Please help with FOS

[Steve40]

Hi people its been some time since i posted on here but i would like to get some legal advice if possible.

 

 

I have been engaged in a legal battle with willowbrook and southern finance I’ve hit a brick wall and don’t know what’s the best step to take next.

 

In June 2013 my step father was approached at his home by a mobility scooter sales man from willowbrook .

 

He had brought a new scooter as a replacement for the one my step father already had . After the sales banter my stepfather was persuaded to trade in the scooter he had recently finished paying £4000 for and had only used appx 20 times, the salesman offered him £200 part exchange and a finance deal for £5700 for the newer scooter. My step father is 77 yrs old and has been being treated with morphine for his lower back pain over the last few years and is in no way responsible enough in mind to be signing massive finance agreements.

 

 

The new scooter was delivered in mid june and upon first test found to be unsuitable because it caused my stepfather considerable pain when he tried to use it , so he contacted the seller and asked if it could be rectified he was told that the wheels were solid and that nothing could be done to make it more comfortable to ride.

 

He then contacted me and asked me to help so i told him to return the goods under the sellers returns policy so he rang them and was fobbed off i rang them and had the phone put on hold then hung up on me , I contacted F O S office with my step fathers authorisation and asked them to help me return the goods under the sale of goods implied terms act 1973 and i asked that we move quickly and requested it be actioned before first payment on the finance became due and withing timescales and cancellation periods .

 

After a short time we had a letter back stating that willowbrook don’t provide the finance they just arrange it, we then discovered who the lender was and wrote to R Raphael and son and awaited there response and waited then i phoned the F O S office to ask what was going on only to be told that the person dealing with the case had changed jobs at the F O S and that no action had been taken on the case this was in September 2013 and was already too late to implement supply of goods implied terms act. it was time to start again

 

FOS then wrote to r Raphael again this went on until march this year when the case issued to an adjudicator who has found in favour of the businesses to my horror.

 

 

I have not accepted the finding’s and asked the adjudicator to reconsider and he is not prepared to re’contact the business until i prove that my step father had phoned the company in June last year and he refuses to accept that we have been actively pursuing the company’s for financial redress since then. He has also told us that the evidence suggests my step father had accepted the goods.

 

This is total crap are these people so stupid that they cant see what is laid out in front of them?

 

I have fired evidences after evidences towards him via document scans that clarify the facts but still he awaits proof of one poxy telephone call.i have asked him to listen to recordings of calls i had with the ombudsmans office in june last year and he confirms there has been contact between me and his office.He also appears unaware of the credit ref agencys and the effects of adverse credit as he keepes asking why the finance is still being paid,

 

I have asked to listen to the recordings he has of phone calls between my SF and me and the sellers and also asked if i should serve an SAR on the FOS to retrieve them. Since this question i have had no further correspondence .

 

 

I believe that time scales alone have caused this case to go towards the seller and the lender and these time scales have been caused by the ombudsmans office , i am at my witts end with it and don’t know what to do next can somebody please help?

 

Ps the Scooter has remained wrapped up in an unused state since the day it was delivered in an outhouse at my parents house the finance agreement is still being paid as my step father was worried about his credit rating. My step father is now permantly bed ridden and has 4 carers looking after him.

[BankFodder]

I have introduced some paragraph returns to make your story readable.

 

Please do not post solid blocks of text. It makes it very difficult to follow your story. It makes extra work for all of the people who want to help you and it reduces the chances of you getting the help that you need.

 

Next thing is that you are making a big mistake by not recording your calls. You should record your calls with everyone – including the ombudsman. None of them are to be trusted. If you want to continue and chase this matter, then by yourself a cheap digital recorder from Amazon and a recording device – Olympus TP7. Get to know how to use them and you will be able to record any phone call on any kind of telephone. I suggest that you do this before you go very much further.

 

With a call recorder in place, I suggest that you telephone the ombudsman again and refer to your original phone call and get them to agree that it did take place.

 

However, most important thing at the moment is to establish that the scooter was not fit for its purpose. If you made a particular purpose known to the supplier then it is an implied term of the contract that the items supplied will be fit for that purpose. If the seller or the salesman met your father and it was clear to him what the scooter was to be used for then I think that he will be bound by the fitness for purpose rules. Even if the supplier goes on to claim that they won't fully informed as to your father's medical condition, I think that any supplier which undertakes to sell motability scooters, is holding itself out as somebody who has the specialist knowledge that can be relied upon by a disabled purchaser.

