Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕   Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.   As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.   It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.   Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.   In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.   I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?     As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.      
    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
  • 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

Section 75 claims. What "evidence" am I obliged to provide?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1958 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

Good evening all.

 

I have a problem with a rather expensive item, namely an LED lighting fixture which is designed to sit on brackets 3 inches above my aquarium.

 

I chose this particular item because it is supposedly of superior quality when compared with cheaper alternatives

and it was offered with the manufacturer's 2 year warranty which was high on my list of considerations.

 

 

I had read on several fish keeping forums that the manufacturers supposedly gave great customer support

and in some cases have even given support and parts Free Of Charge on items on which warranty had expired.

In my case, the warranty has not expired as I purchased it in May 2013 on interest free credit.

 

The unit has developed a fault.

I informed the manufacturer's supposedly "great customer service department" of the problem and sent photos by email.

Their response was very disappointing.

 

They said that the damage looks like "burning of the contacts" and that it was "most likely caused by humidity".

They went on to say that their warranty does not cover damage caused by humidity, water or salt.

 

 

This is for a light fitting which, as said, is designed to fit on the same manufacturer's brackets just 3 inches above the water!

In actual fact, unlike most aquarists I know, my aquarium is covered with perspex/ glass covers

which protect the light from humidity and salt creep to some extent.

 

I was told by the manufacturer that I must order the replacement parts and pay €300+ for them.

I must then return the faulty parts but will only be refunded if the damage is covered by the warranty.

 

I find this totally unacceptable having paid over £1700 for the light and brackets, believing that it was covered by a 2 year warranty.

In my opinion this renders the light as unfit for purpose under the terms of The Sale of Goods Act 1982.

I have conveyed this sentiment to the manufacturer.

I then asked the retailer who sold me the light to deal with the manufacturer

and I received the following reply from the retailer...

 

"Hi (Redletter),

I couldn't speak to Jamie but spoke to anothe guy at (manufacturer) think it was same one who's been emailing you

He has said the same to me as he did to you

He can send new parts and charge you and then refund once old parts are returned if they are faulty

Or you can return old parts first and if found to be faulty then they will replace them

 

As the unit is out of the years retailer warranty I have to take their advise on this and do what they ask of me

 

I explained your concerns about it being close to the tank and no adequate seal

but their response was it needs to be kept clean to stop salt creep getting into it

Something which I or them can't know for sure has happened properly"

 

Bearing in mind the manufacturer has already stated that he believes it to be humidity damaged and is not covered,

I feel that if I pay for new parts and return the old, I will just be told it was indeed humidity damage and never refunded.

 

Please note the unit was bought from a supplier in England and the Manufacturer is based in Germany and the light built in Austria.

 

1) Do I have any rights under the sale of goods act 1982?

2) If so who against? Retailer/Manufacturer/ Credit Company???

 

I can't really send the parts for inspection without replacements as the light will not work and my corals will probably die.

 

PLEASE ADVISE.

 

 

Thank You.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard one this Redletter.

 

 

You need to get in with a letter sent recorded telling them as it was advertised for a fish tank that you would expect it to have protection against condensation and water ingress and you would certainly expect it to last longer than it has.

Tell them you consider it of unsatisfactory quality and not fit for purpose per the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (which last 6 years).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hard one this Redletter.

 

 

You need to get in with a letter sent recorded telling them as it was advertised for a fish tank that you would expect it to have protection against condensation and water ingress and you would certainly expect it to last longer than it has.

Tell them you consider it of unsatisfactory quality and not fit for purpose per the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (which last 6 years).

 

Thanks for your reply.

Do I take this up with the shop or the supplier?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

The shop

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi all thanks for your advice on the above.

 

 

I have to admit I have been putting this off for a while as I am unsure of the wording I should use in my letter.

 

 

I have a tendency to waffle a bit and repeat myself.

I want to include only what is relevant from the above and I need to come across as if I know what I'm talking about.

 

Any help with suggestions for the necessary wording in order to get the message across would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you in advance..

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

to this point

it appears you've dealt the Manu.

 

 

its the retailer, the shop, whom your issues should be directed at.

under SOGA

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks yes that is what I was told by BankFodder but I am just wary of getting the wording of my letter wrong. I did email the supplier and asked him to deal with the manufacturer himself. He didn't seem to have any luck with them and as per the email he sent me detailed above, he seems to think he has to do what they tell him!

 

He says that he has to take their advice as his supplier warranty was only a year.

 

The manufacturers wareanty is 2 years.

 

I did not get any terms of warranty with the goods nor can I find their terms on their website.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the warranty, soga is your friend.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Just one other thing. The post above is timed at 13:21. The clocks haven't gone forward yet have they?.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

it saya 12.21 on my computer but sometimes your local settings will read differently. Occasioanally Google is convinced I am in France and Ebay thinks I live in the USA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Could anyone point me in the direction of a suitable letter template which I could adapt to suit my circumstances, or at least a similar thread with a similar issue that was resolved?

Thanks in advance.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

template for fish tank light.???

 

 

put post 1 in a letter

 

 

to the shop

 

repair/replace/refund

as they think fit as it has failed to last a reasonable time.

 

 

if you go read say the which soga site

there are numerous examples there.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
template for fish tank light.???

 

 

put post 1 in a letter

 

 

to the shop

 

repair/replace/refund

as they think fit as it has failed to last a reasonable time.

 

 

if you go read say the which soga site

there are numerous examples there.

 

 

dx

 

Ha no!

I meant a template quoting the correct way to use SOGA ie the relevant sections.

I will check out the which site thank you.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I contacted my credit card provider and requested a Section 75 claim form.

 

The faulty item cost around £1700. £355 deposit paid by credit card, the rest on interest free finance offered in the shop.

 

The item was sold with a 2 year manufacturers warranty.

It failed before 20 months.

There are no warranty terms on the manufacturers website.

 

The retailer said he approached the manufacturer but he "had to do what they said"

and they said they wanted over 300 euros for replacement parts as "this type of damage is not covered".

 

In my opinion the product I was not fit for purpose as it is a light fitting for use 6 inches above an aquarium

and the manufacturer states that the damage is caused by humidity!

There is no seal between the Perspex covers and the electronics of the unit which in my eyes is a major design flaw.

 

The credit card provider tried to fob me off with a "disputed transaction" for the deposit.

I made it clear that " I wish to claim under Section 75,of the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

 

They started to "fill in a form on my behalf" asking lots of questions about whether I had evidence of payments to credit provider,

receipts for payments etc.

They started on about "proof of correspondence with the retailer" .....

 

I pulled them up at this point and reiterated that I wished to claim under Section 75

and that I had no obligation to contact the retailer nor provide evidence of such

and that they are equally liable for the entire amount to be refunded to me in the event of a breach of contract under SOGA.

 

I insisted that I can fill in my own forms and they said they will send them out.

 

Surely I don't have to start paying my bank for copy statements to prove I paid by direct debit?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you not get the statements online or via a £10 SAR?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Thanks for the reply dx. I managed to find my annual statements from the credit provider.

I am now awaiting a final decision from the FOS

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...