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

Where do i stand with an ex-display item please?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1814 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

Hi. I bought an ex-display bath from a local bathroom shop a few years ago

because i knew i needed one soon and as it was ex-display it was a fraction of the price of a new one.

 

 

It was sold as seen and it looked fine. I've had it in my garage for over two years

now that i've come to install it i've noticed that it has started to go yellow. It should be white.

 

The retailer says that it was sold as seen and as an ex-display bath

it isn't covered by the long guarantee that a new bath comes with.

 

 

He says that the bath has been on display in the shop for years as well as it being in my garage for a further two years

and it isn't reasonable for him to guarantee it under those circumstances.

 

I admit that i was attracted by the price

as i got the bath and the taps for less than i would have paid for just the taps at full price.

And i knew it was ex-display when i bought it but i didn't expect the colour to yellow

and i'm disgusted at the retailer's stance.

 

I am very frustrated and would gratefully welcome any advice that is available please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no odds it was ex display

sold as senn or WHY

 

 

its covered by SOGA and the

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?440-The-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

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 for the quick reply. As you can probably tell, i'm really annoyed so i'm desperate to hear where i stand.

 

The shop owner says that it is impossible for him to guarantee the bath as i have had it in my possession for over two years and there is no way of him knowing in what conditions it was stored under.

 

His stance seems to be that the bath was fine when it left the store and it was sold as seen.

 

I've stored it for all that time and now it isn't fine.

 

It is also impossible to know what colour it left the store in

and has it actually got any worse than the day i bought it?

I think it has obviously.

 

He also seems to be saying that as the taps alone cost more than i paid for the bath and taps then there is nothing to refund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

load of old cobbrers

 

 

nothing to do with any guarantee or ex display.

sold as seen, discounted...

MATTERS NOT

 

 

as I posted before.

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
load of old cobbrers

 

 

nothing to do with any guarantee or ex display.

sold as seen, discounted...

MATTERS NOT

 

 

as I posted before.

 

Agreed, as far as "fitness for purpose".

However, the retailer is also saying : stored in garage (under unknown conditions) for 2 years.

 

The OP still needs to demonstrate there was an inherent fault from manufacture that has caused the deterioration, rather than "fine when made, discoloured due to storage that any bath would risk discolouration under".

 

OP, could you agree with the retailer an expert's report to determine this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IS it a steel or acrylic bath?

Acrylic tend to go yellow after a few years, especially if exposed to direct sunlight.

It's because they contain resins which "cook" slowly in sunlight and inevitably with time.

If it's a steel bath, no excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Agreed, as far as "fitness for purpose".

However, the retailer is also saying : stored in garage (under unknown conditions) for 2 years.

 

The OP still needs to demonstrate there was an inherent fault from manufacture that has caused the deterioration, rather than "fine when made, discoloured due to storage that any bath would risk discolouration under".

 

OP, could you agree with the retailer an expert's report to determine this?

 

Thanks for the help everyone and sorry for the delay in posting. After many exchanges of opinion the retailer said he'd take the lot back and refund me for everything. He said he still didn't think he was in the wrong but that some things just weren't fighting over. I'm disappointed that I've lost the taps as they were a bargain but he said he sold it all to me as a package so he's taking it back as a package.

 

Thanks again for the advice. It gave me the confidence to continue pushing and arguing.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...