Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I take it I should redact names, court numbers etc?
    • How climate risk is changing lending decisionsView the full article
    • I understand that the item was correctly declared but the value was under declared. When you enter into any kind of contract, there has to be in agreement as to exactly what is being exchange for what. You agree to pay a certain amount of money for the delivery. They agreed in return for that to carry out the delivery safely – but they also agreed to shoulder a certain level of risk based on your own valuation. This means that the value that you gave for the chair is what they reasonably expected to be the extent of their risk in the event that the item was lost or damaged – or stolen. I'm afraid that by undervaluing it, our view is that you would be unlikely to recover anything more. There is never any advantage in declaring and undervalue. It effectively gives a gift to the service provider because when something goes wrong then that becomes the extend their liability. If you want to try and sue for the proper value then we will be happy to help you but I don't rate your chances. If you want to sue for the undervalue then I think your chances are extremely high. The item was lost – it wasn't damaged. Even if it was damaged, there was no particular suggestion that not being flat packed in some way contributed to the risk of damage but certainly it is impossible to conceive how being flat packed or not flat packed would affect the risk of the chair been lost. In fact in my view, because the item was a large item one would imagine that it would be more difficult to lose it. If you want to continue with this claim either for the full value of the undervalue then we will be happy to support you. Please make sure you've done the reading. I can tell that you've done some reading but I'm afraid the fact that you don't appear to have appreciated the consequence of an undervaluation suggest to me that you haven't read very thoroughly. I think it is important to make sure that you understand the principles of claiming for failed parcel deliveries completely. It will put you in control. It will give you confidence. There is no downside. Do the reading. Post a draft documents here so we can check before you send them off.
    • Incidentally, and for anybody else who visit this thread and in case there is any confusion as to the relationship between the consumer rights act and your contractual rights under the common law: the consumer rights act confers rights on the consumer and obligations on the trader. The consumer rights act does not create obligations for the consumer. The consumer and is at complete liberty to rely on their rights under the 2015 act if they prefer they can simply rely on their rights under the existing common law of contract – which is the alternative route which I have suggested to you. This route would be clean – surgical – and of course Currys probably won't even understand it because they probably rely on a load of paralegal drones in probably the same way that the parcel delivery industry does as well. So if you want some fun, send the warning to Currys. By the replacement laptop elsewhere and then sue Currys for the reimbursement. They won't like it. They will spend many hundreds of pounds more than the cost of reimbursing you in trying to defend the case – and then eventually they will lose. If you decide to do any of this then post the draft letter so that we can have a look. I suggest you don't do anything without checking with us first of all
    • First of all, to go over your rights under the consumer rights act – if a defect manifests itself within the first 30 days you have an unfettered right to reject and demand a refund. If a defect manifests itself within the first six months then you have a right to reject subject to their entitlement to attempt a single repair. If they declined to repair or if the repair fails then you can demand a refund. Second thing is that on the basis of what you say above, you bought a laptop computer for 300 quid and you seem to be saying that because they are going to take a month to repair it you have offered to buy a second laptop for £300. This seems extraordinary so please will you clarify. I understand that the only sticking point is that the laptop they want to sell you would be at £330 and not the £300 which was the cost of your first laptop. What on earth are you proposing to do with two laptops – one of them broken – which presumably it eventually would be repaired? Thirdly, apart from your rights under the consumer rights act, you have rights under the general law of contract – the Common Law. If you have purchased an item which has broken down so thoroughly that you are effectively deprived of substantially the entire benefit of the contract then it can be said that the seller has committed a "fundamental breach" of their contractual obligations towards you. You are then entitled to treat the contract as "repudiated" which means that you can treat the contract as being at an end and then claim all your money back. Of course you've decided to purchase something with Currys. The problem is with Currys is that all of the competition has brought the evaporated. These to be Dixons, Comet, – no doubt many others – and they have all disappeared or have been subsumed into Currys. Separately there are even used to be Currys and PC World. Now they have amalgamated there is no competition so they don't care a damn about you. Why should they? There is a company called QVC. They seem to have an excellent track record. I don't know how their prices compare and maybe they are slightly more expensive but they seem to have remarkable customer service and customer returns policy. I would suggest that in future you look around at them and these to compare the prices. So we would like an explanation please of the mystery of your readiness to spend more money on a second computer. Presumably it means that you need a computer fairly urgently. In that case I would suggest that you write a letter to Currys. Tell them that time is of the essence. That you need the laptop repaired within seven days or else you will accept the fundamental breach of contract and accept their repudiation of the contract and go ahead and sue them for a complete refund plus any ancillary losses – such as the cost of any software that you might have installed or even the cost of any data which might now be on that laptop and which is no longer accessible to you. Once again you are dealing with Currys – so they will either ignore you or simply refuse – so during the seven days you would start looking around for an alternative supplier of the laptop that you need. It must be equivalent in model, make, the power – et cetera nearest equivalent in price. You would then set about purchasing that laptop from an alternative supplier having given a few days notice to Currys that this is what you are doing and then you would sue Currys for reimbursement. This would mean that even Princess if you went to QVC and you found that there nearest equivalent model was, say, £350 – you would sue Currys for the £350. Obviously £300 would be the cost of the damage laptop but in addition to that, the extra £50 would cover the reasonable cost of replacing the broken laptop on a like-for-like basis. In law terms you might describe this as your "expectation loss" in that you expected accomplishing that expectation.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Flexible Working and Childcare Issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4198 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