 

Although it will mean paying for a report – if you win, you will get your money back. I think that you need to get your father's doctor or some other expert who is familiar with this situation to look at the scooter or to look at the specifications to the scooter and to provide a written report as to whether or not the scooter is fit for your father – and if not, then why not.

 

I suppose that no one has asked you to do this so far. Frankly this is an amazing ommission – especially for the ombudsman – but then I'm afraid that the ombudsman is a pretty inadequate service a lot of the time.

 

Also, I have no idea what the ombudsman thinks that he is doing saying that you haven't dealt sufficiently directly with the supplier. This is the ombudsman adopting a mediation role – and this is not correctly their role. This goes to show how far the ombudsman has lost sight of their proper function and how they have now adopted a role of achieving solutions which is fair to both sides. This objective is at odds with much of the legislation and much of the FCA regulations which generally speaking place the interests of the consumer as the first consideration.

 

It will be helpful also if you can post up scans of the documentation that you have so far – and in particular what you have received from the ombudsman. Please post it in a single PDF file.

 

So just to summarise, your tasks for the moment are to get a call recorder, get a doctor's report, post the PDF document, and then come back here when you have got the doctors report.

[Steve40]

Hi and thank you for the reply.

 

My Grammer is rubbish so thanks again for sorting it out

 

Nearly all my communication with the ombudsman is via email and is saved on my pc and iso

Website.

 

My step father is now in a care home and is almost totaly disabled he can't even get out of bed to go to the toilet . He was only able to walkshort distances with the aid of a zimmer frame when the scooter was purchased so I'm not sure wether the doctors note would be apropriate perhaps the social worker dealing with his care may be able to help.

 

I will post up some of the emails I have received from the FOS

 

Sorry if i was unclear but the FOS has confirmed that i wasin contact with them back in june last year.

 

Thanks again for your reply

Steve

Edited August 7, 2014 by Steve40

[BankFodder]

Still waiting for your update on this

[Steve40]

Hi Bf

Here is a string of the latest emails it reads from bottom to top i have delted all the names .

hi fos

Sorry forgot to say . I can confirm the conversation concerning wheels and tyres did take place and mr pearse also contacted the salesman who said he would come and adjust the scooter to compensate for the wheel problem but he never appeared hence the reason for disatisfaction from mr

 

Would it be possible for me to listen to copies of the calls or would I have to submit a subject access request to the ombudsmans office?

 

Thanks

Steve

 

 

 

hi fos

There still remains one question! Why would we have bothered contacting the Financial ombudsman shortly after the the scooter was delivered if he was happy with it ? fos also spoke to mr to get authorisation for me to act on his behalf. That's why all correspondence is being delivered to me.

 

Thus meaning the ombudsmans was and always has been fully aware that mr isn't happy with the goods

 

Steven

 

 

Hi fos

Upon searching through my pearse files it has also became apparent that willowbrook was the company that arranged the fixed term loan so u find it hard to believe to believe they knew nothing of the complaint . Considering the ombudsman wrote to them in the first instance.

 

Steve

 

 

dear steve

 

I am aware that you contacted this office and spoke with so we would have been aware of the complaint. You will recall, however, that we initially wrote to Millbrook Furnishing Industries Ltd with details of the complaint, however, this was not the correct business.

 

When the correct business, namely, R Raphael & Sons Plc was contacted, we provided the complaint details again and, as you are aware, we were advised that neither the business or the dealer were aware of any complaint.

 

It is for this specific reason I require copies of the calls to establish exactly what was discussed and if the dealer and/or business was aware of a complaint and the exact nature of it.

 

If there is any indication that the dealer was aware of Mr dissatisfaction and wished to return the scooter and/or I feel that he proceeded with the finance reluctantly, I will take this into consideration and go back to the business for its comments.

 

From the information available at this time, however, the evidence suggests that Mr was satisfied with the scooter. This may change when I have listened to the remaining calls.

 

I trust this clarifies matters.

