Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


nuclearshark

Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 320 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

Yes something like that would help.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update.

 

Amazon have not responded to the LBA sent in writing to their Head Office. The letter was sent tracked postage and they definitely received it. I allowed them the entire length of August to respond to show willingness for an amicable settlement.

 

Going to re-read this thread over the weekend and come back with a POC to submit to the courts this week. Also as they have not responded does that mean they failed to follow Pre-Action Protocol?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think they have to reply to a letter before claim/action to meet any protocols.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final POC - Sanity Check Please guys, Plan to File with the Court tomorrow.

 

IN THE CASE NUMBER:

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

AND

Amazon UK Limited (Defendant)

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

 

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:

Extremely Poor Battery Life

Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)

Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections

Overheating

Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011

Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

 

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.00 (Exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:

Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3)

Consumer Rights Acticon 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 4)

Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5)

3.1 This would be considered an unfair term because this puts the purchaser in a position where they are forced to pay a high cost to return the Laptop to the United States of America where it is repaired. If a fault were to occur again then the purchaser would again be out of pocket unfairly.

 

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of 91.10 GBP. This forms part of the amount claimed in this case. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the 91.10 amount.

 

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per Particular of Claims Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (Exhibit 6).

This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing and the claimants wishes to return the laptop within 90 days. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

 

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7) as required and reasonably requested by the DHL Insurance Team.

 

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop (Exhibit 8). This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (Exhibt 7.1)

 

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at 605.99 RRP (Exhibit 8). The defendant was notified on discovery immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (Exhibit 9). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered a replacement part.

 

9. The defendants' customer service department promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under The Consumer Rights Act 2015

 

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises of a resolution and then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a

further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

 

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim. To explain this point further, Amazon refuse to honor a refund of 91.10 despite it being perfectly clear that Amazon would bare this cost and thus the matter resolves in the claimants favour.

 

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of Mediationicon with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:

The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 15 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)

The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)

All correspondence throughout my complaint ends with "Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk" which clearly suggests that the defendant is the entity whom you are forming the contract with. (Exhibit 16).

Exhibit 17 shows the defendant makes such a claim that they are whom you are doing business with and forming the contract is also ended with the line: "Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

 

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

 

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit 18. The defendant provided a replacement product which

was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee to refund the faulty product as the claimant has fulfilled their legal requirements for allowing the defendant and opportunity to replace the laptop as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for a peroid longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the warranty to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

 

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of their terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

 

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the present date (572 days) at the daily rate of £0.47p making a total sum of £268.47 and continuing at the daily rate of £0.47

 

18. The Claimant has exhausted all possible options prior to litigation. A Letter Before Action was sent on xx to the defendant which they received on xx (Exhibit 19). The Defendant did not respond to the Letter Before Action nor to any offers and proposals of mediation and therefore is in Breach of the Paragraph 4 of the Practice Directions, Civil Procedure Rules. It is with deep regret that the claimant must now file this claim in a final attempt to close the matter and end the dispute deadlock.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claim has been submitted with the Courts. I had a small issue trying to file with the County Court who refused to take the documentation from me and said it needed to be posted to Manchester. This is despite what the "Help with Fees" email and documents sent. So a wasted trip to the Court which wasn't ideal.

 

For anyone who reads this as a reference, this is the PoC I filed. I decided not to include the SSD Drive in the costs as if this product was genuinely returned to the retailer I would not have the SSD drive to use later anyway.

 

Amazon did not respond to the LBA but did acknowledge receipt of it. So I have also included this in the PoC.

 

IN THE Somewhere County Court CASE NUMBER: 123456789

BETWEEN:

 

NuclearShark (Claimant)

 

AND

 

Amazon UK Services Ltd. (Defendant)

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

 

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

 

2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:

⦁ Extremely Poor Battery Life

⦁ Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)

⦁ Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections

⦁ Overheating

⦁ Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011

⦁ Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

 

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.75 USD (Exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:

⦁ Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3)

⦁ Consumer Rights Acticon 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 4)

⦁ Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5)

3.1 This would be considered an unfair term because this puts the purchaser in a position where they are forced to pay a high cost to return the Laptop to the United States of America where it is repaired. If a fault were to occur again then the purchaser would again be out of pocket unfairly.

 

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of £91.10 GBP (Invoice Attached). This forms part of the amount claimed in this case. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the £91.10 GBP amount.

 

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per Particular of Claims Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (Exhibit 6).

This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing and the claimants wishes to return the laptop within 90 days. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

 

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7) as required and reasonably requested by the DHL Insurance Team.

 

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop (Exhibit 8). This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (Exhibt 7.1)

 

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at £605.99 GBP RRP (Exhibit 8). The defendant was notified on discovery immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (Exhibit 9). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered a replacement part.

 

9. The defendants' customer service department promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under The Consumer Rights Act 2015

 

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises of a resolution and then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

 

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim. To explain this point further, Amazon refuse to honor a refund of £91.10 GBP despite it being perfectly clear that Amazon would bare this cost and thus the matter resolves in the claimants favour.

 

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of Mediationicon with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:

⦁ The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 3 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)

⦁ The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)

⦁ Exhibit 14 shows the defendant makes such a claim that they are whom you are doing business with and forming the contract is also ended with the line: "Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

 

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

 

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit 15. The defendant provided a replacement product which was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee to refund the faulty product as the claimant has fulfilled their legal requirements for allowing the defendant and opportunity to replace the laptop as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for a peroid longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the warranty to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

 

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of their terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

 

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the date of the Letter Before Action being 01/08/2017 (633 days) at the daily rate of £0.45 GBP making a total sum of £284.85 GBP and continuing at the daily rate of £0.45 GBP The claimant is also due the same 8% per annum interest on the return delivery fee of £91.10 GBP from the date they incurred this expense being 04/10/2016 to the date of the Letter Before Action 01/08/2017 (302 days) at the daily rate of £0.02 GBP

 

18. The Claimant has exhausted all possible option prior to litigation. A Letter Before Action was sent on 01/08/2017 to the defendant which they received on 04/08/2017 (Exhibit 16). The Defendant did not respond to the Letter Before Action nor to any offers and proposals of mediation and therefore is in Breach of Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Directions for Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules (Exhibit 17). It is with deep regret that the claimant must now file this claim in a final attempt to close the matter and end the dispute deadlock.

 

I will update this thread as the case progresses.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court issued a claim on 17th November 2017 with Date of Service for 22nd November 2017. The other party has until 6th December 2017 to Acknowledge Service or I can request Judgment by default on 7th December 2017.

 

Based on reading other posts on CAG, other forums, blogs and online information. It is my opinion this will go 1 of 4 ways.

 

1) Defend the Claim in full and take it to trial (Which I will push for should that be the case)

2) Settle the Claim or make an offer of settle for partial amount (probably without admission of liability)

3) Settle the Claim or make an offer to settle for partial amount with a gagging clause preventing me disclosing details and not admitting any liability (I won't accept this and will refuse any gagging order as condition of settlement)

4) Ignore the Claim and get judgment by default

 

There is of course the option that should this go in my favour that they will appeal.

