Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Piers aint that bad (recently amended opinion)  
    • It looks as if you have been completely ripped off. I'm sorry about that but frankly I don't think there is much you can do – and believe me, it is not often that I say that on this forum. I think it's fairly clear that there has been a deception here and although it won't help massively, I would suggest that you report the crime to the police. They will try to say that is a civil matter and you will have to stick to your guns and say that no there's been a deception, that this man is selling cars in an unroadworthy condition and probably he is committing tax fraud offences as well. I'm afraid that there doesn't even evidence that you have the correct name. It seems entirely possible that such a person simply doesn't exist. I don't see any point in beginning a legal action because if you don't even have the correct name for this dealer, then a judgement recorded against his credit file will make absently no difference at all and you will simply incur the costs of bringing the claim. I doubt very much whether he would bother to respond to a claim or to put in a defence. If he did put in a defence then if you wanted to move on to the hearing stage you would have to pay another fee and this would simply put you even more out of pocket – probably to the tune of about £250 or so – and as it seems very unlikely that you could ever enforce the judgement, you would never get any of this money back. I'm sure you feel very bad and very upset. The only other thing you should do is start going around the review sites and putting up negative reviews about this person and his business – and business names. At least it will put other people on guard and you never know, you might stumble across other people who know more about him and actually know who he is. If you do decide to inform the police then you should tell the police that he is trading under a false name. In terms of your car, I'm afraid that the only way I can suggest to cut your losses is to have the work done. It means that you are £1000 down on the deal – but at least you will have a driving car. However, before doing that I would have the car thoroughly checked over to make sure that there aren't any other defects which are about to materialise which might eventually make the car is simply not economical to repair. You said that there was an MOT certificate in the glove box. Is it a recent MOT certificate? Are you able to speak with the previous owner at all?  Cagger @Daniel Hanson who has also bought a vehicle from the same person may be able to help you in this respect. It seems that he has been lucky enough not to have any problem so far with the car that he bought. I think at the very least, the lessons to be drawn from this are: Don't purchase a used car – or any car from a dealer who is far away from you make sure you check the car yourself make sure that the dealer is well established and do some research on forums and review sites for negative reviews and positive reviews. However, be suspicious of positive reviews. Don't pay cash/bank transfer. You lose all control of your money. Insist on paying by credit card or debit card and if the dealer won't accept it then walk away. Ignore warranties. They are meaningless and they are simply a red herring intended to distract you from your statutory rights. However, as you are discovering, even your statutory rights are meaningless if you are unable to identify the dealer and if you are able to identify any assets belonging to the dealer against which you could enforce judgement. Please do let us know how this develops and if you are able to track anybody down. As I say, I think you should certainly inform the police – but it will be a hard job to get them to take notice because they will simply try to say that it's a civil matter and there is no evidence of a crime. You will have to push hard.
    • That is one mean spirited individual, looks like what a Dickensian female Workhouse Beadle would look like.
    • I'll reply more fully  later as I'm about to go out. But meantime who was this person who you allowed to drive your car? How did you know him? Was he insured to drive your car? If you are to defend the matter we need to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success.
    • I think it particularly telling that overweight poopulist Tory **** whos worst experience on missing a meal is missing out on cake, biscuit and tea for elevensese between free breakfast and free lunch, and who voted as a decidedly overweight whole to leave British children hungry, STILL claim that its age and obesity, not their own policies and practices, that have generating the 'world beating' British death rates.   Perhaps they are leading up to claiming that them voting for children to go hungry was part of the health drive to reduce the childrens risk of catching Covid? Wouldn't put it past them.    
  • 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
      • 31 replies

Crystal Clear Ltd in Letchworth - Admitted Wrong Glass Supplied - Am I entitled to a refund?


Recommended Posts

I notice that you say that you want to keep the frames but you want to reject the glass. Is this necessary? It seems to me to complicate the issue. If they simply refund you and then don't want to deal with you any more, will you be able to obtain the glass you want in order to fit those frames from some other supplier? Have you identified that other supplier and have you taken a quote for an equivalent installation?

Where is the glass now?

Are you suffering any inconvenience at the moment? Have you incurred any ancillary losses as a result of their breach of contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you've got the wrong Crystal there Slick132...it's Crystal Clear Group Ltd. There's a lot of companies with Crystal in the name!

 

I agree could take out the struck through part about evidence, although they already have it all already, but I think I need to leave the part about mediation/ADR in, it's important to show I'm open to these, that and the next line came from a template letter before action.  Have asked for that post to be removed via the report button, just in case, the rest of the thread can stay!

