Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
    • here is a question for you, is yu house divided up into a retail/business area  and domestic area for business rates purposes? If not why on earth are you paying business water rates? ceertainly not for tax purposes as you can claim any legit expense without having to reclassify your home as a business premises. i would be stopping this nonsense and goping back to whatever water supplier is the domestic one for your area. there is stuff all they can do to get the £40 from you whan you do that.
  • Our picks

calder

Safestyle windows fitted , more noisy than old ones

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 849 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

Safestyle have fitted my 3 windows . The salesman said our windows were old and that there New argon filled units would cut out the traffic noise . They have been fitted and they are more noisy than the ones they took out . The windows look nice but the reason we bought them was to cut out the traffic noise . They have been back out to take one unit out and check that enough filling had been put in . They have put it back in but it is still noisy . They say they don't know why they are noisy . We are worse off with the noise than we were with the old ones in . Any advice on what I can do . Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have evidence to confirm they are actually noisier than the old ones, eg dB measurements. It could be an illusion that you are now listening for noise rather than ignoring what was there.

 

Were the old ones double glazed too, are the old and new both PVC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence they are more noisy except that we can't sleep because we can hear the traffic and we are having to turn up the TVs in the living room to drown out the noise , which we didn't have to do before . The old windows were upvc too , obviously of a lot better quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old and new double glazed and both pvc . Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sold you a lemon.

UPVC windows last forever.

A good clean with solvent makes them look new.

Hinges are usually zinc plated or stainless steel, so when they suggested you changed your old ones they ripped you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to General Retail Forum..please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

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

how long ago


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been installed 2 weeks , fitters came back today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas filled ( argon) cavities in glass units make no difference to sound performance....its for better thermal performance and to stop /reduce condensation


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

have a good look at the windows here is a example of the fitting standards of safestyle found when the coveing was removed during redecoration of one room a year after fitting , the rest were checked and found to be the same if not worse. complaint made and still awaiting reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Calder,

 

If the Safestyle sales rep told you the Argon units would be better than existing air-filled ones, you were mis-sold the new windows.

 

You would have been far better off having (vertical or horizontal) sliding secondary glazing fitted to compliment the existing windows. Secondary glazing is excellent in reducing noise nuisance from outside.

 

You can reject the windows if they were only fitted 2 weeks back. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you have 30 days to reject faulty goods so you need to complain quickly, in writing, to the supplying office and copy to their Head Office too. Get free Certificates of Posting at the PO as proof of posting.

 

Read our guide about the CRA 2015 to see what's involved - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?440-The-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

 

I suggest the windows should be rejected because :-

 

1. They are not fit for purpose - they have no noise reducing qualities, compared to the old UPVC windows that were removed, regardless of them being Argon filled.

 

2. The are not as described - if you were told the new Argon units would improve noise reduction, this was wrong.

 

If they fail to offer a suitable solution for you, I would sue them for the cost of the new windows (as they won't be able to put the old ones back); or the cost of fitting suitable secondary glazing to stop the noise nuisance (which the sales rep said the new windows would do).

 

That's my take on the situation but others may want to offer comment.

 

:-)


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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I will do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They fitted a composite door along with the windows . There appears to be no problem with this , so shall I reject the windows but keep the door .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Calder,

 

They fitted a composite door along with the windows. There appears to be no problem with this, so shall I reject the windows but keep the door.

 

Yes, mention in the letter that you have no issue with the door and are happy to pay for this.

 

Post a draft here before you send the letter if you want.

 

:-)


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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last post made me laugh. ''Draft'' a letter. brrrrrrrr......:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be in the building trade, RTB. What would you suggest as a good approach to this please?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in the building trade HB. I only commented because I was amused by the ''draft'' comment when talking about windows - designed to keep out drafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right. :lol: I read what you said the wrong way. Thank you for clarifying. :)

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Calder,

 

If the Safestyle sales rep told you the Argon units would be better than existing air-filled ones, you were mis-sold the new windows.

 

You would have been far better off having (vertical or horizontal) sliding secondary glazing fitted to compliment the existing windows. Secondary glazing is excellent in reducing noise nuisance from outside.

 

You can reject the windows if they were only fitted 2 weeks back. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you have 30 days to reject faulty goods so you need to complain quickly, in writing, to the supplying office and copy to their Head Office too. Get free Certificates of Posting at the PO as proof of posting.

 

Read our guide about the CRA 2015 to see what's involved - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?440-The-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

 

I suggest the windows should be rejected because :-

 

1. They are not fit for purpose - they have no noise reducing qualities, compared to the old UPVC windows that were removed, regardless of them being Argon filled.

 

2. The are not as described - if you were told the new Argon units would improve noise reduction, this was wrong.

 

If they fail to offer a suitable solution for you, I would sue them for the cost of the new windows (as they won't be able to put the old ones back); or the cost of fitting suitable secondary glazing to stop the noise nuisance (which the sales rep said the new windows would do).

 

That's my take on the situation but others may want to offer comment.

 

:-)

 

I'm in the building trade (secondary occupation nowadays) and I completely agree with slick.

The windows were missold.

The only difference between the old and new ones is that the new ones are whiter but let a lot of noise in.

So as mentioned, you would have been better off with a solvent cleaner and new silicone, but that would have cost only a pony or so.

Double glazed window sellers...

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...