Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Particular Of claim   1. By an agreement between Lloyds Banking Group & the defendant on or around 13/05/2003 (“the agreement”) Lloyds Banking Group agreed to loan the defendant monies.   2. The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due. The agreement was terminated following service of a default notice.   3. The agreement was assigned to the claimant.   4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS: 1) £8704.42 2) COSTS     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is admitted that the claimant has sent details of a current account with an unknown account number but has no connection to this this claim or alleged debt. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the details of alleged debt the claimant refers to nor have they referred to any account number within its particulars. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant and requested further in formation which at this time they failed to comply to my request.   3. Paragraph 2 is noted. However, as above the alleged debt is still unknown and further I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   4.Paragraph 3 is noted. As above as the debt is unknown its immaterial and I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to comply with either requests and in particular my section 77 request and provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of my request and is prevented from enforcing the agreement they wish to rely on.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.               1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.
    • the court should have written to you acknowledging your defence filing?   dx  
    • thanks, will do.   For some reason, I can't delete the first attachment
    • 2 posts hidden docx files contain all your pers details in file properties/info just post them here as plain copy and paste text next time. or PDF don't use docx.   dx  
    • Yes that’s correct.  A secured loan not a mortgage.    thanks for confirming original creditors don’t do court. But if they pass debts to a collection agency, can they apply for a CCJ by default as I’m overseas and then apply for a charging order against the property?
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Faulty cooker with 12 month warranty purchased, seller is ignoring my calls


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 751 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

Hi,

 

I purchased an induction cooker from a seller on eBay and the eBay listing said it had a 12 month warranty (purchased 13th December)

you can no longer see the listing page but they delivered it to me and gave me an invoice with 12 months guarantee written on it and £240 paid (£190 for the cooker, £50 delivery).

I was shown it working but they only showed me the front hobs.

 

the first time I used it I noticed that one of the rear rings only works if you push down on it until it gets started and the other rear ring will only work while you push down hard on it (which makes it impossible to cook with).

 

The rear hobs are the only boost capable hobs and boost is the reason I wanted induction hobs.

I can only cook one large pan at once as the other large rear hob doesn't work.

 

When I phoned him up about it he said don't worry you have the 12 month warranty

(at one point I was told this is a parts and labour warranty, it may have been on the original eBay listing I don't know) and to call him if it got any worse.

I felt sorry for him, I don't know why I'm not normally too soft but I said OK.

 

It has got worse, the other day

the ring that works normally if you push down on it at the start didn't and I had to cook on the small pan ring which doesn't heat the pan up effectively.

it's sort of working again (I have to push on it) but the other rear ring still doesn't work and it means I can't cook two large pans at once.

 

I want him to fix it.

He admitted on a phone call before Christmas he doesn't know a lot about induction cookers but said he knows a guy who does and would call me back.

I waited a month he never phoned back.

The past couple of weeks I've phoned him 3 times and sent him two text messages and he isn't responding or answering my calls.

 

I'd rather he fixed my cooker but if he can't or won't I don't see why I should have to accept a cooker I can only cook one pan on and want a refund.

It's my plan to write to him and give him 14 days to respond then try my luck with the online court claim to get my £240 back.

 

I'm on ESA so I think I can claim court fees back?

Is this a good plan?

Is there anything else I can do?

 

His delivery guy wrote an address on my invoice but I've never been to his shop so I don't know it's correct.

Can I ask eBay to give me the address they have for his company to see if it matches?

 

Any help appreciated,

I just want a working cooker.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

start a dispute with ebay and paypal

the product is within 6mts old ,...so FORGET any warranty, not worth the paper they are written on

use CRA.

 

how do you pay paypal?

if via a debit card, go do a chargeback to your bank and simply return the item.

 

dx

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

Paid in cash on delivery... Returning it would be difficult it's a large cooker and I don't have a van and it was delivered by the company themselves from Manchester. The CRA looks big it will take me a while to read that.

 

This is a used item too it wasn't brand new.

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear fell for the biggest problem PP/ebay suffer from.

you paid cash so have no protection through them.

 

your route then will be through CRA - not fit for purpose - within 6mts - down to the retailer to prove it was not faulty upon you buying it.

 

when did you first report to the seller there were issues?

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 don't know exactly when I first reported it. I reported it by phone didn't record (will be doing that in future) sometime before Christmas so within 2 weeks, I think it was within a couple of days but I can't prove this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then under short term right to reject you should be fully refunded

You have 30 days under cra

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

correct!!

 

dx

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

They're just marble effect induction pans I bought off Amazon before I bought the cooker. I had a single portable induction hob before the cooker and they all work fine with that. The cooker is a beko and the seller has good feedback. He told me he hardly sells any induction cookers though.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...