 

Regards,

 

 

From: Steve

Sent: 03 August 2014 00:20

To: fos

Subject: Re: FW: Mr complaint -

 

Hi fos

 

I now have copys of the phone bills and will be forwarding them to you once I have checked that the calls to the business are on them

 

I am left in a confused state when I consider that Mr asked me in june 2013 to help him send the scooter back as it was not. Suitable for him and I have proved that I called the business myself . And it is also clear by the time periods that I was in contact with fos at the ombudsmans office at that exact point in time. I was given authorisation to act on the case at that time but I'm being told there is no evidence to suggest that mr tried to have the goods collected by the seller. Or attempted to contact the business sorry but that's just not true because I was acting on his behalf and I know that I was talking with the ombudsmans office regarding this agreement

I'm sorry to sound stupid but what I'm being told doesn't make sense. Am i right in believing that you think my step father (mr ) has been leading me up the garden path or is this a clear indication of my step fathers state of mind.

 

either or if you request copies from the ombudsmans archive of calls between fos and myself it will be quite apparent that I was seriously concerend about getting this case resolved from the offset so that we wouldn't find ourselves where we are now .

Still to this day the scooter remains wrapped up in as new condition this is where it has been since the day of delivery you have confirmed that there was a problem with the wheels hence why its never been or ever will be suitable .

 

I informed. Mr and Mrs that they should cancel the payments before the first one was due but they were informed by the bank that the business needed to cancel them . And they were also concerened about receiving ccj's for arrears on the account. I'm actually relieved the payments remained due to the amount of time it has taken the ombudmans office to follow up the case which was raise just after the goods were delivered.

 

Thanks

 

S

 

 

"

Dear steve

 

Further to my previous email, can you please advise when you will be sending me details of the call between Mr and the dealer so that I can progress the complaint. I am still waiting from the business a copy of the call between yourself and the dealer and I expect this to be received shortly.

 

I have taken the opportunity to listen to the calls that have been received by me – these are calls that Mr had with the business in June and July 2013. During these calls, it is evident that there was an issue with the tyres, however, I understand that the dealer could not change these and this was subsequently accepted by Mr This is confirmed in a telephone conversation between Mr and the business on 3 July 2013 and it was at this time, when Mr confirmed that he was satisfied with the goods, that the finance was processed.

 

Given the above, it would be difficult for me to find against the business especially bearing in mind that payments have continued to be made since the finance started. I would be persuaded that if there were issues with the mobility scooter and Mr was adamant that he did not want it, payments would not have been made.

 

I will wait until I have received the remaining calls and listened to them before making a final assessment of this complaint, however, based on the information available at this time, I would be unable to recommend that the complaint is upheld.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Regards,

 

 

From: fos

Sent: 03 July 2014 16:27

To: 'Steve

Subject: FW: Mr complaint -

 

Dear Mr Davies,

 

I have now received copy recordings of the calls between Mr and the business. I still await a copy recording of the call you had with the dealer on 19 June 2013 and details of the call between Mr and the dealer that you are sending me.

 

I will be out of the office between 7 and 22 July inclusive on annual leave, therefore, it is unlikely that I will be able to progress the complaint until my return.

 

I trust this is satisfactory.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

From: FOS

Sent: 30 June 2014 12:31

To: Steve

Subject: RE: Mr complaint -

 

Thank you for your email, steve

 

I haven’t received copies of any calls yet. I have requested a copy of a call you had in July 2013 with a person. If you also spoke with a fos, you will need to give me the date of the call.

 

Regards,

fos

 

 

 

From:] Steve

Sent: 30 June 2014 12:27

To: FOS

Subject: RE: Mr complaint -

 

Fos

I traveled to on Sunday and got authorisation on mr and mrs telephone account .

I have spoken to virgin media and they have sent a copy of the itemised bill to mr and mrs address . Virgin were not able to email the bill to me.

We now have to wait 5 days for it to be delivered then however long it takes for me to retrieve it and forward to you.

 

Whilst we are waiting could you listen to the recordings of the calls between fos and myself that took place in june or july 2013 . There are some comments I made about time scales that you might find of interest

 

Steven

 

 

 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: "fos>

Date: 30/06/2014 09:48 (GMT+00:00)

To: 'Steve

Subject: RE: Mr complaint -

Dear Mr

 

Thank you for your further emails.

 

I have contacted the business for its comments and I will contact you again when I have received a response.

 

In the meantime, I look forward to receiving details of the call between Mr and the dealer in June 2013.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

 

From: steve

Sent: 28 June 2014 16:15

To: fos

Subject: RE: Mr complaint -

 

Hi FOS

sorry this is becoming a bombardment of emails . But is business in the habit of doing pre credit checks after they lend money to creditors?