 

Fingers crossed and will update as progress continues.

 

I should add for anyone who files by post with County Court Money Claims in Salford that you must send them the following:

 

3x Signed Claimforms (1x to stamp and send back to you, 1x for the Court File and 1x for the defendant)

2x Copies of any particulars and exhibits (1x for the Court File and 1x for the defendant)

 

If you are claiming against more that 1 defendant in the same claim, then include 1x extra of each of the above.

 

This is not explained on the gov.uk at all ( https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money ) and should you send them just 1 claim form and particulars they will return them to you asking for duplicate copies. This is something I'd overlooked as I previously filed online where no such documents are needed. But in this case I applied under Help with Fees (Which didn't explain this either) where you have to file by post and made this rather rookie mistake.

 

Also don't take the claim forms with Help with Fees application to your local court. Send them to the Salford address (listed here: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money ) as the local courts won't take the documents from you and will instead give you a leaflet with where to send the documents and turn you away...

 

Again a rookie mistake and one I had simply overlooked as the previous N1 Claims I've filed have been online for small amounts.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can request judgment after 19 days....subject to the absence of acknowledgement of service...so that would be the 5th December.

 

12.2 A claimant may not obtain a default judgment –

(a) on a claim for delivery of goods subject to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 19741;

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part12

 

Andy


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoned the court today for an update and it seems Amazon filed acknowledgement of service on 24/11/2017.

 

They intend to defend the whole claim and have also stated that I should change the defendant from Amazon UK Services Ltd to Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l

 

I think it may be sensible to agree this change to show reasonableness but also to make sure the claim doesn't get struck out. I'll know more once the paperwork from the court arrives.

 

How would one make this change exactly?

 

I've had no correspodence from Amazon either. As they have completed AoS om 24/11/2017 I assume they have until the 24/12/2017 to submit a defence?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. Do I need to send the PoC and exhibits again with the claim forms? Or just the 3 claim forms per the link you included?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you submitted through MCOL Northampton...simply state the claim number in your application and as follows....

 

Complete the N244 Application Notice, with appropriate Court fee

 

ask for the Defendant's name to be amended, and

re-service of the claim form to be dispensed with at it was validly served at the correct address, and

ask for it ex parte (without a hearing)

On the front of the application notice type in the box asking what order you are seeking: "The Claimant respectfully requests that the Defendant's name be amended pursuant to CPR 17.1.(2) (b) an re-service of the Claim Form be dispensed with."

 

On the second page insert:

 

A claim was issued against the Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX in the XXXXXXX county court under claim number XXXXXXX for the recovery of monies owed.

Since that date the Defendant has changed their name and it is therefore incorrect on the Claim Form.

Therefore, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Claim Form be amended so that the Defendant's name reads "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" pursuant to CPR 17.1 (2)(b). An amended copy of the Claim Form is included in this application.

 

We respectfully request that the need for re-service of the amended Claim Form be dispensed with as the claim form was validly served on the Defendant's address.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Andy. Do I need to send the PoC and exhibits again with the claim forms? Or just the 3 claim forms per the link you included?

 

 

Why have you included exhibits at all? They're meant to go in your witness statement not POCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad your relationship with your Parents broke down over a £600 Laptop.

 

H


40 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you submitted through MCOL Northampton...simply state the claim number in your application and as follows....

 

Complete the N244 Application Notice, with appropriate Court fee

 

Thanks again Andy. Just wanted to make sure I understood the process as it initially didn't make 100% sense to me at first.

 

Why have you included exhibits at all? They're meant to go in your witness statement not POCs.

 

The courts requested all documents and evidence supporting the PoC. I have a form of Autism and so take things very literally. So I may have misunderstood what the exact definition of that request was. Do you think it may be worth informing the court of this?

 

It is sad your relationship with your Parents broke down over a £600 Laptop.

 

There were other issues surrounding that. However that has since been resolved. That was the case at the time of writing, but is not so much the case now. The laptop in question is £2,100 + a return courier fee of £91 to the USA. Having read the thread to see where you got the £600 figure from, I think that is the replacement laptop that was sent back to me was missing a part which on it's own is valued at £600 and the laptop developed the same faults even with this missing component.

 

N244 will go in the post this weekend or early next week. I want to receive the response to AoS first so I know exactly what the name needs to be before sending off the N244.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they have filed a defence at the very last minute.

Copy and Pasted Verbatim below.

I have annotated some of their points which are incorrect.

 

1. The Claim Form was served upon Amazon UK Services Ltd (“AUK”). AUK is not the correct defendant to the Claim.

AUK is a company registered in England and Wales which provides services to the various Amazon entities referred to below,

but is not responsible for operating the Marketplace (the “Marketplace”) on the Amazon.co.uk website (the “Website”).

 

This is being altered by way of an N244 application

 

2. The Website is owned and operated by Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (“AEC”).

The Marketplace, together with any other third party seller programs operated on the Website from time to time, is operated by Amazon Services Europe SARL (“ASE”).

 

2 and ASE (collectively, and individually, “Amazon”) are companies registered in Luxembourg and use the trading name ‘Amazon.co.uk’.

 

3. AUK has passed the Claim Form onto ASE, the company which operates the Marketplace.

 

4. ASE denies that it is the correct defendant to this Claim for the reasons set out below.

However,

in the interests of assisting the Court,

ASE provides the information set out below.

The Marketplace and the relevant facts

 

5. The Claimant opened an account with Amazon (the “Account”) [Defence Exhibit, Page 1] on for the purpose of being able to purchase products on the Marketplace.

 

 

It is averred that the Claimant agreed to be bound by the Conditions of Use and Sale (the “Terms”) [Defence Exhibit, Pages 2-10].

 

 

The Marketplace allows individual third party sellers to list items for sale on the Website for customers to purchase.

 

6. The Claimant placed an order for the “ASUS ROG GL552VW 15.6 Laptop” (the “Goods”) , under order number (the

“Order”) on 8 November 2015 (the “Contract”) [Defence Exhibit, Page 11].

The Claimant placed the Order on the Marketplace from the seller ‘’.

The contract for the sale/purchase of the Goods was therefore formed between the Claimant and .

Accordingly, was responsible for the sale and delivery of the Goods to the Claimant.

 

7. ASE is the host for the Marketplace facility as stated in Clause 12 of the Amazon.co.uk

Conditions of Use:

“the contract formed at the completion of a sale for [these] third party products is solely between buyer and seller.

Amazon is not a party to this contract nor assumes any responsibility arising out of or in connection with it nor is it the seller's agent”

[Defence Exhibit, Page 4]

 

8. Other than operating the A-Z guarantee scheme (defined below),

ASE plays no other part in the sale and purchase of goods from third party sellers such as on the Marketplace.

No contract was formed between ASE (or any other Amazon entity) and the Claimant.

 

 

As a result, neither ASE nor any other Amazon entity supplied the Goods to the Claimant,

as alleged by the Claimant in paragraph 1 of his Particulars of Claim,

and the Claimant did not pay ASE (or any other Amazon entity) for the Goods,

but paid the third party seller,

 

9. The Claimant alleges in paragraph 2 of his Particulars of Claim that the Goods were defective.

 

 

ASE is not liable for the allegedly defective Goods as claimed by the Claimant.

