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

PIP - Decision on distance for PIP

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3917 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

At last, the government have now finally decided on the distance that will be used to measure Enhanced mobility for PIP - it is agreed at 20 metres.


This will once and for all weed out those that can walk the width of a football field yet are deemed so disabled that their mobility is seriously compromised and were awarded the highest rate of DLA mobility element.


We are now going to see that only those that are truly the most disabled and vulnerable in society, mobility wise, being handed a free car.


I can't wait to hear the screams and shouts from those part time walking stick owners and crutch wobblers that you hardly ever see the bottom of the stick/crutch touching the floor. Those that appear to be on their last leg one minute and yet are able to run around with their children the next. What fun we are going to have.


As I have said before I will be the first in the queue to have my HRM & MRC taken off me when PIP goes national provided that the 10's of thousands of others do the same so that the money available in the PIP pot is directed only at those with the most serious of care needs and mobility issues.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, the car isn't free. If you go by that logic, then those on benefits get a free house, free food, gas, electricity, etc.


Those on benefits other than DLA get money from the government to be able to live a normal lifestyle. Those however on DLA and who receive HRM are given extra money to purchase their own car and pay no RFL or can exchange that money for a new car every 3 years with everything apart from fuel paid for. So to me considering that the HRM money never touches your bank, the government fund the car - which is deemed free to the claimant.

I would like to know where I can buy a new car costing up to £25,000 to include servicing, repairs, insurance, RFL etc for £55 a week - £8619 over the three year term?


Out of my HRM payments of £2873 a year, I have very little change left over after paying for all of the running costs excluding the loss of capital of approx. £3600 pa I have invested in the car. Insurance alone costs me over £1100 a year, not counting tyres at £185 each, brake discs and pads at £700 every 3 years, general servicing at £480 a year as well as the cost of the annual manufacturers warranty of £725 a year.


As this thread has nothing actually to do with mobility cars (which are free to the claimant in my opinion) I can foresee a lot of screaming and stamping of feet when the car goes back and people have to fund their own out of their own resources like the majority in this country currently have to do.


Being able to walk the equivalent of the width of a football pitch and be awarded HRM is to be honest a joke. Yes I too receive HRM, and have always felt guilty even though I qualify when I consider that I have been put in the same category of someone that probably couldn't put one foot in front of another.


Don't you too think that that is slightly ridiculous? 50 metres or 1 metre, both are under DLA said to be unable to walk.

Edited by bedofweeds
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 meters doesn't get you that far though.


164 feet? That's far enough to say that there is nothing wrong with your ability to walk! Yet the DLA criteria says that 164 feet is an acceptable distance to prove that you cannot virtually walk? Who's kidding who?


Now 66 feet is a more realistic limit to judge walking ability. But no doubt those that only a few years ago swore blind that they couldn't manage 164 feet without pain or severe discomfort will tragically find that when PIP comes about they will have the same problem with 66 feet. I have visions of claimants going back to their consultants asking for a rehash of their letter which originally stated that 164 feet was the maximum that they could walk - can you please substitute that figure for 66 feet? Yes I too have a written report from the spinal unit that 164 feet was my maximum, bit I am blowed if I am going to embarrass the consultant to vary the distance to suit the new regulations.


None of this actually deals with the new figure, so I presume that everyone is like me and thinks that it is reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.


The reason for the reduction is that the government want to target the most disabled in society. One way of doing this is to reduce it to 20 metres. Anybody that can walk further than that cannot be classed as the most disabled and deserving. I'm not saying that reducing the limit won't hurt some people, but with the limited resources that this country has isn't it better to give it to the most disabled?


I can walk just about 50 metres, 20 metres is easily attained. Would it be right for me to get the same enhanced rate as those who can't walk 20 metres? I don't think so.


Would I give up my award so that the most disabled can have theirs? Course I would and would expect everybody else to do the same.


There are only so many times that the government can divide the Welfare Budget into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...