Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Three-Body Problem https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Body-Problem-Cixin-Liu-ebook/dp/B00S8FCJCQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3C1EMC34CA27V&dchild=1&keywords=3+body+problem&qid=1586240421&sprefix=3+bo%2Caps%2C229&sr=8-1      
    • I don’t see some users posts, but since they’ve been quoted .........   I agree (in parts) with 2 contributors postings.   WHO says “test, test, test”, so more tests ARE key. That is part agreeing with one contributor.   I also agree with cjcregg. One has to understand the limitations of a test : (sensitivity, specificity and its positive and negative predictive values - which involves sensitivity / specificity AND prevalence!).   One also has to understand which test, to apply those limitations. a) RNA NAAT? (Commonly called PCR, though PCR is a tradename, so ‘PCR’ is to ‘NAAT’ like ‘Hoover’ is to ‘vacuum cleaner’) b) Antigen testing? c) Antibody testing? (If so, IgM? IgG? Both??)   Knowing which test(s), their limitations, and thus what the result actually MEANS is more important than a blanket statement of “test everyone!”, (and repeatedly ??! ) .... especially as it allows prioritisation of who gets what test to maximise benefit, until “testing for all” is more than a pipe-dream .....   Would you repeat a positive IgG test? If so, in what circumstances??
    • Just out of interest, how long did it take you to formulate this conclusion? I'm not looking for a particularly accurate answer, just round it up to the nearest nano second.    How is this going to work then?   Where are the medical personnel and laboratory staff required to undertake this massive project going to come from? Now this is just a stab in the dark but I'd imagine they'd be quite busy at the moment.   Even South Korea, who are recognised as having one of the most aggressive testing policies have only managed to test 1% of their population. You clearly have no conception as to the scale of what you're proposing.   Even if it was possible to plan, organise and execute it would take years to achieve, by which time all the data would have been redundant and completely meaningless. I was tested last week and it took 2 days for the result, which by the time I received it was already out of date as I was then and now just as likely to be infected as I was when I took the test.   Think about it.    
    • I'm sure that the entire nation is reassured and lost in gratitude to you for this heart-warming confirmation.   Do keep us updated.
    • I would say that is exactly what "discretionary" means.     Is that the case?  Surely nearly all bonus schemes are discretionary unless explicitly stated otherwise in the employment contract?  Does "fairness" come into it?   I agree with emmzi - there's no advantage to the employer in paying it and I can't see the OP forcing them to do so.
  • Our picks

Bargaingirl

MFI taking us for an expensive ride!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4206 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

Hope this is in the right place now!!

 

This is the letter sent to MFI (please read!)

 

In September 2004!! We made a purchase of bedroom furniture, after it was installed we soon noticed that the cabinets were marking and contacted you at customer services, these tops were replaced but it was evident over the next few months that the entire order was faulty!

 

After a ridiculous amount of emails and phone calls someone from head office confirmed that indeed there had been a fault with the Helsinki range and they would arrange for someone to come out from the store in Stevenage where it was purchased. Many months later, after more calls, Dave Lawman came out to view the marks and confirmed with head office that indeed everything needed replacing. However only the tops of some of the units were delivered. Then after a second visit this spring the carcases were delivered. And dribs and drabs have been delivered since!

 

We are now left with bits and pieces of Helsinki furniture around our house, we have not had the carcases for the wardrobes delivered. The plinths and cornices have not been replaced, we have been advised that they will not come off of the existing furniture intact and although I have contacted the store to inform them of this nothing has been done. I have requested that he find out exactly what is to be done with the existing bedroom furniture as we are certainly not prepared to pay for the hire of a skip to dispose of your faulty goods.

 

We were sold defective goods and the matter has still not been resolved! "

 

They finally replaced all goods earlier this year!! However they told us we needed to get it flat packed as the drivers will not take furniture that was made up! therefore we paid to get it flat packed and refitted. As advised by customer services we sent the invoice into head office who would sort it out. It cost us £695 to get it flat packed and refitted, had to borrow the money to pay the guy and now they say they will only pay £150.