 

The contract that the Claimant entered into when he placed an order to purchase the Goods was with and not ASE or any other Amazon entity.

 

10. It was made clear to the Claimant at all times that he was purchasing the Goods from .

This was made clear to the Claimant,

(a) at the point of purchase where it was stated that the Goods were “Dispatched from and sold by ”, and

(b) in the Claimant’s order summary [Defence Exhibit, Page 11] which made clear that the purchase was from (the “Seller”).

 

11. Amazon’s records show that the Claimant was allegedly dissatisfied with the Goods and contacted the Seller in order to arrange a return of the Goods.

 

 

Amazon had limited involvement in the Claimant’s return of the Goods to the Seller,

as Amazon’s role was limited to facilitating communication between the Claimant and the Seller.

 

 

It is denied that Amazon is responsible to act as a mediator between the Claimant and the Seller.

 

 

It is the Seller’s returns policy that applies to the Contract,

and as such ASE is not liable to reimburse the Claimant for the alleged cost of returning the Goods to the Seller,

as alleged, or at all.

 

So why did they assure a refund if they were in no position to do so. Bear in mind this was 3 seperate people who assured a refund on different days.

 

12. The Claimant appears to allege that he is entitled to a refund under Amazon’s International Return Policy which can be found on ‘About Marketplace Returns & Refunds’ help-page [Defence Exhibit, Pages 12 to 15].

 

 

The Claimant appears to allege that the Seller did not do the following in respect of the return of the Goods:

1) provide a return address within the UK,

2) provide a pre-paid return label, or

3) offer a full refund without requesting the item to be returned.

 

 

The ‘About Marketplace Returns & Refunds’ help-page states that if a seller does not offer these methods to return items, or if a customer’s “…return experience doesn’t match the return policy published by the Seller…

” the customer may file an A-to-Z claim with Amazon to open an investigation [Defence Exhibit, Page 12].

A-Z Safe Buying Guarantee

 

13. In order to protect Amazon’s customers, ASE provides them with the A-Z Safe Buying Guarantee (the “A-Z Guarantee”).

This is referenced in clause 12 of the Conditions of Use which states that:

 

"The seller is responsible for the sale of the products and for dealing with any buyer claims or any other issue arising out of or in connection with the contract between the buyer and seller.

 

 

Because Amazon wants the buyer to have a safer buying experience,

Amazon provides the Amazon A-to-z guarantee in addition to any contractual or other rights."

[Defence Exhibit, Page 4]

 

14. The A-Z Guarantee provides coverage for items purchased from a Marketplace seller, provided that the customer has taken the necessary steps to file an A-Z Guarantee Claim.

 

 

When customers have a problem with a transaction, ASE asks them to first contact the seller to give them a chance to address the issue at hand.

 

 

If the seller does not respond or if the issue is not addressed to the customer's satisfaction,

the customer can file an A-Z Guarantee Claim for consideration,

which enables ASE to undertake an investigation into the customer’s order,

and provide a refund to the customer depending on the outcome of that investigation.

 

 

If the A-Z Guarantee Claim is successful,

a customer refund will be processed from the seller,

where a customer has purchased a defective item from a Marketplace seller and has met certain specified conditions.

 

15. The conditions that a customer must meet to file an A-Z Guarantee claim are set out on the ‘A-Z Claim Conditions’ help-page [Defence Exhibit, Pages 16 and 17].

 

 

The help page is publically available on the Website.

 

 

One of the conditions that must be met is that

“… [the customer has] waited no longer than 90 days from the Estimated Delivery Date to file [their] claim…”

 

 

As the Claimant did not submit an A-Z Guarantee claim within that time or at all, he did not,

and does not,

qualify for a refund under the A-Z Guarantee.

 

 

Any claim the Claimant may have in relation to the Goods should be made against , and not ASE.

 

16. For the reasons set out above,

it is denied that ASE is liable to reimburse the Claimant for either the cost of the Goods or for the return of the Goods,

as the Order was sold and fulfilled by a third-party seller.

 

 

ASE explained this to the Claimant on 14 September 2016

“…Because [the] order wasn’t sold or fulfilled by Amazon we aren’t in a position to refund or replace it ourselves…”

[Defence Exhibit, Page 20]

 

 

and again on 5 November 2016

“…Since the seller fulfills your order… we do not have an option to take any action on such orders as these are independent orders dispatched directly by the seller…”

[Defence Exhibit, Page 21]

 

17. Furthermore, ASE understands that the Claimant has already been offered by the Seller a reimbursement of the cost of shipping the Goods back to it

[Defence Exhibit, Page 22].

 

This was news to me. Having viewed the document they agree only to refund the delivery charge and not the insurance. But it's perfectly acceptable for them to screw my DHL claim over by ignoring me and thus unable to proceed with a claim

 

The Replacement Goods

18. ASE understands that the Claimant requested a refund from the Seller of the laptop originally purchased on 6 November 2016.

ASE further understands that on 10 November 2016,

HIDevolution UK offered to give the Claimant a suitable ‘like for like’ replacement product (the “Replacement Goods”),

instead of a refund, as it appeared to have been too late for the Claimant to return the Goods to the Seller under its return policy.

ASE understands that the Claimant accepted the Replacement Goods.

 

19. However, the Claimant emailed Amazon on 11 May 2017 requesting a refund of the Replacement Goods,

alleging that the Replacement Goods were faulty.

 

 

Amazon responded to the Claimant to explain that Amazon was not a party to the Contract for the sale/purchase of the Goods,

and (as explained above), in such circumstances,

Amazon’s involvement would be limited to the A-Z Guarantee it provides.

 

20. The Claimant was informed that the Order was no longer eligible for the A-Z Guarantee, and it was explained to the Claimant that Amazon’s role is not to act as a mediator; it is only responsible for facilitating the transactions between buyers and sellers on the Marketplace [Defence Exhibit, Page 23].

 

 

It is denied that any apology by Amazon to the Claimant for his customer experience with a third-party seller is an admission of liability in an any regard.

 

Here is what one of the agents I spoke to said, quoted verbatim: Nuclearshark, I am positive you will receive your full refund. Please be assured you will receive the refund.

 

That's not an apology, that is an assurance of resolution. So this point of there's is nonsense.

 

21. ASE’s records show that the Claimant then contacted the Seller again, on 26 May 2017, asserting that the Replacement Goods were allegedly faulty (over six months after having received the Replacement Goods).

 

This is not true. Contact was made in February and was ignored. I did not open the replacement Laptop until early in 2017 due to a house move over Christmas and being in and out of hospital with a very persistent illness requiring several antibiotic courses to fix. So I had other issues to deal with.

 

The Claimant alleged that the Replacement Goods were faulty because they were allegedly missing a “2TB Samsung SSD Hard

drive” (the “Hard Drive”)

 

Not true. There were other faults that returned

 

22. ASE’s records show that the Seller responded by stating that it was unable to provide a refund of the Replacement Goods to the Claimant, as it was “well past the returns policy”.

