Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2888 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I bought a new set of hairextensions at the weekend which are labelled as 100% human hair, I’d got themhome and opened them ready to put in my hair but my fingers kept getting caughtin them and they felt very non-human hair like. I held them up next to my 2year old, washed, heat styled and dyed hair extensions and the new ones seemedto really not feel like human hair. I was already on my third set of extensionsso I’ve had experience with quality sets and these are the worst I’ve ever had.I called the next day after I had spotted on the receipt that it says norefunds or exchanges to explain that I really wasn’t happy about the quality andwanted to have my money back as there was no chance I would put these in myhair as I didn’t trust them not to singe if I tried to style them. I wasadvised to bring them in but it’s not likely they would do anything.

While I was in the store I wastold if they’re opened I could not return them and she would straighten them toprove that they are 100% human hair. She then took a more expensive set off ofthe shelf to compare and I said that they were nicer but if the original setthat I had bought were human hair, then they would both feel the same and shejust said they were treated differently. I continued to explain that I stillwasn’t happy, I wouldn’t wear them as the quality is not right and I’d alreadypaid twice what I normally do. She then called the manager who continued totell her she could not refund them as they were opened. She told me thatanother customer would not be happy to own them as they look pre-worn as theywere not tied into the packaging, and that basically I should bear that inmind. I said that I am still a customer whether I have paid or would beconsidering paying and should I still leave unhappy because they are worriedabout a future customer, and then I was told to sell them on e-bay.

I was not told at the point ofpurchase that they were non-refundable or exchangeable which is something Ithought was supposed to happen anyway which is why I had planned to take themback, when I said this to her she said it does say it on the receipt...whichshe had put in the bag and not in my hand.

Am I within my rights to return theseextensions and get a full refund? I will never wear them; they are still in theoriginal packaging (the purchase and call were within 24 hours of each other)and there is no way I will get the full amount back selling them on e-baywithout someone else making me liable for selling hair which I don’t believe isthe correct standard!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statutory rights cannot be overruled by terms on a receipt but first of all you need grounds to exercise your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. You say that you do not think it feels like human hair. If you could prove that it was not human hair, then it would not be as described under S.13 of SOGA. I can only assume you would need an independent expert to perform a test on the hair to establish that.


The other argument that it is not of satisfactory quality is tricky. I will have a nosy at some of my cases to get an idea later on but each case is judged on its circumstances so it is far from easy.


If goods fail to comply with the aforementioned sections within 6 months of delivery to the buyer, then the burden reverses on the retailer and they must show that the goods were in compliance with the relevant sections at the time of delivery to the buyer.


If the above cannot be shown then the shop is under no obligation to refund, replace etc. Interesting nonetheless.


P.S, S.14(2A) creates an objective standard of satisfactory quality taking into account the description of the goods, the price and any other relevant factors.


S.14(2B) creates a checklist relevant to the quality of the goods. Fitness for purpose for which the goods are commonly supplied.

Edited by Last Of The Time Lords

LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby


'real world' legal and retail experience too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the seller has a refund policy in place, you have no automatic right to a refund when you buy something from a shop. You would be entitled to a repair/refund/replacement if you could prove the hair was not as described, not fit for purpose or not reasonably satisfactory quality. Unfortunately it sounds like you probably aren't entitled to a refund in this case.




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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...