I currently work for a further educationinstitute where in addition to our teaching duties we have administrativeduties too. In 2011 we had a new line manager who introduced a policy of a workfrom home day and I managed to secure a Monday as my work from home day toassist with childcare. This was a scheduled work from home day agreed andtimetabled by the line manager as part of self-managed time but not arrangedvia HR.

 

In late 2012 we had a new HR manager whodeemed that self-maanged time was not a right. The operational needs of theinstitution needed to be put first. I mentioned flexible working arrangementsand was told that this needed to go through HR but I quote " I do not knowthat much about HR policy" and "In twenty years I have not heard ofpeople having time off for childcare"

 

The timetabling for this term was then donein late December and it seemed that I had Monday free so I felt that there wasno need to apply for the flexible working especially since other peoples'requests seemed to have been met too.

 

I then went on annual leave in mid-Decemberand came back to work yesterday (Tuesday). Luckily, I had checked my email atthe weekend and discovered that I had been timetabled for admin duties on theMonday. I emailed the line manager immediately and was told that I should makean official application via HR.

 

I was due to have a meeting regarding courseplanning with the line manager today. However, she needed to postpone it andsuggested next Monday as an alternative date. I reminded her about my application for flexible working. She respondedby saying that the assumption was that until I received official permissionfrom HR that I would come in on a Monday.

 

In the meantime someone else applying forflexible working on childcare grounds has not been told that. Also, otherpeople have had the timetable work out in their favour due to health issues, orthe fact that they work elsewhere on particular evenings even though they arealso on full-time contracts.

 

I feel slightly miffed by the situation buthave I got any grounds to complain about any of this treatment. Unfortunately,I suspect the answer may be no!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I think that although you have clearly been messed around, you have very little room to manoeuvre unless your Monday arrangements were the subject of a formal flexible working request made using the statutory procedure.Have a look at https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/overview and if you qualify, get a request in. Unfortunately although there is a statutory right to request flexible working, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to agree to it, however a refusable would need to be objectively justified, and if others have been allowed a FWA, then they will have to work hard to do that, although insifficient staff available to carry out essential functions due to others being on a FWA could well be a legitimate reason to refuse in itself!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how flexible our working from home arrangement was Blogger but you need to be careful how you word any request. It could be that if you claim that you need to work from home on a Monday because of childcare, your employer has every right to believe that you wouldn't actually be working if you have responsibility for a child at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments and I appreciate the points made. I haven't made the application to HR yet so no nothing is official and yes I take your point EmployLaw about wording it carefully. Luckily, it would seem from other colleagues reports that HR don't necessarily back management blindly and so I might get some good advise from them prior to making the application. Ultimately, I have a young family so if they do force me I will do as they say. I just hope they don't seek retribution in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...