 

 

ASE is unable to comment on the return policy provided by in respect of the Replacement Goods.

 

 

Further, ASE’s records show that the Claimant was informed that the warranty provided by the Seller had expired.

 

 

Although the Seller declined to refund the Claimant,

the Claimant was offered technical support by the Seller and the Claimant was offered a replacement Hard Drive.

 

 

It is unknown whether the Claimant accepted that offer.

 

This is news to me. I'm trying to locate where this offer was made.

 

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “Act”)

 

23. As the Claimant’s contract for the sale and purchase of the Goods was with the Seller ,

it is denied that ASE,

or any other Amazon entity has breached the Act, as alleged or at all.

 

Interest

24. In so far as the Claimant claims interest, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to interest as alleged or at all, as the Claimant is not entitled to any payment from ASE, or any other Amazon entity.

 

The Claimant’s Letter Before Action

 

25. Amazon has no record of having received the Letter Before Action that the Claimant allegedly sent to Amazon.

It is unclear to which address the Claimant allegedly sent the letter.

 

 

It is, therefore, denied that Amazon has breached the Practice Direction for Pre Action Protocol, as alleged, or at all.

 

Outright lie. This was sent by registered post to their London Office and was signed for by "Reception" and they've seen the evidence of that too

 

Conclusion

 

26. ASE is the company that operates the Marketplace, however it has no contractual relationship with the Claimant as explained above.

 

 

ASE denies that it is liable for the amount claimed or at all.

The correct defendant to this claim is

 

27. The Claimant was not (and is not) eligible for a refund from Amazon under the A-Z Guarantee,

as he did not file an A-Z Guarantee Claim within the time period required (or at all),

and all liability to the Claimant is denied in this regard.

 

A request to return was made within the timeframe, but not strictly by way of a guarentee.

 

28. To the extent that the Claimant is alleging that Amazon has not responded to his concerns,

Amazon avers that it appropriately responded to the Claimant and informed him of Amazon’s limited role,

and that his contract is with , and not ASE.

 

 

Any claim in relation to the Goods should be made against and not ASE.

 

29. For the reasons explained in paragraphs 26-28 above, the Claimant is not entitled to interest from ASE.

 

30. It is denied that ASE has breached the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence are true.

I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this defence.

 

Next steps are I assume to request the Court transfer the case for a hearing and draft a Witness Statement to file with the courts?

 

Or do you think this is game over?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inform you they wish to proceed and then the claim moves to allocation...your local county court...then directions.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just a brief update on this one.

 

Received the Notice of Allocation with the following dates:

 

Need to pay the Court Hearing Fee by 16:00 on 12/06/2018

 

File the Witness Statements / Bundles no later than 25/05/2018

 

Amazons Solicitors (Eversheds Sutherland of Cardiff) declined Mediation. (I ticked yes to mediation)

 

The hearing will take place on 10/07/2018 at 10:30 AM and is expected to last 2.5 Hours. That will be an issue as I have a medical condition which would require me to use a toilet within that length of time. Is it worth notifying the court of this in advance or should I just speak to the judge before the hearing starts? The last thing I want to do is 1 hour in and upset the judge by stepping out to use the bathroom and the case go against me on that basis.

 

Is it worth requesting Amazons Solicitors to consider an out of court settlement bearing in mind they refused mediation? In theory I can then use this against them in my WS?

 

Should I file my WS at 15:45 on 24/05/2018 or should I file sooner?

 

I will be drafting up the WS over the next week and will post here when I've got a good draft copy.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the court know in advance and tell the usher and the judge on the day


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First attempt at a witness statement:

 

1. I nuclearshark being the Claimant in this case will state as follows:

 

2. I make this witness statement in support of my claim against Amazon Services Europe (SARL) (“Amazon”) and in response to the defendants defence submitted on xx / xx / xxxx which was submitted to County Court Money Claims Centre

 

 

1. From my understanding, the defendant believes the claim should have been filed against Amazon Services Europe SARL rather than Amazon UK Services Ltd. The claimant obtained Amazon’s details from Companies House by way of a search for “Amazon.co.uk” (Exhibit 1) and filed the claim in the belief they were the correct entity.

 

2. The Claimant altered the claim and changed the defendant from Amazon UK Services Ltd to Amazon Services Europe SARL by way of an N244 Application without a hearing, using the CPR 17.1.(2) (b). procedure. This application was granted by Judge xxx on xx / xx / xxxx and there were no objections.

 

3. Had Amazon UK Services Ltd followed the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules, the above points 1 and 2 would have been completely avoided. In addition, the defendant would not have put the claimant in the position where they had to further waste the courts time with an N244 Application. Amazon received my Letter Before Claim on xx / xx / xxxx (Exhibit 2) but did not respond in any capacity. (Something the defendant denies in their defence) Having provided proof of postage and delivery receipt, the claimant believes the defendant is mistaken.

 

4. The claimant believes that Amazon are the correct defendants in this claim, as they allowed the claimant to facilitate the procurement of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop (The “Laptop”) via their website Amazon.co.uk

 

5. Furthermore to the above point 4. The claimant believes Amazon misrepresented the contract to the claimant, thus the contract formed was grossly unfair to the claimant, as it did not make clear that it removes their vital Consumer Rights Act 2015 protections.

 

6. Amazon allowed the company HIDevolution to appear on their website as HIDevolution UK with a UK Address (Exhibit 3). This gives a very clear message that the company is UK based. When the claimant notified Amazon of intentions to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it transpired that the company was infact based in the United States of America, where the UK Law of Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply. Thus leaving the claimant at a serious disadvantage.

 

7. The Claimant would not have entered into the contract had the correct details of the company been listed on Amazon.co.uk As they would have known that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would not apply to this transaction.

 

8. The defendant rejects that the claimant filed a return within the Amazon A-Z Guarantee time period. This is incorrect as the claimant did infact create a return on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) within the 90 day period. The claimant (Still believing he was still dealing with a UK Company) Was surprised to discover that he was expected to return the laptop to a USA Address. But in order to comply with the buyers obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Where the buyer must give the seller a single opportunity to repair / replace before issuing a refund – Exhibit X) the claimant began saving money to prepare to send the laptop back to what they believed was the manufacturers address.

 

9. The claimant is of the opinion that the defendant and the defendants solicitors believe that HIDevolution UK is a UK company. Therefore the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to Amazon and instead to HIDevolution UK. In order to ensure the defendant and defendants solicitors are aware, the claimant sent an e-mail on xx/xx/xxxx asking about early settlement opportunities to avoid further use of the Courts time and to make them aware that they were allowing a USA company to masquerade on their Marketplace Platform as a UK company.

 

10. The defendants solicitors have responded to my request for early settlement on xx / xx / xxxx and advised the claimant that Amazon have no interest in settling the case. Furthermore the solicitors instructed that I am no longer to contact the defendant directly and relay all correspondence to them. This would breach the order of Judge xxxx made on xx / xx / xxxx where the claimant must file the witness statement with ALL parties to the claim and the court.

