Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In the very first claim thread it mentions contacting the claimant is encouraged by the court etc. I was thinking about contacting them and asking about a Tomlin order to put an end to all this, at least I'd be able to stop worrying and maybe get some sleep (currently 4.52am) 😴
    • Hi I'm looking for a bit of help to deal with a claim form from Hoist/ Cohen referencing an old Capital One account please. I have filled out the details below as requested and submitted an acknowledgement of service intending to defend.   In 2007 I sent a SAR and requested a copy of the original CCA from Cap One on this account.    In 2014 Lowells sent a claim form for the same account. I have a copy of a notice of allocation to the small claims track hearing and a copy of the front sheet of ack of service with intent to defend but I have no recollection of its outcome and there are no CCJs on my credit file.    Name of the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd   Date of issue – 5/11/2019   Date of issue 05/11/19 + 19 days = 24/11/2019 + 14 days to submit defence = 7/12/2019 (33 days in total)   Particulars of Claim This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a default notice issued pursuant to ss. 87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294  2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £369   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC I received a letter of claim & income / exp forms.   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? yes   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not sure claim is for Credit card   When did you enter into the original agreement 2003   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement not sure   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files yes, as closed   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor. Assigned   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?  from HPH2 to HFUKH2L, I don't have anything from Cap One.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes (2007) Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not sure, I’ve had letters from Robinson Way.   Why did you cease payments? illness and inability to deal with my debts, I had no money no job and my mental health was in a terrible state.   date of your last payment? 07/2014 paid to Robinson Way   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No (PPI and bank charges refunded)   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes   Do I send a CPR 31.14 next asking for the agreement, notice of assignment and the Default notice?   Thanks.
    • It states the charge as: 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17 (1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.' Then a brief statement of facts that the pass did not belong to me, and that I had stated it was due to financial reasons. It then contains information about making my plea and then the statement of the revenue officer. I am of course planning on pleading guilty before the cut off point and attending court (I'm hoping to be well enough to attend anyway). I'm just concerned about the consequences and if there is any point in trying to still reason with TfL now that court application costs are at least involved. I have debated getting a solicitor solely because of what I've read on the internet and what it says about ruined job prospects, I know it's probably scare tactics to get me to hire someone but it is the driving fear behind everything at the moment. 
    • You really MUST respond to the Singe Justice Procedure (SJP) notice and do so BEFORE the 'cut off' date.   Clearly, you will need to plead guilty and by doing so, you will benefit from having a one third discount in the amount of the fine issued.   You do not....I repeat NOT need to enlist the help of a solicitor and by pleading guilty, you will NOT be required to attend a hearing.   what exactly is stated on the charge sheet.    
  • Our picks

zantos

Options under Sale of Goods Act regarding PCW

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1038 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 purchased a Logik TV from PCW 31/08/2016 for £79-99.

Yesterday 13/01/2017 there was a "pop" and the TV no longer switched on

- browsing the internet I find it is a common fault with Logik TV for the power supply or motherboard to fail in this way.

 

Visitng PCW in Coventry I was told I HAD to allow them to repair the TV and COULD NOT ask for a refund on the grounds the TV was "not fit for purpose".

 

Their policy is that they MUST attempt a repair

. Is this true that under the SOGA I HAVE to allow them to try a repair before I am allowed a refund.

 

I remember once reading that after you had allowed a repair you were no longer allowed to ask for a refund.

 

Can anybody enlighten me as to what action I am allowed and whether I HAVE to allow PCW to repair a TV I have now lost all confidence in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you bought the TV after October 2015, the applicable law is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It doesn't really make a world of difference to your rights in this particular case. The TV has to be of satisfactory quality and must last that way for a reasonable period of time. However, the Consumer Rights Act does provide that if a fault occurs within six months of the date of purchase, then firstly it is assumed to have existed when the item was sold – but secondly, the seller must be given an opportunity to repair. You only have to give them a single opportunity and if the repair is not possible or if the repair fails, then they are obliged to refund you or to replace – less a deduction for the use that you have had from it.