Steve

Dear Steve

 

Thank you for your emails and attachments.

 

I still await details of the call Mr made to the dealer.

 

In the meantime, I have attached a Loan Credit Application Checklist that was completed following a telephone call with Mr on 3 July 2013.

 

This confirms that all features of the financial agreement were discussed. This call, however, took place some two to three weeks after you state that you and Mr contacted the dealer to complain. The business has stated that it is highly unlikely that it would have allowed the transaction to proceed if Mr had raised a complaint at the time when a full and detailed discussion had taken place about the transaction.

 

I would appreciate your comments.

 

I understand that a copy of the call between Mr and the representative, , may be available and I have requested a copy.

 

When I have received and listened to the call, I will contact you again.

 

I trust this is satisfactory and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

From: steve

Sent: 23 June 2014 00:03

To: fos

Subject: Mr complaint

 

Hi fos

 

Following my previous correspondence i have some for information for your attention , it has become wholly apparent that the phone call i made to the dealer was in time to cancel the agreement and mr had called them before me so we were in plenty of time .please see letters from the finance company to Mr that will clearly clarify this fact .

 

We are being told by the social services department and local nhs departments that Mr will never be allowed to return home from hospital so we are striving to obtain power of attorney so that we can instruct Virgin (who was the provider of telephone services at the time) to provide us with the telephone bill from June 2013.

I will keep you updated as and when i have further information .

cheers

Steve

________________________________________

Edited August 7, 2014 by Steve40

[Steve40]

Hi fos

Its laughable to consider that this was a mere case under the supply of goods implied terms act 1973 and should be dealt with under that act from the outset . Had it been them thid could have been resolved before 1st payment was made.

Can you please send me the details of your complaonts procedure .

Steve

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: fos Date: 13/06/2014 12:01 (GMT+00:00)

To: "'Steve

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

Dear Steve

It is evident from your comments and the documentation you provided that you feel this service is responsible for the delays and has not dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.

I regret if you feel this way.

Notwithstanding this, I am not of the view that had there not been any delays, the outcome would have necessarily been any different.

However, as I explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the way in which this service has handled your complaint, please let me know and this can be investigated as a separate issue if you would like this to be done.

With regard to Mr complaint, at this point in time and until there is evidence to support your complaint, my view remains unchanged.

As I also explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the outcome you may request for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman who will issue a final decision.

 

 

Dear Steve

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Is it the call I have highlighted below that you may to the dealer on 19 June 2013?

 

Also, will you be submitting Mr telephone statement with details of his call to the dealer?

 

Regards, fos

 

From: Steve

Sent: 13 June 2014 20:42

 

Subject: Re: FW: M complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc (Our ref:

 

Hi fos

Sorry if this is a little late but here' a copy of my telephone calls from June the top one is to the supplier mr call will have been before this date

 

 

 

In a message dated 13/06/2014 15:17:47 GMT Daylight ombudsman.org.uk writes:

Dear steve

Phone number : 0000000000000

 

Usage for: 0000000000000000

Please use the following options to define the information you want to display:

 

View: [Most expensive \/]

Select either:

( )

Bill period: [12/05/14 - \/]

2013/03/11 2014/06/11 (X)

Date range:From03/06/2013To11/07/2013

 

 

 

The following link should assist:

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm

 

Regards,

fos

 

 

 

From: Steve

Sent: 13 June 2014 13:55

To: fos

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

 

Hi Graham

Its laughable to consider that this was a mere case under the supply of goods implied terms act 1973 and should be dealt with under that act from the outset . Had it been them thid could have been resolved before 1st payment was made.

 

Can you please send me the details of your complaonts procedure .

 

Steve

 

 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: fos

Date: 13/06/2014 12:01 (GMT+00:00)

To: "'Steve

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

 

Dear Mr Davies,

 

It is evident from your comments and the documentation you provided that you feel this service is responsible for the delays and has not dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.

 

I regret if you feel this way.

 

Notwithstanding this, I am not of the view that had there not been any delays, the outcome would have necessarily been any different.

 

However, as I explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the way in which this service has handled your complaint, please let me know and this can be investigated as a separate issue if you would like this to be done.

 

With regard to Mr complaint, at this point in time and until there is evidence to support your complaint, my view remains unchanged.

 

As I also explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the outcome you may request for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman who will issue a final decision.

and some more once again from bottom to top it does show my anger in these ones a little.