 

11. Notwithstanding the above, Amazon advised the claimant that they would be refunding him on several occasions. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) and then later backtracked and provided a generic template response denying the claimant the sort after relief.

 

12. The claimant is aware that Amazon have taken responsibility for poor quality products by the same seller on at least 2 occasions as listed on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) Therefore the claimant does not understand why he is being treated differently. It is also apparent that the seller is no longer supplying goods on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X)

 

13. The defendant state in their defence that the claimant did not file an A-Z guarantee claim within the 90 day period. The claimant followed the usual procedure to return goods on the Amazon.co.uk website as documented in exhibit X. This was well within the 90 day timeframe. The claimant was not aware they needed to escalate the case to Amazon under the A-Z guarantee. When they found out this was the correct action to take, despite a return being requested within the 90 days, the claimant was advised he was out of time.

 

14. The claimant has found several examples of A-Z claims being filed outside of the 90 day period on Amazon Seller Forums. One such case was issued 3 years from the sale of goods. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) This leads the claimant to believe that Amazon could do more to help in this situation but are choosing not to.

 

15. The defendants’ behaviour was highlighted in a Guardian Newspaper article on xx / xx / xxxx and the case for Mr Doe was resolved after media attention. However from the claimants own case it is apparent that this behaviour continues and Amazon have no interest in enforcement on sellers to adopt the Amazon ethos of Customer Service Focused.

 

16. The Claimant was advised to file a claim against their credit card provider under section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. However this advice given by the defendant to resolve the matter would fail based on payment not being made directly to the merchant. (Exhibit X) Thus causing a Section 75 claim to be irrelevant to this matter. The claimant believes the defendant is merely passing the buck and washing their hands of the case.

 

17. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Failure of components in a laptop valued at £2,054.11 within days of ownership cannot be argued as “fit for purpose” and “lasting a reasonable length of time”.

 

18. The defendants make-out that the discrepancy of the replacement laptop was not reported in a timely manner. They further state that the claimant allowed a delay of “nearly 6 months” described in their defence (Exhibit X). However this point of delay is irrelevant as the Limitations Act 1980 allows the claimant to bring a claim within 6 years since delivery of the goods. The claimant believes this was highlighted purely to embarrass their case as it is irrelevant to this claim.

 

19. In order to assist the court, the claimant wishes to inform all parties that the delay in notifying of rejection of goods was due to a house move around the time the replacement arrived (Which took in excess of 1 month to arrive) in December. The laptop was not used by the claimant until the home move was complete. During this time the claimant was also travelling to see a specialist for medical treatment on a regular basis. This is one of many conditions that persist to the present day. It is disappointing to admit that the claimant does not enjoy good health.

 

20. The claimant has other grounds to reject the replacement laptop as not a like for like model. The Laptop was missing a 2TB Samsung Evo Solid State Drive with does not use moving parts. (Valued at around £600 – Exhibit X). However this fact was not immediately obvious to the claimant as this is an internal component inside the laptop. The claimant noticed the laptop was not running his preferred version of Windows 10. During a reinstallation of Windows 10 the claimant discovered that the Samsung Evo 2TB SSD was infact a Seagate 2TB HDD which is slower, costs around £60.00 and has moving parts.

 

21. The provider of goods, HIDevolution, were notified immediately but did not respond. The claimant then contacted Amazon who instructed HIDevolution to provide a refund as they had done several times previous. They refused and advised any further repairs would have to be paid for as the warranty had now expired.

 

22. The defendant has raised that the claimant was offered a replacement SSD drive. The claimant was unaware of this as they do not recall receiving notification of this email. Thus the offer was not accepted. This would also not solve other existing faults which the replacement laptop produced which include:

 

a. Overheating sometimes to severity that the claimant cannot use it on their lap

b. Blue Screens of Death causing the loss data and running application states

c. Broken latch which prevents the LAN cable from staying firmly attached

d. Poor battery life (Less than 1 hour)

e. Keys falling off the keyboard and not staying re-attached

f. Poor FPS (Frames per Second) that make some PC Games unplayable. (A Gaming Laptop of this specification is more than capable of running most games over 30 FPS however the claimant frequently receives FPS rates of 10 – 20 making even a simple Train Driving Simulator unplayable)

 

23. The defendant correctly state that although HIDevolution offered to cover return shipping costs, they offered to pay the delivery fee but refused to pay for the tracking and insurance. The claimant was not prepared to send the laptop at their own expense without insurance and tracking. Ironically the laptop was damaged in transit and a claim was filed with DHL. However HIDevolution / Amazon failed to provide the claimant with the documents (namely a repair quote) requested by DHL to satisfy a claim. Therefore the claimant was prevented from claiming a refund on delivery charges from DHL.

 

24. It is the claimants belief that Amazon and their seller HIDevolution have been as obstructive as possible throughout the entire case from point of sale to the current legal action. The claimant believes that Amazon.co.uk must be held accountable for allowing the seller to blatantly flout Amazon Policies. They have also shown contempt to the claimant by making assurances that were never followed through (Mainly refunds and closing of the matter). The claimant therefore believes the claimant has entered into an unfair contract with the seller on Amazon.co.uk website because they were grossly misled as to what statutory rights they would forfeit while trading with a US seller pretending to be a UK seller.

 

25. The claimant suggests that in order to prevent similar buying experiences happening to other customers that Amazon be required to state that Consumer Rights Act 2015 does NOT apply when buying from an overseas seller and be required to “check a box” that they have understood that they are forfeiting a potential statutory right.

 

26. The defendant have also acted unfairly to the claimant by interpreting their own policy to suit them. They denied the claimant be entitled to relief for delivery charges despite this being covered in Amazon Marketplace policy (Exhibit X). They stated this needed to be filed within 90 days. This potentially (and actually in this case) created the unfair condition for the claimant to be put to significant expense to return a faulty product. The claimant had to push very hard by asking the claimant (no less than 6 times) as to why they were not due a refund of only the courier invoice.

 

27. The claimant believes they have followed all the correct procedures in conducting its case against the defendant and acted as reasonable as possible throughout. This is despite the defendants refusing to discuss the matter, put forward any sensible proposal of mediation and breaching pre action protocol.

 

28. The claimant seeks interest at the Statutory Rate of 8% per annum because they have been deprived of funds rightly theirs for in excess of 2 years. The claimant would have been happy to waive the interest had Amazon settled the case at an early stage. Regrettably the defendants put the claimant into the position that there was no other choice but to start Legal proceedings in the Small Claims Court.

 

29. The claimant makes it’s case as a litigant in person and asks the court to note this on the case file, but also advise the claimant if they have at any point failed to make their obligations under Pre Action Protocol or Civil Procedure Rules. The claimant will then make all reasonable attempts to rectify that action.

 

30. The claimant has significant physical, mental health and learning disabilities. As such the claimant respectfully asks the court and any party attending as defendant to consider this if the claimant appears to be acting oddly, is slow to respond or asks for questions to be worded in different ways. The claimant will be in possession of a hot drink for the use of “grounding” purposes (technique explained in exhibit X) as this greatly assists the claimants mental health and keeping them focused.

