of the banks and their charges.... Would currys offer a penny if they were not obliged to? If warrenties were as far as their "duty of care" extended to, would they they even consider handing a penny over? Of course not. Well the chap is already booked in for wednesday morning to fix the dishwasher, they get seven days, then the moneyclaim goes in. I'm more than willing to sit infront of a judge and watch currys attempt to justify why I should be expected to pay £200 every two years for a new dishwasher because thats as long as they believe they should work for.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following this thread with interest because I too have a dishwasher that only just outlived its warranty (a Hotpoint too!)

 

Could anyone tell me what parts of SOGA relate to this, because I've just spent half an hour *trying* to read the document and it's given me a hell of a headache :confused: :confused: :confused: (scrolling eyes syndrome?)

 

I'd like to send or quote the relevant paragraphs with my letter because the store I bought the machine in is a tin-pot regional company and I doubt they will give an unsupported letter much attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following this thread with interest because I too have a dishwasher that only just outlived its warranty (a Hotpoint too!)

 

Could anyone tell me what parts of SOGA relate to this, because I've just spent half an hour *trying* to read the document and it's given me a hell of a headache :confused: :confused: :confused: (scrolling eyes syndrome?)

 

I'd like to send or quote the relevant paragraphs with my letter because the store I bought the machine in is a tin-pot regional company and I doubt they will give an unsupported letter much attention.

 

Quick scan and I think this is the bit your looking for.... sect 14 (2B(e))

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979

Link to post
Share on other sites

An update. Rang the number yesterday to see about the "refund". I simply asked, after a drawn out explanation that basically they would offer me £60 towards costs or vouchers, if that was their final position as I did not see the point of sending yet another letter now. They have had two letters and over a month to sort this out. They told me this was final.

 

The repairs were done today, which I have had to pay for. Good news, the dishwasher works! Bad news: I'm £145 down. I told them on the phone I would go straight to moneyclaim so I'm going to draft the details now. Any help would be appreciated!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's how the moneyclaim is looking so far....

 

 

1. The Claimant purchased a kitchen package from the Defendant on 13th November 2004 for the cost of £1673.94. 2. On the 12th October 2006 the dishwasher, which was part of the purchase, ceased to function. 3. The defendant has engaged with the claimant on numerous occasions to negotiate; by phone and in writing; repair to the unit. 4. The Claimant contends that the under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) Section 14 the goods have not been of “durable” quality having only functioned for less than two years and as such, are not “fit for purpose”. 5. The claimant contends that the “wear and tear” to the unit of a mother and father with an eight month old baby cannot be contrived to be “excessive” (usage 4-5 times a week).

 

I do have the quote for work carried out etc. Should I include? Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The test is "satisfactory quality" not durable.

 

I think that you should ascertain the value of the dishwasher.

 

No need at the point to include the part about parents and baby,

In a claim you only plead the facts. no need to plead evidence.

 

Also, I would suggest that you buy a telephone recording device from Maplins, then call the company and one or two others and make enquiries about that disgwasher. Say you are considering buying one and talk about how long it will last.

 

If you can get the person in the company you are suing to say that they last for longer than two years - i.e. 4 or 5 years without any trouble, then that wil be very helpful to you.

 

I would even call the customer relations of the manufacturer and ask them about it's durability as you are considering getting one.

 

Once again if you can get people to commit themselves that they should be trouble free for a period longer than the time you have had yours then it will be very helpful to you.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for?

 

You probably won't get a replacement after this long.

 

A free repair would be more reasonable.

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair.

 

However, you must provide a quote for this.

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this.

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim.

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The test is "satisfactory quality" not durable.

 

I think that you should ascertain the value of the dishwasher.

 

No need at the point to include the part about parents and baby,

In a claim you only plead the facts. no need to plead evidence.

 

Also, I would suggest that you buy a telephone recording device from Maplins, then call the company and one or two others and make enquiries about that disgwasher. Say you are considering buying one and talk about how long it will last.

 

If you can get the person in the company you are suing to say that they last for longer than two years - i.e. 4 or 5 years without any trouble, then that wil be very helpful to you.

 

I would even call the customer relations of the manufacturer and ask them about it's durability as you are considering getting one.

 

Once again if you can get people to commit themselves that they should be trouble free for a period longer than the time you have had yours then it will be very helpful to you.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for?

 

You probably won't get a replacement after this long.

 

A free repair would be more reasonable.

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair.

 

However, you must provide a quote for this.

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this. - already repaired

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim.

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for? - refund of the cost of repair

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair. - check ;)

 

However, you must provide a quote for this. - got it (at £35 cost)

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this.

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim. - will amend

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

 

HUGE apologies bankfodder, I know you are busy, and I have pm'd u instead of bookworm. I can only apologise :(. You have some very valid points and a fresh outlook has not harmed (though stopped me in my tracks!) Bookworm is not accepting pm's so a proxy "nudge" would be appreciated!