[Steve40]

From: fos

Date: 12/06/2014 15:43 (GMT+00:00)

To: "'Steve

Subject: RE: FW: Mcomplaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr steve

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this.

 

 

 

I can also understand the difficulties you are referring to.

 

 

 

I think it is important to explain to you that it is not a case that I disbelieve you and/or Mr Pearse about the mobility scooter being taken back to the dealer, however, we simply require evidence to support this and, unfortunately, there is no evidence that I have seen to do this. It is on this basis that I cannot find against the business as there is insufficient evidence that it or the dealer have acted inappropriately.

 

 

 

This is why I think having a copy of the call recordings may assist.

 

 

 

It is stipulated in the agreement that if Mr wanted to exercise his right to withdraw from the agreement, this had to be made in writing to the business within 14 days.

 

 

 

As you are aware, the business has stated that it was not aware of any complaint until this office contacted it. In addition, it did not receive any written requests to withdraw from the agreement.

 

 

 

When you first contacted this office about Mr complaint we would not have been aware of all the circumstances as it had not been allocated to an adjudicator. It could not be anyway until the business submitted its file.

 

 

 

We were initially provided with the incorrect supplier details so this wasted time in the review process, however, when we were provided with the correct details, we wrote to the business requesting a copy of its file so that the review process could commence.

 

 

 

Included in our request for the file, was a request for a copy of the business’ final response letter to , however, one had not been issued as the business stated that it was not aware of any complaint.

 

 

 

We have been in contact various times with the business regarding its submission of its file and it was only recently, once the complaint had been allocated to me, that this was received.

 

 

 

A final response letter had still not been issued, therefore, it was necessary to assess the complaint without this.

 

 

 

All the documentation completed at outset is appropriate and I have seen no evidence that the dealer/business acted inappropriately regarding the finance or sale of the mobility scooter.

 

 

 

This, however, is not the focus of the complaint – the focus of the complaint is that the mobility scooter was returned after three days because it was not suitable, however, the dealer did nothing about this.

 

 

 

Had the business been contacted about this at the time and not the dealer, matters may have been resolved.

 

 

 

Hopefully, we can get a copy of the call recordings to see what was discussed and if we do and these calls confirm that you did speak with the dealer about returning the mobility scooter, we will then have evidence to go back to the business with for it to consider.

 

 

 

I trust this clarifies matters, however, please contact me if you have any further queries.

 

 

 

Regards,

[Steve40]

Dear Steve

 

heres the original rejection of complaint

 

 

I am writing further to my previous email in respect of Mr complaint against R. Raphael & Sons Plc – ‘the business’ .

 

As I stated previously, based on what you told me regarding the circumstances of the sale, it appeared that Mr complaint would be justified, however, I would need to examine the documentation completed at outset and liaise with the business first before coming to a formal decision.

 

The basis of Mr Pearse’s complaint relates to the purchase of a mobility scooter which he claims was not fit for purpose.

 

In addition, you stated that Mr contacted the dealer three days after the purchase to say that it was not suitable and wanted to return it, however, the dealer did not respond.

 

To settle the complaint, Mr would like the agreement cancelled. He would also like to return the mobility scooter and receive a full refund.

 

The business’ file was received and I have reviewed the documentation completed at outset.

 

Based on the information available, I am unable to find against the business.

 

I would like to explain that this office assesses complaints purely on an impartial basis and our decisions are based on what documentary evidence is available.

 

With regard firstly to the actual sale of the mobility scooter and, in particular, the dealer’s alleged lack of communication following this sale, regrettably, we cannot rely solely on yours or M verbal assurances as evidence as we would not be applying impartiality if we did so.

 

According to the business, it has no record of being contacted by Mr after the sale and the only time the business became aware of a complaint was when this office contacted it.

 

Furthermore, since the business was made aware of this complaint, it has made several attempts to contact Mr in an effort to resolve matters, however, no response was received and, therefore, the business has been unable to investigate Mr concerns.

 

I have, therefore, had to assess the complaint based on the information available.

 

As there is insufficient evidence regarding the sale and after-sales service to support Mr claim, apart from your submissions, I am unable to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

 

In response to Mr claim that the mobility scooter was not fit for purpose and wanted to reject it on this basis, as I explained to you, we would not consider that Mr reason for rejecting the mobility scooter (back pain) was sufficient justification to deem the mobility scooter unfit for purpose.

