Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Looking for some help and advice please. My fiancé purchased an engagement ring from H Samuel on the 8th May 2023. He opted for their design service as I love rainbow moonstones and diamonds, and he wanted it to be unique. He collected the ring on 20th June 2023, the cost was £1626.00 Shortly after, he proposed and I began wearing the ring. Within a matter of weeks, I noticed the main stone had fallen out. I was devastated. We took it back to the H Samuel store and was told that they would send it back to the people who made the ring, for their advice. If they felt it was damaged by me, we would need to pay for the repair. I was horrified as I had only worn it for a few weeks and had done nothing, that could be considered damaging it! I pointed out that this was an engagement ring and they had known this all along. An engagement ring needs to be robust as it is meant to be worn all the time. They took the ring from me and sent it away. They had it for over a month and then came back to me to say they would repair it free of charge on this occasion. When I collected the ring, they had replaced the original moonstone with one which was completely different. It really didn't look very attractive at all. A plain white stone with no colour and resembled a lump of plastic. I was so upset.  I told them I was unhappy with the look of the stone and it wasn't what we had wanted when we had the ring designed. They took it back and after another month, contacted me to say I could collect it. They had replaced the stone and the ring looked a lot better. I began wearing it again, but after a few weeks I noticed the stone was loose again. I had to take the ring off because i was frightened of losing the stone again and have not been able to wear it since.   I contacted H Samuel again, but this time requested a refund. The ring is clearly not fit for purpose as it can not be worn for more than a few weeks without the stone coming loose or falling out. The manager said that it was my fault as I had damaged the ring and they were unable to do anything else. There was no damage to the ring and this seemed to me to be just a way of avoiding doing anything. I took the ring to an independent jeweller who told me that the design was flawed and they agreed the ring wasn't fit for purpose as an engagement ring. The jeweller put that in writing for me and also confirmed that there was no sign of any damage that could account for the stone coming loose. I sent an email to the manager of H Samuels, attached the email from the jeweller and several pictures of the ring, showing that the stone had come lose again. I requested a refund as I has given them ample opportunity to fix the ring but it was not fit for purpose and could not be worn with confidence. He responded by saying they wanted to take the ring back to assess it. I replied that they had already had it twice and I do not believe they could do an impartial report on their own work. I suggested that if they were not prepared to accept the word of the jeweller I had already seen, we could agree upon another independent jeweller and have another report done, which we would agree to abide by the findings. He completely ignored this suggestion and has not given me a refund.   Getting engaged should have been one of the most special times of our live, but H Samuel have completely ruined it. We have both been through so much hurt and upset over this and just want our money back, so we can buy a ring that I can actually wear. I seem to be going around in circles here and it is clear, they don't care and do not intend to help. I am just looking for advice on what to do next please?  
    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. ............. also there is no such things as the OWNER in private Parking Speculative Invoice  its the REgistered Keeper on the cars V5C. dx  
    • N244 application for summary judgement.pdfToday we received a copy of the claimants N244 application for Summary Judgement. I have uploaded a redacted copy. Outstanding amount is wrong as mentioned before and no mention about the incorrectly caculated and duplicated interest under section 69 within the PoC mentioned in our defence. Looks like they want our defence struck out. The claimants solicitor asks us to acknowledge safe receipt. The envelope was already open when it arrived (I guess was not stuck down properly).        
    • Thanks for all the help which I’ve learnt more in the last few days from the people on here, I only wish I’d come here sooner. like I’ve said before I’ll take all the advice to heart and try and get these problems sorted. ill keep you informed and will ask for help where it’s needed. cheers.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Compliance telephone interview by DWP

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 317 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi, my wife is on PIP for 10 years period, a half way to expire . Today we’ve received a letter from DWP that they are carrying a telephone compliance interview by fraud and error directorate.

They want to speak about the benefit claim.

Since we’re not sure about the propriety we’re confused as there are no changes in circumstances at all all these 20 years.


Please help and guide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its just a random things they do with long term people

nothing to worry about at all.




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...