 

31. District Judge xxxx advised in their order dated xx / xx / xxxx that the hearing will take 2.5 hours. Should the case continue for more than 1 hour, the claimant will be required to take a personal needs break no longer than 10 minutes and this may happen on more than 1 occasion if the proceeding lasts the full 2.5 hours. This is due to a medical condition and is beyond the control of the claimant. The claimant has taken steps to notify the Court in advance of proceedings and will advise the presiding Judge and Court Usher on the day of the trial. The claimant invites the court to make further enquires should this be necessary prior to trial.

 

32. I certify the above is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love some advice on the witness statement please as it's due by 25th May 2018. (This Friday) thanks :)


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two pence worth, others may disagree. Remember this is a witness statement of facts - yours contains a lot of arguments (submissions), and in my opinion, not enough detail as to what was wrong with the laptop and why you hold the Defendant to be liable.

 

Your witness statement is in effect your story as to what happened, so it should be chronological and detailed : in brief, you saw the laptop on Amazon Marketplace, noted what you thought was the UK seller, bought the laptop, had issues with the laptop, tried to return the laptop, found out it was not a UK seller and the CRA did not apply, had issues shipping the laptop back, were unsatisfied with the repair offered, and eventually refused a refund due to Amazon messing you around till you were in breach of their T&Cs.

 

Your first 3 paragraphs go into a lot of detail about the issues with identity of the defendant, however as this was sorted out by application to the Court I don't think you need to repeat that in your witness statement.

 

Paragraph 29 doesn't need to be in the statement.

 

Again your paragraphs 30 and 31 don't need to be in the witness statement - write a letter to Court and to the Claimant with all that included and raise it with the Judge before the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you SuperVillian. I have taken your advice onboard and reworded things. I've put some of the arguments at the end and explained the process over the last 2 years in detail. Is it worth expanding on the faults more?

 

Anything I should add or remove?

 

Many thanks in advance :)

 

 

1. From my understanding, the defendant believes the claim should have been filed against Amazon Services Europe SARL rather than Amazon UK Services Ltd. The claimant obtained Amazon’s details from Companies House by way of a search for “Amazon.co.uk” (Exhibit 1) and filed the claim in the belief they were the correct entity.

 

2. The Claimant altered the claim and changed the defendant from Amazon UK Services Ltd to Amazon Services Europe SARL by way of an N244 Application without a hearing, using the CPR 17.1.(2) (b). procedure. This application was granted by Judge xxx on xx / xx / xxxx and there were no objections.

 

3. Had Amazon UK Services Ltd followed the Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules, the above points 1 and 2 would have been completely avoided. In addition, the defendant would not have put the claimant in the position where they had to further waste the courts time with an N244 Application. Amazon received my Letter Before Claim on xx / xx / xxxx (Exhibit 2) but did not respond in any capacity. (Something the defendant denies in their defence) Having provided proof of postage and delivery receipt, the claimant believes the defendant is mistaken.

 

4. The claimant believes that Amazon are the correct defendants in this claim, as they allowed the claimant to facilitate the procurement of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop (The “Laptop”) via the defendants website Amazon.co.uk – Amazon were advertising the laptop for sale on behalf of a company called HIDevolution UK.

 

5. The timeline of events throughout the whole of the transaction are as follows:

 

6.1 The claimant procured an ASUS ROG GL552VW via the amazon.co.uk website on xx / xx / xxxx at a cost of £2,054.11 including postage and packaging. This was received by the claimant on xx / xx / xxxx

 

6.2 Almost immediately the Laptop started to develop various faults. One such fault was the keys detaching themselves from the keyboard as shown in Exhibit X.

 

6.3 The laptop also had an RJ45 LAN Port that was unusable because the laptop would produce a BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) error. This would cause the laptop to lose any unsaved documents / game progress / mid downloaded files. An example of this process is shown in Exhibit X.

 

6.4 The Laptop Battery life was poor and in some cases lasted less than 1 hour. To put this into context for the assistance of the court. The claimants HP ProBook 4725s which is nearly 7 years old has a battery life in excess of 2 hours.

 

6.5 The laptop refused to run some games in Full Screen mode without producing a very strange ‘flickering’ that after several minutes resulted in the user receiving intense eye strain and a headache. This is a problem related to the Intel HD Graphics module within the laptop and is documented in Exhibit X on the Intel User Forums.

 

6.6 On xx / xx / xxxx The Claimant signalled their intention to return the laptop as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Which is inside the 90 days returns policy of Amazon A-Z Guarentee) and were advised that as 30 days had passed they were only able to offer a repair. The claimant insisted on a replacement as is their statutory right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

6.7 The company HIDevolution UK requested that the claimant pay $99.00 to return the faulty laptop to them. The claimant under the belief they were dealing with a UK company investigated further and then became aware that they were dealing with an American Company and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (a vital piece of statutory consumer protection legislation) was not going to apply, thus putting the claimant at considerable disadvantage.

 

6.8 The claimant did not have the $99.00 available and therefore was unable to send the laptop back. At no point did Amazon explain that the claimant was eligible to file an A-Z guarantee as the seller was attempting to charge return delivery for faulty goods. This was only explained to the claimant AFTER the timelimit for this had passed.

 

6.9 On 05 / 10 / 2016 the Laptop was returned to HIDevolution at the expense of the claimant. The claimant entered into a contract with DHL to return the laptop to HIDevolution in the USA at their Torrance, Calafornia Service Centre. (Exhibit X)

 

6.10 The claimant became aware that laptop had not left Heathrow and contacted DHL for an update. The laptop was held in DHL Customs Clearance for reasons unknown to the claimant. When the claimant contacted DHL for an explanation, they required the claimant to send an e-mail stating that “no license was required.” (Exhibit X) which was done on 07/10/2016 (Exhibit X)

 

6.11 HIDevolution received the laptop on xx / xx / xxxx and provided the claimant with photographs of the condition of the laptop. It was obvious that the laptop was been damaged in transit. The claimant immediately requested photographs of the packaging which HIDevolution had already disposed of, putting the claimant at further disadvantage.

 

6.12 A claim was raised with DHL and they requested a quote for the repair of the laptop. On xx / xx / xxxx I contacted HIDevolution advising them I required a repair quote. They did not respond. Eventually HIDevolution made a generic response asking “Can you give us an update on how to proceed?” and it was obvious the person dealing with the ticket had not read the ticket nor my previous response of requesting a repair quote, as the claimant had been very clear on what was required.

 

6.13 Further emails were sent to HIDevolution on 16/10/2016, 20/10/2016, 31/10/2016 and 02/11/2016 and eventually the Claimant became so frustrated that they proceeded to make another formal complaint to Amazon on 05/11/2017

 

6.14 On 05/11/2017 a member of staff at Amazon named Deepam said the following key statements:

 

6.14.1 “In the unlikely event that the Seller doesn't provide a satisfactory response to your query, or if a response isn't received within 2 business days, we offer our A-to-z Safe Buying Guarantee for your protection.” – To put this into better context, this email was sent on 05/11/2016 regarding an order made 08/11/2015, this is 363 days after the transaction sale and Amazon have previously stated that A-Z Guarentee applies for 90 days only. So this was both unhelpful and incorrect advice. Therefore this statement is irrelevant to the claim.