 

Having said this, if Mr was in any way dissatisfied with the mobility scooter, he did have the right to withdraw from the agreement within 14 days, however, as I have explained, there is insufficient evidence that he did so.

 

There was not an option to cancel the agreement, therefore, if Mr did exercise his right to withdraw, he would still have had to repay the business the amount of credit that it had advanced.

 

Based on the information available, I would be unable to agree that Mr claim in respect of this aspect of his complaint is justified.

 

In view of the above, as there is no evidence that I have seen which would indicate that the business, including the dealer, acted inappropriately or outside the terms and conditions of the agreement, I regret that I am unable to recommend that Mr complaint should be upheld.

 

I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you and I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for, however, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

 

However, if you disagree with how I have reached my conclusions, please contact me by 25 June 2014 – telling me your reasons and including any evidence that you have not already provided and that you think is important to your case.

 

As we explain in our leaflet, your complaint and the ombudsman, consumers have the right to ask the ombudsman to review their case – as the final stage in our process, however, if we do not hear from you by 25 June 2014, we will take it that you have decided not to pursue the complaint further.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Adjudicator

 

 

 

____________________________________

Edited August 7, 2014 by Steve40

[Steve40]

i have the original document that wa sent to r raphael on the 30th of august 2013 but im struggling to delete the personel data

[Steve40]

Hi fos

Its laughable to consider that this was a mere case under the supply of goods implied terms act 1973 and should be dealt with under that act from the outset . Had it been them thid could have been resolved before 1st payment was made.

Can you please send me the details of your complaonts procedure .

Steve

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: fos Date: 13/06/2014 12:01 (GMT+00:00)

To: "'Steve

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

Dear Steve

It is evident from your comments and the documentation you provided that you feel this service is responsible for the delays and has not dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.

I regret if you feel this way.

Notwithstanding this, I am not of the view that had there not been any delays, the outcome would have necessarily been any different.

However, as I explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the way in which this service has handled your complaint, please let me know and this can be investigated as a separate issue if you would like this to be done.

With regard to Mr complaint, at this point in time and until there is evidence to support your complaint, my view remains unchanged.

As I also explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the outcome you may request for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman who will issue a final decision.

 

 

Dear Steve

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Is it the call I have highlighted below that you may to the dealer on 19 June 2013?

 

Also, will you be submitting Mr telephone statement with details of his call to the dealer?

 

Regards, fos

 

From: Steve

Sent: 13 June 2014 20:42

 

Subject: Re: FW: M complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc (Our ref:

 

Hi fos

Sorry if this is a little late but here' a copy of my telephone calls from June the top one is to the supplier mr call will have been before this date

 

 

 

In a message dated 13/06/2014 15:17:47 GMT Daylight ombudsman.org.uk writes:

Dear steve

Phone number : 0000000000000

 

Usage for: 0000000000000000

Please use the following options to define the information you want to display:

 

View: [Most expensive \/]

Select either:

( )

Bill period: [12/05/14 - \/]

2013/03/11 2014/06/11 (X)

Date range:From03/06/2013To11/07/2013

 

 

 

The following link should assist:

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm

 

Regards,

fos

 

 

 

From: Steve

Sent: 13 June 2014 13:55

To: fos

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

 

Hi Graham

Its laughable to consider that this was a mere case under the supply of goods implied terms act 1973 and should be dealt with under that act from the outset . Had it been them thid could have been resolved before 1st payment was made.

 

Can you please send me the details of your complaonts procedure .

 

Steve

 

 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: fos

Date: 13/06/2014 12:01 (GMT+00:00)

To: "'Steve

Subject: RE: FW: Mr complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc

 

Dear Mr Davies,

 

It is evident from your comments and the documentation you provided that you feel this service is responsible for the delays and has not dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.

 

I regret if you feel this way.

 

Notwithstanding this, I am not of the view that had there not been any delays, the outcome would have necessarily been any different.

 

However, as I explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the way in which this service has handled your complaint, please let me know and this can be investigated as a separate issue if you would like this to be done.

 

With regard to Mr complaint, at this point in time and until there is evidence to support your complaint, my view remains unchanged.

 

As I also explained previously, if you are not satisfied with the outcome you may request for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman who will issue a final decision.

and some more once again from bottom to top it does show my anger in these ones a little.