 

 

 

 

The frames are fine, no reason not to keep them, though I could reorder frames from somewhere else it'd be easier to keep these ones as I then already have the measurements for the glass (which I've double checked). I will be asking that question tomorrow though. I have found another supplier I'd be happy to use at around the same price. Glass at the mo is stored mostly upstairs, it's a bit inconvenient as it takes up a lot of space, but no losses as such.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, we please deal urgently with the identity of this company. In the title to this thread they are identified as being in Letchworth. This is not correct? We do not want to start firing off accusations against some company elsewhere may be is doing its job perfectly well. Please can you respond to this urgently

Post up a link to their website

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of your letter of claim, you've asked us to remove some information – but you have put it up and it's not that critical it's simply bad practice and so we will be leaving in place. It's highly unlikely that the company will stumble across this thread – and anyway no great harm done – but there is no point in spelling out in a letter of claim every detail of the evidence you are going to be relying on if it goes to court.

In terms of referring to mediation, it's not up to you. It's up to them. Once again you want to play your hand before it is necessary. Do not do it. Let them make the decisions. They probably will opt for mediation as part of the court process – and then you can simply accede to that. A letter of claim is not the time to start stating this kind of stuff. You come here for advice and I suggest that by and large you follow our advice.

In terms of just keeping part of the contract – the frames – as long as you are sure that another supplier would be prepared to supply the glass which is absolutely appropriate for those frames.

However, I should warn you that mixing your suppliers like this can eventually lead to problems because you are giving both parties a means by which they can pass the buck onto the other party. This really can get complicated – if the frames fail and the company with which you've already fallen out, then decides to get their own back and they say it is the glass supplier. The glass supplier may well turn round and say no it's the frame supplier – and you are left in the middle and you will have a difficult problem including maybe having to pay for an independent assessment to ascertain whether liability lies.

In my view its most ill-advised. You have an opportunity here to predicate your rejection on the fact that you had a single contract and the glass and the frames are supplied as a job lot and the defective glass means that the entire contract is subject to rejection.

However, it's up to you. Furthermore, if the frames fail within a particular time, apart from the problem of passing the buck to the glass suppliers, you may find that the frame suppliers are quite reluctant to do any further business with you because they will have long memories.

If you really think that after this litigation the frame suppliers will be prepared to continue with you and to supply the glass that you need, then you need to be very certain. Of course they may be very pragmatic and business minded and mature about their dealings and be prepared to supply you with the glass you need with perfectly goodwill and professionalism. However, you shouldn't bank on it.

All it needs is one individual within the organisation start feeling that the whole thing is some kind of personal rebuke against them and they may set out to make life very difficult for you.

 

Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. I think you should follow our advice in terms of legal process and the letter of claim. The rest of it is to how you deal with your windows is simply a bonus for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2020 at 05:56, Gardener_41 said:

...you're right, it's Crystal Clear Ltd in Letchworth (though they have multiple locations all over). 

 

  • Thanks 1

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

Interesting point on the mediation, I thought I had to make it clear I was prepared to do that. If they chose to go directly court without offering it, presumably that reflects badly on them. I'm not concerned about the frames falling apart, it's the same frames I had back in 2012 from a different company and they were still fine when I sold my flat last year. Glaziers I'm sure I can find somewhere else (and already have - a different glass supplier to that which Crystal uses). But you make a good point, I may well reject the lot!

 

It's this company http://crystal-direct.co.uk/

 

 

Edited by Gardener_41
forgot to add that glass supplier I'd found was not the same as company uses
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have first say in the choice of mediation. They have to indicate it in their defence that they are prepared to go for mediation or rather in their directions questionnaire. Then if you don't object – it goes to mediation.

Although it really shouldn't make any difference, quite frankly by offering to go to mediation it already looks as if you are trying to propose some kind of compromise. Don't do it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've shortened the rest of it considerably. Not sure what to do with this paragraph though?!

 

Repeated requests for a refund on the glazing only have been met with refusal citing your terms and conditions and stating you will only reorder the glass. I would point out that this variation of specification was not by prior agreement, and hence I am not bound to pay for it under your own terms and conditions (2.3 No variation to the Contract shall be binding unless agreed in writing by authorised representatives of the parties). Additionally as the item has not been made to my specifications clause 3.5 is negated (3.5 Cancellation - All Crystal products are ‘made to measure’ This means that where goods have been manufactured ‘made to measure’ due a customer’s specifications, they will become non-returnable and non-refundable.’ Furthermore, term 3.5 is not even included in the terms and conditions I received in the order acknowledgement.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not sure that you have posted up your new abbreviated version so it's difficult to know what you're talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this do the job?

