Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The card number at the top right of the Advanced Application Form and Agreement does not reflect the same card number the number is 546780 and ends 5931 (however that card was taken out in 2005) the card number on the POC - there isn't one it is just the reference number that they use or they call the 'original account number'.   As for the statement (excel spreadsheet type) that has the same reference number but not credit card number.  However this is different to the spreadsheet paperwork they have sent previously to me. Which looks like it comes from Lloyds and shows the debt being written off by them. I've attached that here.   I wrote to Lowell asking for the deed of assignment and they haven't furnished us with it either. They did state that they don't have it as it is too old or something in the offer letter.      new doc 2021-02-25 08.15.42.pdf
    • Hello All   Update   As per post #83, I had mentioned that for some unusual  reason, there had been two deadlines from the court for responding, namely the 18th of January 2021 and 1st of Feb 2021.   With everyones great help I filed in the response by the18th of Jan 2021. I think I was bit concerned that the claimant, Mike Ashley may use the second deadline as a chance to add a supplementary statement in response to my defence.    Well, Mike Ashely has in fact does exactly this. He has responded and filed a supplementary witness statement and has responded to all the defence points. He has addressed most the issues I had raised in my defence.     His Supplementary WS is dated 30 January 2021 and his solicitors emailed it to me on the 17th of February 2021.   Not sure what to do, but he seems to have amended everything which i could have used as a loophole leaving me with the thought of , should we have waited till the 2nd deadline ie 1ist Feb2021 and submitted the defence rather than the 18th January 2021. this would have deprived him of the chance to response with a supplementary WS. Thats what really had a worried me and I raised it a few times on this platform.     Not sure now because he has kind of amended a few things, removed the incorrect exhibit ( where the signages had belonged to a different site, and called it a clerical error).   Will post his redacted supplementary WS later as at work now.   Thanks all
    • An eye-opening new report from the payment processor Worldpay found so-called 'mobile wallet' payments were used for just under a third of all online transactions in 2020. View the full article
    • Adding to all the other difficulties (address for service, proving an agreement, obtaining enforcement even if you succeeded) that have been raised: Has the obligation to repay yet arisen?   You say the agreement was repayment once the divorce settlement occurred, but then point out settlement has yet to occur!.
  • 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

Accident in Currys store - faulty display

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2522 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

My wife and I went to the PC World/ Currys store in Brentford to look at purchasing a new dish washer, when she opened the door on one of the integrated appliances the fascia fell off on to her foot.


The first member of staff simply stated he wasn't qualified to deal with it and walked off with very little concern, the asst manager came over and looked vague as to how to deal with it having to be prompted for a duty first aider which he stated they don't have in store.


When asked for a cold compress he returned with a pack of frozen chips and was concerned about putting them into a Currys carrier bag rather than leave them in the sainsburys bag they were already in. The only help we were offered was in purchasing the dishwasher. He had no idea about an accident book or a HS1 form.


We complained to head office due to how it was dealt with and the acknowledgement they were aware the doors were falling off making them negligent in their duty of care. The store manager writes back stating that there was a first aider on duty but when asked why they were not called it was escalated to a Phillipe Sleet (DSG H&S) who stated the store manager was incorrect in his statement in having first aiders and they were in accordance with HSE risk assessments which were completed annually.


He has also stated that the store acted in accordance with risk assessments by removing such plinths as a means of rectification to the doors falling off. However he has so far refused to state when that appliance was risk assessed prior to going on the shop floor or when it was first evident that the standard display fascias do not fit safely.


They have consistently shown complete apathy towards this clear design fault even though the store staff have admitted they have a problem with the doors not fitting correctly. The concerning factor is this particular unit is sold throughout their network and fitted with the same standard display fascia. They have stated that where significant risks are identified they are recorded.


The concerning factor is that if it is heavy enough to cause injury to an adult it could pose a significant risk to injury to a child. DSG and especially Currys Brentford seem to prioritise their sales targets over injuries caused due to store negligence.


The only thing we wanted out of this was for them to look into the way risks are identified and handled, and to highlight that cutting corners does not resolve the problem, when they legally have a duty of care towards customers and staff.


Head office have shown complete apathy towards this and have now been told by DSG Risks Manager he LOOKS FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OUR SOLICITORS. A bizarre approach when we are not even looking for any recompense, just to make sure this type of incident does not happen again and cause someone a serious injury or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jacnpaul


Welcome to CAG


Was the incident logged in the accident book? If not it should have been. If Curry's aren't taking the matter seriously, from what you are saying, 'they just don't care'. If you've got any pics, you could send them to Trading Standards and Health & Safety Executive with your complaint.


It seems that Curry's are relying on their annual assessments, rather then carry out necessary Health & Safety checks when they've been made aware of problems. This could potentially cause serious harm to members of the public who visit their stores, as experienced by your wife.






Spaces added to post.



Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6173402/Laura-Ashley-fined-after-fireplace-collapses-on-toddler.html - All stores have a duty to conduct risk assessments and take measures to protect the public and employees.


One local store and been displaying tree felling axes and sledge hammers on flimsy metal shelves at knee height. No guards to stop items from falling off the shelves, and no protection of sharp edges. A small child running around would have been at risk of serious injury. My county council had a hand in the above Laura Ashley case and quickly dealt with the axes & hammers.


If Currys is showing a cavalier attitude towards safety, contact your local council and get them to escalate the issue.





No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to take this as far as I can now to highlight the way DSG deals with risks and their failings in duty of care to customers.


Whilst the staffing levels may negate the requirement for a trained first aider on site

the legal minimum is an appointed person to take charge in such incidents.


This never happened and the asst manager had to be prompted on what to do proving

he was untrained to deal with incidents in store.


The annual risk assessments completed as stated by DSG H&S are in accordance with the law.


A statement that would be correct if nothing changes but we all know how often fisplay stock is changed.


This gives the impression that items can be on display having never been risk assessed in accordance with the law.


They refuse to comment on that one.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...