Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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 
      • 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

17 month old faulty TV - bought from box with my amazon card -


Meishere
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 155 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

Bought a samsung tv 17 months ago which has gone faulty.

It has a 6 year guarantee on it however the warranty company say its too expensive to repair and are offering £350 off a new tv which is £1299 which is what i originally paid.

It was bought from box with my amazon card but that card is no longer valid as amazon no longer have that card.

The account was closed by amazon.

Can i do a section 75 still?

Under the consumer act 2015 i thought i was entitled to a repair replacement or refund of depreciating value?

Not being expected to pay another £851 on a new tv? 

17 months is surely not an acceptable time frame for reasonable use of a tv for it to go faulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to 17 month old faulty TV - bought from box with my amazon card -

you mean an amazon credit card?

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

I think it might be tricky at this stage to use section 75 after 17 months of use of your TV.

Section 75 would effectively be enforcing the consumer rights act and that means that they would be entitled to deduct a proportion of the price refunded to you to reflect the 17 months use that you have had of the set before it broke down.
This assumes anyway that you would get some kind of refund.

You have two sets of rights here. You have the rights under the guarantee – which normally speaking we wouldn't recommend too much. We also have rights under the consumer rights act.

First of all, the supplier's position that it is too expensive to repair is nonsense and you can disregard that.

If the guarantee promises you a repair or new for old then that would probably be your best bet.

If the guarantee doesn't exceed your rights under the consumer rights act then we should go after the statutory remedy although as I have explained, any damages you would be awarded with probably be based on the full value of the TV minus a deduction for 17 months of use.

Please tell us about the guarantee. Are you able to link us to it somewhere on the Internet.

 

Also, tell us about the supplier. Who sold you the TV? Who is the warranty company? Did you pay extra for the warranty? And you keep on talking about "box". I have no idea what that is

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was as nicky says this company

the guarantee was included which  is through solocare and the repair company is ICTV which is the approved Samsung repairer.

This is the guarantee

https://1drv.ms/b/s!ApY5fqNZPNedgY4_MnbVC_uI-gHN5A

 

SOLOCARE PROTECTION PLAN_231124_103525.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you received something in writing from solo care explaining that it is too expensive and the details of their offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay it all seems fairly clear.

You need to identify an alternative television of the same specification and as close as possible to the price that you paid for your faulty one.
Let us know what you have found. Or is the model that you have still available?

Can you find a website link for solo care? I would like to see if they are regulated by anybody.

I will be suggesting that you send them an initial letter of complaint and then follow up in short order with a letter of claim and then begin a County Court claim.

If you decide to follow this advice, you won't be bluffing. We aren't going to waste our time. Their proposals are outrageous and I think I have noticed on the Internet one or two other people being faced with the same kind of offer and of course because they haven't visited this forum, they have simply back down and accepted

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...