 

I thought the law states you are entitled to replacements and any reasonable losses incurred as a result, boy have we incurred losses, the refit of the bedroom and flat packing as requested by MFI. How can they be allowed to go back on their word!!

 

Can anyone help!:evil: :evil: :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might not be straightforward, as MFI don't actually make furniture - they sell you the flat-packed version which for additional cost it can be built up and it becomes the desired furniture. Now, I'm not aware of MFI actually having their own install teams, it was always sub-contracted, and purchasers usually paid the installed for the erection of the goods. As such, any agreement to replace would - if agreed to - be limited to the exchange and re-supply for a suitible replacement, it wouldn't automatically follow that the replacement goods would be fitted free too - although I agree with your point they should be.

 

If it was me, I'd raise a small claims action for the cost of brining the room furniture up to the level you expected at the original time of purchase, and ask MFI for this amount. If they don't pay, the judge will decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply have spoken to a lawyer now who states that there is a general contractual code which does cover any losses incurred as a result of faulty goods. she has stated that I acted on information they supplied eg had to get it flat packed therefore they are responsible for losses.

 

In any event if the goods had not been faulty in the first place I would not be out of pocket to such an extent. Also as MFI record calls I am legally entitled to a transcript of all calls which will prove that they said I would be refunded.

 

Am going to write to MD will post letter on site

 

Thanks again!

 

Bargaingirl! not this time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'recording of calls' issue could be interesting.... especially if they fail to find it - and it wouldn;t be the first time that has happened! Keep us all posted as to how it develops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have issued two summons against MFI for small amounts. They will offer a settlement but if you refuse it, they will go to court. In my first case their manager attended, he was useless in court and judgement easily obtained for £350. More recently I sued for £150 but only won £85. They didnt attend the hearing. So expect to go all the way. In my cases their legal costs were far greater than the claim....basically they fight them, win or lose, they dont give a stuff.


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested as to why your second action had such a result, for what was effectively an undefended action. Why was the award not for the amount sued for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent £3500 on my kitchen and it included two lengths of pelmet for £50 a length. A few months later I bought more units and bits, this time the price was £20 each length. I believe the £50 originally charged was a mistake.............I lost of course. So I could only win on the part of the claim that dealt with the fact that they didnt deliver on the day they promised.


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Guys not been intouch but this is the letter sent to MD....

Even the Store has confirmed that the carcases were spoilt too!!!! What is wrong with them!

Dear Mr Ingle

We have been dreadfully wronged by MFI. I enclose copies of all previous correspondence for your perusal.

I have now spoken to Office of Fair Trading, Consumer Direct and a lawyer from Which! They all state that you are liable for reasonable costs to put things right, i.e. the cost for flat packing the furniture (as you requested) and the refit of the units. I have already paid once for them to be fitted! I am also requesting, under the Data Protection Act, a transcript of conversations between myself and MFI, which will clearly provide the evidence that you agreed to meet the costs.

Please note the following

  • MFI provided me with goods that were faulty, this was verified by staff from MFI viewing the units and thus they were replaced.
  • MFI requested that the damaged furniture be flat packed as complete units would not be accepted. I asked who would pay for the cost of flat packing all the units!
  • It was agreed verbally that the cost of this and the refit would be met by MFI and that I should send in the invoice, which I have.
  • Ms Haffey telephoned and offered £150 after consultation with a fitter; for the replacement of the drawer fronts and wardrobe doors. I explained that it was not just these but the carcases that were replaced as they too were faulty. Anything that touched them would leave marks! I have photographic evidence of this.
  • Ms Haffey has now replied in writing stating that £150 is in full and final settlement but this does not cover the cost of the losses.

This is not acceptable and I urge you to look into this matter and refund me the losses incurred i.e. the invoice for £695.00.

Yours sincerely

MRS D Furr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathew Ingle is the MD of MFI Trade did you buy from Trade or Retail, The problem with MFI is they have wobbly flat pack furnature and sales people with little experiance. MFI pay low wages and tiny commision hence you get bad service because the system is hard to use and give good service. there head office in Colindale is run buy the old boys network and there Store Development is the biggest Joke ever there director is a complete overpaid numbskull with a huge expense account. Thats part of the reason why they failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...