Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
    • Amigo Loans has posted an £87m loss for the nine months to December 31 2020, a 289% drop on the same period in 2019 View the full article
    • I've had a brief look over the thread and I see that there principle point is that he didn't take out insurance. Your answer to this is very simple – that it is absurd that you are required to pay to protect them against their own negligence or criminality of their employees or the people who are acting for them – in this case, Hermes.Your point here is that any requirement that a customer is required to pay extra to protect against the breach of contract is unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. Please have a read of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. In In particular, after you have read the sections within the act itself, get a schedule two and you will see examples of unfair terms. These are nonexhaustive which means that they are simply examples and lots of others can be added. An important point is that it forms a significant imbalance between your interests and their interests. They are using a standard form contract which is nonnegotiable. There is no competition because all the courier industry are doing this so there is no opportunity for you to go elsewhere and get a different type of deal. You will need to point out to the defendant – through the mediator – that included in the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act is a provision that gives the court the power – in fact a duty – on its own initiative to examine the fairness or otherwise of any term. Point out to the defendant that if they want to go to court then you are happy about it. That you will then raise the question of unfairness to the judge and also you will invite the judge to look at the entirety of the contract and to pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the contractual terms. Tell the defendant that you expect that the judge will decide unequivocally that a term of the contract which requires the customer to pay extra to protect themselves against the service providers breach of contract is grossly unfair – and in fact it is ridiculous. Basically they are saying "pay us to deliver your goods – and pay us extra if you don't want us to lose them."   Explain to the defendant that you are fully aware that this is a culture within the courier industry which has developed over 30 or 40 years or more but it's not acceptable and that when you get a judgement in your favour which confirms that the term is unfair, (as will surely happen) that you will then make sure that copies of the judgement find their way all over the Internet including social media that is concerned specifically with complaints against the courier industry and then the game will be up for the loss of them. One the mediator to tell the defendant that once you get this judgement, not only will people be claiming for ongoing lost items, but they will also be claiming retrospectively for legitimate claims which have been rejected on the basis of this unfair term. Make it clear to the mediator – that they should tell the defendant that you're not dealing with very much money here – and you are prepared to risk it all in order to go to court and to demonstrate this principle. If the mediator says that you should compromise then you should tell the mediator that if the defendant pays up in full – including costs and interest – that they will then be spared the problem of going to court and getting a judgement against them which will result in the loss of millions of pounds in the future. Tell the mediator that this is the benefit to the defendant and you are not prepared to hand them any further benefit if it means sacrificing a single penny of your claim. Tell the defendant to take it or leave it – you are happy either way.   It is very important that the defendant understands that you don't care either way whether you settle now mediation or goes to court. The defendant as a huge amount to lose if it goes to court. You have very little to lose  
    • Firstly I am disabled and have brain fog so can forget anything.  Today I went online to check when the MOT is due as just had to renew my car insurance and know it comes quickly after that. I was shocked to see my car was flagged as NOT TAXED.  I have had disability tax for years so dont even have to pay. After ringing DVLA I eventually found out papers had been sent to my old house which I left 3 years ago. With the stress of moving etc I never changed the car address but did change the address on my licence as that is correct.   Now I am worried I may have picked up a speeding ticket sometime in the 3 years and also maybe recently on a day trip to London (2 miles too fast coming out a tunnel). The old house is 150 miles away so cant pop in and no idea who lives there now. Thats how I got caught out with tax as they sent the paperwork there to renew. The lady renewed the tax easily on the computer for me which I was so grateful for and backdated it to 1 Feb. Can anyone tell me how I can find out if there are any tickets out there in my name that I know anything about please? I have had a really awful week with so many problems and this is now really making me feel sick so dont want to worry for months to catch up with me.   Thanks  
    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
  • 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

'Very' suite not very good!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1840 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

Not sure if anyone can help but am throwing this out there just in case.

 

Bought a 2+3 suite from Very last June on buy now pay later.

 

 

Payment not due until June 2016 but have been paying it off anyway.

 

 

A problem started to develop in November when the base and back cushions were distorting

so badly that you sank into the corners when sitting down.

It was not a cheap suite at £1800 before sale price of £900.

 

 

I contacted Very who said they would send a specialist out but if no fault was found we'd be charged £45.

The inspector came last week and completely stripped everything down to the bare bones.

 

 

He took all the base and back cushions out of their fitted covers and told us they needed re-dressing.

He proceeded to pull apart the filling material then pummelled them repeatedly with his fists.

 

 

He said that because a cheap cotton wool type filling had been used

this would have to be done with each cushion every day.