 

 

Quote

 

Dear Sir/Mdm

 

Letter of claim

 


On XXX date I entered into a contract with you for windows – reference number XXX.

The requirements were clearly laid out and specified in my email of XXX date.

Despite that you eventually supplied items which did not tally with the agreed specification and although I have asserted my right to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act, you have refused to comply with your statutory obligations and you appear to be saying that because the goods are supplied were "made-to-measure" that you are not obliged to accept my rejection and to refund me the price.

I have already tried to point out you that these goods were supplied not as agreed so in that respect they are defective. In any event I should also point out you that whatever the circumstances, even if you supply goods which are made to the agreed specification, if they are defective then I would be entitled to reject them.

You are continuing to refuse to reimburse me and so I'm writing to inform you that if you do not make arrangements to collect the defective items and to refund me in full within 14 days then I shall issue proceedings against you in the County Court for full reimbursement, plus any expenses incurred as a result of your breach, plus interest plus my costs.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good, though I'd possibly have to change it to be asserting my right as part of the letter. I have sent them a previous e-mail with the words 'I do not accept this item, which is effectively 
not as described and as such am entitled to a refund under the consumer rights act 2015.' But I didn't use the words "right to reject", I was going to do it after taking the legal advice tomorrow and put it in the letter itself...the 30 days runs out on 5th so still time but not much. I have the name of their CEO, Martin Randall, and his address and plan to send copies both to his listed address and the Letchworth address. I think I'll start Dear Sir and just address the envelope FAO Martin Randall CEO Crystal Direct.

 

Thanks

Edited by Gardener_41
Link to post
Share on other sites

however you modified the letter, please post it here. However, I'm concerned that you are apparently taking separate legal advice. If this is what you're doing then I'm not too sure that we should be helping you because it is possible that you could receive advice which although not directly conflicting, could be odds with each other in some way.

if you are receiving advice from a professional solicitor then I think that we will probably have to withdraw from this

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it will a limited half hour conversation tomorrow. But that will be it, mainly it's to definitely get clear in my head that I am entitled to a refund before sending the letter. Will feed back what I can though. Modified slightly below:-

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

On xx/xx/xx date I entered into a contract with you for windows – reference the signed quotation number xxxxxx

The requirements were clearly laid out and specified in the signed quote attached to my e-mail of date xx/xx/xx.

Despite that you eventually supplied items which did not tally with the agreed specification. I have, and am asserting now, the right to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  You appear to be saying that because the goods supplied were "made-to-measure" that you are not obliged to accept my rejection and to refund me the price; as such you are refusing to comply with your statutory obligations.

I have already tried to point out you that these goods were supplied not as agreed so in that respect they are defective. In any event I should also point out you that whatever the circumstances, even if you supply goods which are made to the agreed specification, if they are defective then I would be entitled to reject them.

You are continuing to refuse to reimburse me and so I'm writing to inform you that if you do not make arrangements to collect the defective items and to refund me in full within 14 days then I shall issue proceedings against you in the County Court for full reimbursement, plus any expenses incurred as a result of your breach, plus interest plus my costs.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Tom Legerton

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BF,

 

I've removed reference to the wrongly named company in post #24.

  • Like 1

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 !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm pleased that you are managing to get half hour of free professional legal advice. However, I think you should have started there first. You have had several hours of free legal advice on this forum from a volunteer team which has nothing to gain from any of it.
If your professional solicitor disagrees with what we say here then presumably you will go and make your own way – which is fine. We don't have any problem with that and don't think that is sour grapes. However, it will mean that the time and enthusiasm which has been invested here has gone to waste.

If you had gone to your free professional solicitor first of all you could have formed a view and then if you had come to us for help, there would have been no risk of this free resource being wasted.  We can scarcely cope with the workload as it is.

The Consumer Action Group isn't another piece of social media chat group. It's a serious legal consumer service which is run on the goodwill of its volunteers and has been going for almost 15 years and which can scarcely meet its expenses.

It may be that Facebook or a WhatsApp group would have been more suitable for you as a starting point.

I hope you get some good advice from your professional solicitor and if it chimes with what we say here then you can certainly continue to use us but for the moment I think we'll stand aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...