 

6.14.2 “Please be assure that seller will contact you and will issue a full refund as soon as possible. However, if you haven't received a refund or reply from seller please let us know and we'll assist you with every possibilities.” – The claimant believes legal action would not have been necessary if this statement were an accurate reflection of events post 05/11/2018.

 

6.15 On 06/11/2016 the claimant was advised the following by Manoj at Amazon:

 

6.15.1 “Please be assured that you will receive the refund.” – To date the defendant believes this statement is an apology for poor customer service as per their defence point x.x.x However the claimant strong disagrees as the wording is very specific.

 

6.15.2 “In case if you haven't receive any satisfactory response. You can file a claim here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/a-z-guarantee/submit-claim.html” – The A-Z Guarentee that the claimant is apparently inelidgable for is mentioned again and is of no relevance at this point.

 

6.16 The claimant contacted Amazon again on 26/05/2017 and they again advised the claimant about the A-Z guarantee and then advised the claimant they had passed a message onto the Seller to issue a refund. The Amazon representative Jefrin attempted to discredit the claimant for using inappropriate language. While reviewing the who correspondence provided in Exhibit X. It is clear that this allegation is unfounded and the claimant wishes this to be noted and the allegation withdrawn as they are of good character.

 

6.17 From the above points, it is the claimants’ belief the defendants are making the rules up as they go along to suit them, which would constitute the provisions of an Unfair Contract should the Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply in this case. The defendants have consistently advised of schemes and options that are of no benefit or are not available to the claimant. There are also inconsistencies in their advice where one agent says the A-Z Guarantee applies only if the seller is contacted within 14 days (Exhibit X), yet other agents have advised this limit is 30 days. Exhibits X

 

6.18 On 08/11/2016 the claimant contacted the defendant for an update on the case as by this time, HIDevolution had ignored the claimant entirely and had held the laptop within their service center for over 1 month. In this email (Exhibit X) I advised the defendants on the following points

 

6.18.1 “I don't want the repaired one back anymore as it's been out of my care for over 1 month and the warranty has expired in their care. This makes me nervous as if they send the laptop back and the repair is not of satisfactory standards they will claim that it's out of warranty and they will not assist further.”

 

6.18.2 The claimant had forseen this being a potential issue and, regrettably, is exactly what happened. The replacement was rejected and HIDevolution advised the following on 31/05/2017:

 

6.18.3 “but please understand the product is now out of warranty and any repairs would need to be paid for.”

 

6.19 By this time the claimant had become immensely frustrated and lodged a complaint with the Amazon Executive Office on 11/05/2017 to escalate the complaints procedure. Exhibit X. The claimant was ignored when requesting a refund of solely the delivery charge. The claimant repeatedly had to ask the defendant on several occasions (Exhibits X, Y and Z) directly for an answer, as the defendants did not respond to this query. Considering the catalogue of broken promises, inconsistent information and incorrect advice it is the claimants belief that this was quite deliberate to avoid dealing with the case.

 

6.20 Amazon denied the complaint and refused to enter into any further correspondence despite when asked. The claimant advised of their intention to make a claim against Amazon UK Services Ltd on 15/05/2017. This was a clear opportunity to advise the claimant to claim against Amazon Services Europe SARL. The defendant failed to respond to this email and to the postal Letter before action.

 

6.21 In the majority of correspondence the defendants have concluded with tag lines such as “I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one.” And “Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk” yet the defendants claim that I did business with HIDevolution. This is confusing to the claimant as it is unclear exactly what capacity the defendants operate in.

 

6.22 The defendants claim that the claimant is ineligible for any relief because of their company’s policies. However these same policies are not applied to the seller and they are allowed to mistreat the claimant with no repercussions and the claimant is simply told they have no case.

 

7 From the above version of events, which the claimant believes to be an accurate and true reflection of events. The claimant asserts the following factors:

 

7.1 Amazon allowed the company HIDevolution to appear on their website as HIDevolution UK with a UK Address (Exhibit 3). This gives a very clear message that the company is UK based. When the claimant notified Amazon of intentions to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it transpired that the company was infact based in the United States of America, where the UK Law of Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply. Thus leaving the claimant at a serious disadvantage. In correspondence the defendant was advised to contact Trading Standards and the Retail Ombudsman, who would not have any jurisdiction against HIDevolution.

 

7.2 The Claimant would not have entered into the contract had the correct details of the company been listed on Amazon.co.uk As they would have known that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would not apply to this transaction.

 

7.3 The defendant rejects that the claimant filed a return within the Amazon A-Z Guarantee time period. This is incorrect as the claimant did infact create a return on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) within the 90 day period. The claimant (Still believing he was still dealing with a UK Company) Was surprised to discover that he was expected to return the laptop to a USA Address. But in order to comply with the buyers obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Where the buyer must give the seller a single opportunity to repair / replace before issuing a refund – Exhibit X) the claimant began saving money to prepare to send the laptop back to what they believed was the manufacturers address. At no point did the defendants advise filing an A-Z guarantee claim within this 90 day period. This only happened after the event.

 

7.4 The claimant is of the belief that the defendant and the defendants solicitors believe that HIDevolution UK is a UK company. Therefore the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to Amazon and instead to HIDevolution UK. In order to ensure the defendant and defendants solicitors are aware, the claimant sent an e-mail on 25/04/2018 asking about early settlement opportunities to avoid further use of the Courts time and to make them aware that they were allowing a USA company to masquerade on their Marketplace Platform as a UK company.

 

7.5 The defendants solicitors have responded to my request for early settlement on xx / xx / xxxx and advised the claimant that the defendants have no interest in settling the case. Furthermore the solicitors instructed that I am no longer to contact the defendant directly and relay all correspondence to them. This would breach the order of Judge xxxx made on xx / xx / xxxx where the claimant must file the witness statement with ALL parties to the claim and the court. The claimant chose not to respond but for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules will send copies to both the defendant and defendants solicitors.

 

7.6 Amazon advised the claimant that they would be refunding him on several occasions or that HIDevolution would refund the claimant. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) and then later backtracked and provided a generic template response denying the claimant the sort after relief. The claimant puts the defendant to strict proof as to what authority they had to enforce such a request against the seller and why they seem unwilling to sanction HIDevolution and/or assist the claimant for ignoring the instruction multiple times.

 

7.7 The claimant is aware that Amazon have taken responsibility for poor quality products by the same seller on at least 2 occasions as listed on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X) Therefore the claimant does not understand why he is being treated differently. It is also apparent that the seller is no longer supplying goods on the Amazon.co.uk website. (Exhibit X)

 

7.8 The defendant state in their defence that the claimant did not file an A-Z guarantee claim within the 90 day period. The claimant followed the usual procedure to return goods on the Amazon.co.uk website as documented in exhibit X. This was well within the 90 day timeframe. The claimant was not aware they needed to escalate the case to Amazon under the A-Z guarantee. When they found out this was the correct action to take, despite a return being requested within the 90 days, the claimant was advised he was out of time.

