Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you, that is really helpful advice. He paid Goods and Services. I have all the messages we exchanged. Hopefully it will be fine, I just thought it dodgy that he's already saying he will send back if he's unhappy before he's even got the book. Why not have those conversations first.  I have another book to sell too and already have quite a lot of interest.  So am I best sending extra pictures of the condition to each interested person and making it clear it is sold as shown in the pictures and I won't accept refunds? 
    • Done.   I wont be able to send the SAR until the end of the month for TT as I wont get paid until then and I'm a little out of pocket as its my first month working after a spell of no work. Wil that be an issue?   Also what's to stop people jsut selling ficticious debts off? As far as I know, a telecoms provider can't charge you when you move and they can't supply, meaning that a large proportion of that debt is ficticious?
    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1271 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

On August 11th we ordered a television from Tesco direct which we picked up on August 14th.

It was fixed to a wall bracket and used without problem until 1st September.

 

On 2nd September the T.V. was switched on and there was a black section to the screen.

 

We called Tesco and they asked us to send in a photo of the screen saying that they would get back to us within 3-4 hours,

they failed to do so and we rang them again to be told that they had not had time to look at our email and that they would call us back shortly after11 am the next day.

 

By 2.30 they still hadn't called and so we contacted them to be told

 

"it looks like accidental damage and so we are not responsible"

 

I tried to explain that there was no way that this could be the case but they refused to budge.

 

I then offered to take the T.V. to a local store with an electrical department so that they could perform a physical check of the item,

they said it wasn't necessary and that their decision stood.

They told me that I should take the set to an accredited repair place and obtain a report.

 

I believe that Tesco are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the following extract.

 

The first six months

 

If you discover the fault within the first six months after buying the product,

it is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

 

During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there when you bought it - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

 

Tesco are adamant that they will not offer anything.

What are my rights?

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I have quoted them the relevant sections of the act.

but to no avail.

 

 

How can they hope to prove accidental damage when they have refused point blank to make a physical assessment of the item?

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you written to the head office?

If not, write a letter as soon as possible to HQ and give them 7 days to resolve it before going to CAB or Trading Standards.

 

 

Don't forget to inform them that they are committing a criminal act by ignoring current legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

emailed the CEO as soon as they said no. All replies are from there. I will email them again pointing out that they are committing a criminal act. They think that by calling it accidental damage their responsibility has ended.

 

Here is the email conversation starting from the bottom up. Tesco email in blue for ease of reading.

 

Email conversation with Tesco.

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for offering to return the TV to your local store, however this won't be necessary.

 

The next step we would advise is for you to have the TV inspected by an accredited authorised repair agent.

Only if they can provide a report, backed up with evidence to show that this is a manufacturing defect would we be able to pursue this further.

 

Once again thank you for contacting our Chief Executive's office.

 

Kind regards

 

Xxxxxx xxxxxx

Customer Service Executive to the Board

 

As I said we will be issuing proceedings You will also find that we have already cancelled our saver delivery plan and emptied our basket for this weekend.

 

I am still more than willing to take the TV to the electrical department at my local Tesco Express so that they can actually see it.

 

This is the extent of my good will and will be withdrawn at 9pm today

 

 

Dear xxxxxxx

 

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.

 

As discussed I’ve spoken with our Technical Support team who have looked at the picture you provided.

 

There are cracks coming in from the left hand side of the screen.

 

 

There’s nothing in this area of the screen that would cause the LCD panel to crack in this way, without some form of external force.

 

We have come to the conclusion that this is accidental damage.

 

I know this will be disappointing for you.

 

Once again thanks for contacting our Chief Executive’s office.

 

Kind regards

 

Xxxxxxx xxxxxx

Customer Service Executive to the Board

 

Our full details were given here

 

On 11th August 2017, I placed an order for a Toshiba television and received it on 14th August 2017.

 

We have discovered that the television has a faulty screen.

I contacted your customer services yesterday (2nd September) who requested that I send a photograph of the screen to you (which I did) and that I would get a call back shortly.

 

Having received no call back we again phoned customer services who informed us that our email had not been dealt with but confirmed that as we had received an automated response it was in progress. At this time we informed the Tesco operative that I am due to go into hospital next weekend for complex surgery and so it is imperative that this is dealt with urgently.

 

We were told that “Macauly” would be in touch after 11am this morning (3rd September), again this did not happen and so again this afternoon we called customer services who have attempted to put us off until tomorrow. This is totally unacceptable due to the simplicity of the issue. A faulty screen will still be faulty and our Consumer rights will not change.

 

During the call this afternoon Mr. Matthews informed your operative that we have now officially rejected the television and under the regulations of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 we demand a refund.

 

To be clear here are our rights under the Act as quoted to your operative.

 

30-day right to reject

 

Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly.

 

This right is limited to 30 days from the date you buy your product. After 30 days, you will not be legally entitled to a full refund if your item develops a fault, although some sellers may offer you an extended refund period.

 

The first six months

 

If you discover the fault within the first six months after buying the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

 

During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there when you bought it - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

 

As these are our rights according to the Act there is NO question that by rejecting the goods due to their unsatisfactory quality a refund MUST be given forthwith.

 

Xxxxx xxxxxx

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites
Report them to Trading Standards. Takes awhile but eventually TS contact the supplier. In the meantime write to the head office and inform them that they are committing a CRIMINAL offence under Section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

CRIMINAL offence:???:

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
CRIMINAL offence:???:

 

It is not civil as the supplier is wilfully disregarding current legislation so it is a criminal offence. I have a case involving rejection currently going against a supplier and have been informed that the supplier is committing a criminal offence as they were ignoring current legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any visual sign of damage to the screen. As far as I am aware pictures can't be posted to here but that would be immaterial anyway.

The onus is on the seller and not the purchaser, and so without Tesco making a physical inspection they are not in a position to make a decision properly.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not correct.

You sent pictures

They say its because of external force, ie cracked coz of accident.

The ball is in your court so to speak.

 

Why is it immaterial not to post the picture?

Lets see how Tesco came to that decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the ball be in my court when Tesco have not seen the television. All they have seen is a photograph. They have refused to let me take it in for a physical inspection. I have attempted to upload a photograph but it can't be done.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which proves what exactly? Google ladyboy images and tell me if you are looking at a male or female without making a physical inspection. They are making an assumption.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

click upload to post pictures but tO PDF please ONE FILE!

 

there is no criminal offence its a civil one = COUNTY COURT claim.

 

the unit has failed within 30days

you are entitled to a full refund.

 

lets see these cracks or not!!:-D

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

research is the key

there are numerous examples of certain makes of TV cracking once on a wall bracket.

esp if its capable of tilting forward. shifts the centre of gravity and twists the frame.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what they mean

 

looks like it been pushed back on the top right

or pulled forward from the top left and its bent whrn it hit the way and fractured

 

does it move to tilt left or right on that bracket?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...