 

I will press on :)

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, in absolutely no offence to the great advice already given, I think I disagree with the reference to removing our family status. I feel that the whole point of the small claims process is that it is meant to bring the "due process" into the reach of the common person. To start to de-personalise the claims is surely a nod towards establishment, rather than reality. The small claims process is surely meant to be there for the person on the street to access justice rather than the lawyer (despite the dilution we see).

 

I honestly think that stating the human impact is more than relevant as this is about real life. My wife and child are a factor in this claim in my view.

 

At the end of the day, I will have to sit down in front of a judge (with my child - modern man et al!) and justify my claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but BF's point is that at this point, you are merely putting on a claim, not arguing it. That comes later. It's the equivalent of filling in a form with your name and details and ticking the boxes, so they can issue it, at the other end, a clerk will look a the claim, see if it's been filled in properly, fee's been paid, stamp it, next... And that's all that's required for now.

 

Don't forget to reclaim the fee for the quote as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but BF's point is that at this point, you are merely putting on a claim, not arguing it. That comes later. It's the equivalent of filling in a form with your name and details and ticking the boxes, so they can issue it, at the other end, a clerk will look a the claim, see if it's been filled in properly, fee's been paid, stamp it, next... And that's all that's required for now.

 

Don't forget to reclaim the fee for the quote as well.

 

Ahh, getting ahead of myself. Sorry! So the claim wording sounds ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Claimant purchased a kitchen package from the Defendant on 13th November 2004 for the cost of £1673.94. 2. On the 12th October 2006 the dishwasher, which was part of the purchase, ceased to function. 3. The defendant has engaged with the claimant on numerous occasions to negotiate; by phone and in writing; repair to the unit. 4. The Claimant contends that the under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) Section 14 the goods have not been of “durable” quality having only functioned for less than two years and as such, are not “fit for purpose”. 5. The claimant has repaired the goods at a cost of £142.22 which are being reclaimed

 

That sound ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind something that's already been said, the legal wording is "satisfactory quality" rather than durable quality. Durability is one of the issues covered by the satisfactory quality term, but it would be far better for you to use the umbrella of "satisfactory quality" here.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind something that's already been said, the legal wording is "satisfactory quality" rather than durable quality. Durability is one of the issues covered by the satisfactory quality term, but it would be far better for you to use the umbrella of "satisfactory quality" here.

 

"durable" "satisfactory" or "reasonable" quality matters not. I'm willing to sit in front of a judge and explain about £1700 on a kitchen + appliances that don't last even two years and ask if thats long enough :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the meaning is the same, but the correct legal term is "satisfactory quality" so was just flagging that back up again.

 

The judge will no doubt know this but there's no harm in crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a modified version of your letter to my tin-pot supplier on Tuesday, yesterday I got a call from them to book an engineer on Monday! RESULT! Sorry it didn't work for you mate... (I may still be eating my words if they decide fault is not theirs!! lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It appears we have a result. Got a "without prejudice" letter today. The choice bits include....

 

.... It is clear that the dishwasher has failed prematurely and under these circumstances, I am prepared to offer you depreciated credit....We calculate our figures on an expected 6-year life span...you had use of the goods for 23 months, which leaves the balance of 51 months during which you could have expected to have use of the dishwasher.... I will also reimburse the £30.00 court fee you have incurred....

 

So, they are paying the full cost of repairs and my court fees. It's just a shame that it has to be down to bringing court action that ensures big players actually honour their duties under the Sales of Goods Act.

 

A side note, they obviously know what their duties include as they state "an expected 6-year life span" for white goods. Chalk one up for the good guys :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent - Well done!

 

(Incidentally, I would have said an estimated 6 year life span is about fair for a dishwasher, so not sure what you mean - you would expect the life span to be longer or shorter?)

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent - Well done!

 

(Incidentally, I would have said an estimated 6 year life span is about fair for a dishwasher, so not sure what you mean - you would expect the life span to be longer or shorter?)

 

I actually thought the accepted life span for white goods to be 3 years (though I've heard the 6 year term bounded about). I do, personally, think 6 years to be fine, 3 years is a bit stingy for white goods as you could spend well over £1000 on some appliances. Saying that, I wonder if this "depreciated cost" responsibility thing has ever been tested in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they'd sell many dishwashers if they went round saying they would only last 3 years!! :-)

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would generally say a reasonable time for most eletronic items is 3 years.

 

No, no, no. Purely electronic items can last a very long time ... say 10 years. I've got lots of electronic items in my home which are working fine after ten years.

 

Mechanical items such as dishwashers and washing machines are another matter. Personally, I'd expect them to last five years; and I think if the vendor thinks it's OK for them to last less than that, they should say so in their sales literature.

 

However, that's just my view. What you could do is ask your friends and neighbours how long they'd expect an item to continue working.

 

Better still, ask the store before you buy it ... (why don't we do that?)

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...