 

Therefore, PCW is entitled to attempt to repair it. This has to be carried out within a reasonable period of time. If they are unable to affect the repair then they will have to replace it or refund you less a margin for the use you have had – about five months which I would expect could reasonably be said to the equivalent to about 10% of the expected life of the TV of this type and price.

 

Return the TV to them for repair. Tell them that you want the repair to be carried out and the TV to be repaired within a reasonable period of time and that you consider that 14 days is more than adequate.

 

Tell them that if they are unable to affect the repair within this time then you will treat the repair as a failure and that under the CRA 2015, your then entitled to a refund or replacement – at your option.

 

Don't expect this to be straightforward. PCW are not very renowned for respecting people's rights. Furthermore, I expect that they will end up taking a lot longer over the repair and I can imagine that it could go to 6 weeks or more. I consider that this kind of timescale would be unacceptable – but it will be up to you to decide what action you want to take


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you bought the TV after October 2015, the applicable law is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It doesn't really make a world of difference to your rights in this particular case. The TV has to be of satisfactory quality and must last that way for a reasonable period of time. However, the Consumer Rights Act does provide that if a fault occurs within six months of the date of purchase, then firstly it is assumed to have existed when the item was sold – but secondly, the seller must be given an opportunity to repair. You only have to give them a single opportunity and if the repair is not possible or if the repair fails, then they are obliged to refund you or to replace – less a deduction for the use that you have had from it.

 

I have looked on the Which? website and their interpretation of the Act is that the choice between repair OR replacement is the customers. Is this in fact true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. So far as I know, that is not correct. The seller has an option to attempt a repair within the first six months. Once that repair fails, then the options go to the customer who can agree to another attempt to repair a refund or a replacement.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A not so happy follow up!

 

Took the TV into the PCW store today and agreed that the CPA 2015 applied

. Asked why I couldn't have a replacement and was told it wasn't their policy.

 

Handed over the TV in the ORIGINAL packing and said they could repair it,

BUT THEN I was presented with two pieces of paper to sign agreeing to THEIR service terms with conditions like "We are not responsible for claim or losses resulting from the non-availablility of product"

I said I didn't want to sign this and was told "then we won't repair it!"

 

Are PCW allowed to attach their own conditions to the PCA?

The repair was THEIR responsibility and I shouldn't be expected to sign away any of MY rights to obtain satisfaction under the act.

 

I did sign BUT added the footnote that I had been forced to sign to obtain my right under the Act.

 

The TV was then taken out of it's packing and I was given "my box" back so not sure how it will progress on it's journey.

 

I welcome any observations or comments.:mad2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I don't think you've "signed anything away".

I should hope that by law you are not even allowed to sign your rights away.

The fact you've added a footnote to say "you were forced to sign" is also in your favour.

 

As for removing the TV from it's box,

it will be sent away in something called a "tellytainer" which is far more safe and secure than the original packaging.

It will be bubble wrapped and secured.

 

If you REALLY don't want a repair and want a replacement then maybe request (not demand) to speak to a manager.

 

Appeal to their common sense and put your case calmly.

All Dixons managers have been briefed to "Say Yes More"

. So, as a customer use this to your advantage.

 

Let them know exactly what you want and give them the opportunity to make it happen

. Logik is own brand and easily "sent back as faulty".

 

Speak to store staff as you would like to be spoken to and I'm sure you will get what you want. Best of luck. Let me know how you get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 'say yes more' is indeed correct and still operating, also, the previous year, all dixons managers were given £1000 personal bonus each, to communicate to their staff that they shouldnt argue with customers, just do whats right.

 

unfortunately the £1000 wasnt shared with their team....just pocketed and the staff told not to argue with customers.

welcome to how dixons is run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...