 

7.9 The claimant has found several examples of A-Z claims being filed outside of the 90 day period on Amazon Seller Forums. One such case was issued 3 years from the sale of goods. (Exhibits X, Y and Z) This leads the claimant to believe that Amazon could do more to help in this situation but are choosing not to.

 

7.10 The defendants’ behaviour was highlighted in a Guardian Newspaper article on xx / xx / xxxx and the case for Mr Doe was resolved after media attention. However from the claimants own case it is apparent that this behaviour continues and Amazon have no interest in enforcement on sellers to adopt the Amazon ethos of a Customer Service Focused Company. It is also worth nothing that in Mr Does case, he was dealing with a UK seller so would not have unknowingly forfeited his statutory consumer rights.

 

7.11 The Claimant was advised to file a charge back or claim against their credit card provider under section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. However this advice given by the defendant to resolve the matter would fail based on payment not being made directly to the merchant. (Exhibit X) Thus causing a Section 75 claim to be irrelevant to this matter. The claimant believes the defendant is merely passing the buck and washing their hands of the case.

 

7.12 Although the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not have jurisdiction on a USA seller. It does require that goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Failure of components in a laptop valued at £2,054.11 within days of ownership cannot be argued as “fit for purpose” and “lasting a reasonable length of time”.

 

7.13 The defendants state that the discrepancy of the replacement laptop was not reported in a timely manner. They further state that the claimant allowed a delay of “nearly 6 months” described in their defence (Exhibit X). However this point is irrelevant as the Limitations Act 1980 allows the claimant to bring a claim within 6 years since delivery of the goods under simple contract. The claimant believes this was highlighted purely to embarrass their case and is a point that is irrelevant to this claim.

 

a. The claimant wishes to inform all parties that the delay in notifying of rejection of goods was due to a house move around the time the replacement arrived (Which took in excess of 1 month to arrive) in December 2016. The laptop was not used by the claimant until they completed moving. During this time the claimant was also travelling to see a specialist for medical treatment on a regular basis. This is one of many conditions that persist to the present day. It is disappointing to note that the claimant does not enjoy good health.

 

7.14 The defendant has raised that the claimant was offered a replacement SSD drive and a partial delivery charge reimbursement. The claimant was unaware of this as they do not recall receiving notification of this email. Thus the offer was not accepted. In any case the claimant would have rejected the offer as it did not cover the full costs of the delivery charge incurred by the claimant. It also did not resolve other issues with the laptop that reappeared during use.

 

7.15 The defendant correctly state that although HIDevolution offered to cover return shipping costs, they offered to pay the delivery fee but refused to pay for the tracking and insurance. The claimant was not prepared to send the laptop at their own expense without insurance and tracking for obvious reasons. Ironically the laptop was damaged in transit and a claim was filed with DHL. However HIDevolution / Amazon failed to provide the claimant with the documents (namely a repair quote) requested by DHL to satisfy a claim. Therefore the claimant was prevented from claiming a refund on delivery charges from DHL.

 

7.16 It is the claimants belief that Amazon and their seller HIDevolution have been as obstructive as possible throughout the entire case from point of sale to the current legal action. The claimant believes that Amazon.co.uk must be held accountable for allowing the seller to blatantly flout Amazon Policies, yet seem to strictly apply to the customer unless they benefit the claimant in any way.

 

7.17 The claimant has evidenced various levels of contempt by the defendants by making assurances that were never followed through (Mainly refunds and closing of the matter). Providing conflicting information (14 days vs 30 days A-Z), advising of policies irrelevant to the case (A-Z guarantee) and refusal to accept responsibility for the delivery charges under their own policy. The claimant therefore believes he has entered into an unfair contract with the seller on Amazon.co.uk website because they were grossly misled as to what statutory rights they would forfeit while trading with a US seller pretending to be a UK seller.

 

7.20 The claimant suggests that in order to prevent similar buying experiences happening to other customers that Amazon be required to state that Consumer Rights Act 2015 does NOT apply when buying from an overseas seller and be required to “check a box” that they have understood that they are forfeiting a potential statutory right.

 

7.21 The defendant have also acted unfairly to the claimant by interpreting their own policy to suit them. They denied the claimant be entitled to relief for delivery charges despite this being covered in Amazon Marketplace policy (Exhibit X). They stated this needed to be filed within 90 days. However this is of little help when Amazon do not communicate this policy to the claimant until after the timelimit has expired.

 

7.22 The claimant believes they have followed all the correct procedures in conducting its case against the defendant and acted as reasonable as possible throughout. This is despite the defendants refusing to discuss the matter, put forward any sensible proposal of mediation, breaching Pre Action Protocol and refusing to participate in any Court Appointed Mediation.

 

7.23 The claimant seeks interest at the Statutory Rate of 8% per annum because they have been deprived of funds rightly theirs for in excess of 2½ years. The claimant would have been happy to waive the interest had Amazon settled the matter at an early stage as it is not the intention of the claimant to profit from this case, merely to see reimbursement of their losses. The claimant advised on intent of legal action several times and regrettably had to follow through and start Legal proceedings in the Small Claims Court.

 

8 The claimant makes it’s case as a litigant in person and asks the court to note this on the case file.

 

9 I certify the above is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge

Edited by nuclearshark
Fixed awful spacing

This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submitted my WS on 24/05/2018 after getting a final OK from Andy. (Was due by 25/05/2018) Also sent in the trial fee help with fees form so all set for a hearing on 10th July 2018.

 

Hwoever, in a twist to the proceedings. It appears Amazon's Solicitors have not served me with their witness statement on time... :madgrin:

 

Not sure how I want to go about this now... Obviously at this late stage I don't want to make a fatal mistake or appear as unreasonable. But on the flip side I am a litigant in person and Amazon have instructed an Internatonal firm of Solicitors who breached PAP right at the start and now failed to comply with N157 order.

 

So do I send the defendants sols a polite email notifying them of their mistake and requesting disclosure of their WS?

 

Or do I notify the court and request sanctions for failure to serve a WS on time?

 

I'm on the fence for what to do. My gut tells me they are now playing games and have no regard for legislation and instructions of the DJ. So I should now remove all offers of settlement from the table and request sanctions from the court.

 

But the other side they have far more resources than I do and will likely find a way to show me as being unreasonable. That said they are sols and should know the law and the rules...


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may arrive Tues.....allowing for the BH....the court will allow a little leniency...but if you have not got it by say Friday I would inform the court and check if they have filed with the court.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but if you have not got it by say Friday I would inform the court and check if they have filed with the court.

 

Thanks Andy. I gave the Court a call today and it appears they have NOT filed their WS with the court.

 

Is it worth making an N244 application to strike out the defence and request summary judgment as per Fons HF –v- Corporal Ltd & Pillar Securitisation [2013] EWHC 1278 (Ch)

 

Or should I just send the court an email advising of the situation and request sanctions.

 

Thanks :)


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

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...