He then struggled for a good 15 minutes trying to re-fit the covers (he was sweating).

 

 

I asked how I was supposed to do this daily given my obvious disabilities and arthritic hands but he had no answer.

He also told me that if the catalogue description said 'plump cushions daily', this would be Very's 'get out clause'.

 

 

The description does say this but I would have thought that this would refer to the scatter cushions that come with the suite.

 

 

Very won't answer my emails apart from telling me that no structural fault was found and I have been charged the £45.

 

I've never bought a suite before that requires removing the cushions from fitted covers every day

and then having a full upper body workout in order to make it useable again!

 

Does anyone out there do this to their suite,

I don't know what to do now apart from contacting trading standards but not sure of my position?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone with a sofa like that and they have had to place loads of scatter cushions across it. If you don't place a firm scatter cushion in the corners, if you were to sit back into the corner, you would end up in a very uncomfortable position. The material fitted into the back cushions of the sofa is just too soft.

 

There is a reason this suite was half price in a sale, which is that i expect that other customers have complained having the same problem.

 

You can probably pursue this under sale of goods act, but it may not be that easy. I heard about a case where a lady had a problem with a sofa and after correspondence, inspections, it ended up with a Judge plus the shops legal representative going to the ladies house. She won her case, but from memory it took over a year and cost her money. She paid for an independent furniture inspection report which cost about £130 and then the court fees.

 

Best advice i can give you is to write to the Chief Executive of Very, with a clear explanation of your problem with the suite. If you can send them photos of the suite issues and details of your disability, which makes the suite totally unfit for purpose, not built to a satisfactory standard etc. Then see how they respond.

 

If they refuse to help you, come back for more advice and there are people on this site who can explain next steps. But you have to write to Very first with full details of your complaint.

 

The other option you have, is a DIY option of getting the cushion filling replaced. You can buy the filling material and obtain what you want in terms of firmness. It is then just a case of taking out the current material and replacing. If you know a friend or relative good at crafts, it might be a quick but messy job.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice unclebulgaria, I will follow it and write to the Chief Executive this weekend. I've checked the suite reviews on the Very website and there are many people with this problem. I'll post the response here as I'm sure I'll need further help. There's no other place better than cag that's for sure! behindsofa.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for your advice unclebulgaria, I will follow it and write to the Chief Executive this weekend. I've checked the suite reviews on the Very website and there are many people with this problem. I'll post the response here as I'm sure I'll need further help. There's no other place better than cag that's for sure! behindsofa.gif

 

See if you can get screen prints of the complaints about this suite, just in case they are removed from their site.

 

The other point you will need to cover off, is the description of the suite. Does it live up to how it is described ? As it clearly does not live up to the desciption, you need to explain why this is the case. E.g a sofa you can and family can sit on comfortably. It is unreasonable to expect the cushion covers to be removed on a daily basis, as the person who visited said they needed to be.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Is it possible to have the name of this particular item ?

 

If it is in Very i is most likely in Littlewoods and other mail order catalogues in the group, so it may be useful for others to know.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not recommend this to anyone not worth half the price I paid for it

Cons: Sofa loses its shape quicky, Very enigineers came to view sofa and said that I had to fluff the cushions each day to get them to sit right, not happy with this at all

 

 

Plump cushions regularly to maintain fullness.

 

 

The suite is a 'Brodie'. Above is a review from someone else I copied just after Christmas. I've pasted in the bit about plumping the cushions (doesn't say daily as the inspector told me to do). Can't seem to find the other bad reviews, I wonder why??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the reply from Very about my complaint. Interestingly, they have removed the suite completely from their site. This means that I cannot see the description anymore.

 

 

Thanks for emailing us about BRODIE 3 + 2 SEATER SOFA (6AYWR1P).

Th etechnician has advised there are no manufacturers faults .

 

Therefore , if you want to challenge this you would need to submit your own independent report advising what the actual manufacturers faults are .

This would need to be done on letter headed paper and it would have to advise what the costs for repair would be and what the manufacturers faults are

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Colleen Mullen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried contacting the manufacturer direct, see what they have to say about very saying their product is designed to be poor quality.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you search there are various options available for furniture inspection reports. This is a link for one of them which i think you can still use, even if Very or their parent company Shop Direct are not members of the Furniture Ombudsman.

 

http://www.thefurnitureombudsman.org/expert-inspections/independent-smart-report

 

Once you have obtained the report, if it is favourable, then you can look to take further.

 

You would have to approach Very first with the report and then you may have several options. Using any ombudsman service Very have signed up to, Court or pursuing with any credit provider if you bought it using credit e.g credit card or loan.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...