Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The right to mitigate losses is being worn away by JL's negligence. OP also has the right to have their guarantee fulfilled at little inconvenience to themselves.   By disregarding the guarantee JL have effectively given up their "claimed right" outlined in the guarantee to be the executive decision maker as to whether the guarantee is fulfilled by way of repair or replacement with a TV of equivalent specifications and thus disregarded their opportunity to mitigate their own costs.   As outlined in the guarantee the OP has the right to both options.   Given JL's unreasonableness it could be deemed entirely reasonable for OP to feel it is less inconvenient to purchase a new TV with equivalent specifications. The new TV will come with a fresh set of statutory rights. OP will be able to receive some continued albeit diminished benefit from their faulty TV until the replacement arrives. If the replacement TV turns out to be faulty it can be returned at little cost or inconvenience. This is in contrast to the significantly inconvenient option of arranging to have the TV repaired which involves. Arranging for collection. Risking paying for a repair with no guarantee of success. Awaiting the TV to be returned. In the meantime OP receives no benefit at all from the ownership of the faulty goods.   Rather than being instantly out of pocket and in the position of having to risk a claim to be restored to their original position (despite being very likely to succeed), a better option would be to locate a TV of equivalent specifications and bring a claim for that amount.   Should JL continue to flaunt its own guarantees then JL is unlikely to be successful if they then choose to contest the amount claimed by the OP on the grounds OP should have diminished their costs when JL had their own opportunity to do so by simply arranging for repair of the goods themselves.   While not the direct intention, JL may decide that it is in their interests to arrange for the repair of the faulty TV than risk a claim for what is likely to be a more expensive replacement TV.
    • You should file something like this -   1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].   2.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.   3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant broke the terms of a contract with the Defendant.   4.  The Defendant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.    5.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Points (2) & (3) are catch-alls, they can be fleshed out at WS stage to include bye-laws, prohibition, you not being the driver, etc.   I see you have till 1 June to file the defence, so don't do it now, hang on and see if others suggest to tweak the above.  Don't file at the very last minute though, in case MCOL has a hissy fit!   
    • John Lewis have already told me that they cannot do anything or contribute to the repair via the manufaturer LG, as their guarantee explicitly states that 'screen burn' is not covered.   To be fair to them, on the back of my receipt it does have a list of exclusions including "image ghosting or screen burn".  The issue is that their repairer has incorrectly stated in his report that the fault is due to customer misuse/screen burn, and therefore it is not included in their guarantee and they cannot help.   LG the manufacturer have sent me an email where they state "...based on the nature of the issue that the unit has developed, the outcome is a Panel fault issue which has been confirmed by our technicians after a review of the images you provided..."  and they offered to repair it for £200.  So there is disagreement on the cause of the issue between the retailer and the manufacturer too, with JL conveniently deeming it something that is excluded from their guarantee.  John Lewis as mentioned previously are holding onto this engineer report as gospel and refuse to budge.  I understand that more recently they offer an additional extended warranty at a cost on televisions, which DOES cover screen burn, but obviously this is no use to me.    
    • I agree. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. I had thought that the whole matter had been referred to the repairer by John Lewis   On the other hand, if John Lewis has washed their hands of it – then I think a letter to them explaining that you are going to mitigate your loss by having the set repaired by the recommended repairer and that you will be pursuing them afterwards for your expenses – in view of their lack of interest. I think that will cover everything
    • @BankFodderI agree should I mention the new crime reference number in the email ?  I will draft response and put it on here before I email it across 
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 32 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

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1052 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The landlords (a company) and I are butting heads about both these issues.

 

 

Claim damage to furniture:

I have had to destroy 3 pieces of furniture due to mould. The mould I believe was caused due to a poor sealing window in our bedroom therefore letting in moisture. The landlords knew about this within a couple of months of moving in and never corrected it. I tried every year before winter to add my own seal but that ultimately fails. And heating the room was so expensive, as I believe there was no wall insulation as there were black spots of mould on 3 out of 4 walls and the noise from other neighbours was unbearable.

 

 

I have receipts of the furniture and pictures of the mould but this isn't enough for them.

 

 

 

Early leaving fee:

Yes I know there is an agreement in place in which I must give a month's notice in writing. The fixed agreement had ended and I think I am right in saying I was on a periodic agreement.

 

However, our neighbour was burgled (the building has 5 flats). We have had trouble with this neighbour before and felt unsafe anyway, but this was a tipping point. We so then started to view flats and found one which began the process of registering and references. We asked our landlords for a reference and said some of the following in an email "Due to the recent burglary we feel the time is right to move to another property.....". They did actually phone and mentioned they were surprised that we are leaving them after such a long time.

 

 

 

I know this does not constitute a formal acknowledgement that we are leaving, but it wasn't until about 3 and a half weeks after this we moved out. They have then charged an early vacating fee but I am contesting this due to the circumstances of the burglary - they keep saying this is not a valid reason. The burgled tenant also implied I had something to do with this, which the landlords disagreed with.

 

 

 

 

All in all, with some deductions which I do agree with BUT without the early vacating fee, I am asking for a small amount of money back from them. They do not agree.

 

 

A case was opened with the TDS but based on what I have uploaded as evidence and the damage to furniture, they felt it was best that I not agree to this process and take it to court if I choose to do so.

 

 

Not sure if I could also add this to a claim, but after a couple of years in that property and with complaints regarding noise etc, both me and my partner are now on anxiety medication - could I not add a claim against them for this?

 

 

 

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you say in your NTQ? Dated?

Expiry date?

You are liable, as T, to full rent until end of the Rental Period in which your min 1 rental period NTQ expired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black mold on internal walls is caused by poor ventilation and humidity is at a very high level.

 

Open your windows, ventilate.

 

Because you felt unsafe after a neighbours burglary is of no concern to the landlord. You cannot transpose your fears onto someone else to forcibly change a contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to give you bad news but if it was their furniture you best action would have been to take it round to their offices and leave it there when you were a tenant. As for rent, i agree with Mariner, it will be a monthly cycle so if you didnt give a months notice you pay the next rent cycle.

 

They can take this out of the deposit so now any argument is about the value of the furniture. You will say it is worthless, they will say it was worth £999 being brand new etc.

What was the deposit and how much are they claiming out of it and why? they have to show some accounting method so tell us the figures all round

Edited by Andyorch
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...