Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you so much for heads up.
    • Thanks DX - I wondered about the blacked out bits. That's their doing not mine obviously.   Attached is the exhibits part of the bundle. Sorry about this, no matter what I compressed the whole thing down to I got the oversize message, even if the filesize on my computer was showing as well under 4.8mb   The_exhibits-compressed.pdf
    • Thanks Bankfodder!   Hello again everyone.    I received my SAR back from Elderbridge and what and absolute load of **** it is!   1.  They did not send any transcripts or recordings of any phones calls  - both myself and my husband spoke to them in Aug 2016 (noted in their diary notes) and I called them in Dec 2018 (again noted in their diary notes) it was the same day they sent the reply even though they have mentioned me calling in their notes on that day, so not sure I should let that go or not!   I also spoke to them in July 2016 (again in the notes) and I spoke to them in Dec 2012 (again in the notes)    2.  Going through the diary notes in the beginning notes were sporadic mainly because we were making payment and everything was ok, then later as things changed there were notes almost once a month, then in NOV 2012 and Dec 2012 frequency of notes increase as this is when they began court proceedings.  and throughout 2013 again lots of notes made - mostly their in house stuff about court dealings and so on - so that's fine. then in NOV 2013 hey made a not re the court date in OCT - saying that they were ordered to treat the loan as having a fixed rate from inception and sent off etc.  BUT from 21 Nov 2013 to 17th June 2014 there are no notes at all!  Now the hearing was on the 10th Jan 2014!   17/06/2014 14:43 *****Substantial EVS costs to be added to any SF ****** 17/06/2014 14:43 EVS Defended + At the hearing on 10/01/2014 an SPO for 500 on 26/01/2014 and then CMI + £60 wef 26/02/2014 plus MJ for £103,331.03 suspended on the same terms. It was also held that we could add our costs - Defended costs on this case are £33,879.80. 17/06/2014 00:00 Reviewed Reviewed 17/06/2014 00:00 ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF 21/11/2013 04:13 ADHOC Statement Printed From 03/10/13 To 13/11/13 Batch 2015 Sequence 28 Printed 13/11/2013 00:00:00   Above you can cleary see the gap then suddenly the first notes talk about the court case and costs etc, at the trial in OCT the judge reserved cost till the next hearing (also stated on the documentation from the court)  but then at that hearing in Jan 2014 we did not discuss costs - the 6 month gap I feel is very suspicious.    The final court document  dated 13th Jan 2014 says to pay the claimant £103,331.03 which is the amount outstanding under the mortgage and goes on to says order were not to be enforced as long as we pay etc.  no mention of costs at all - so they seem to just be adding them   3.   They sent a field agent to me in Jan 2018, I only knew this as on the 9th Jan 2018 I was working at home and heard the letterbox, thought it was the postman, went to the door to find an envelope shoved through the door with a letter in it saying they had been requested to visit me and that they called today but I was not in! and gave a number for me to call ( I saw the woman walking down the driveway - but she did not ring the bell! and I wasn't about to run after her!)   But in the notes they have written this utter lie!   30/01/2018 12:44 Field Agent Report Received The field agent visited the security address on three occasions. The customer was spoken to through the window. They refused to discuss and refused to answer the door. The contact number on file is not recognised. RFA - Not known Reasons for items not verified:N/A Details of variances of items outside of expenditure guidelines and reasons N/A Property is a detached house in good condation valued at £406,000. Equity not known. I actually cannot believe what I have read here! Can I ask them for some kind of proof of this, because I don't know who they are talking about but it certainly wasn't me!   4.  the documents they had sent me a joke, they have sent 77 documents in total, none of these are copies of letter from Elderbridge (which is who I sent the SAR to) all from First Plus and certainly not ALL of them, they have been bulked out by sending me copies of documents that I sent TO THEM for my court defence and there are strange Black boxes over some of the text!? which I don't understand!     After receiving this info from Elderbridge I decided to send a SAR to Barclays and I got a small package with a couple of letters, some diary notes and screen shot of the account, as well as a short statement of account. This was for our ORIGINAL loan from Feb 2006,  (we topped it up in June 2006) and the first one was closed.  The second one is the one that has been transferred to Elderbridge but Barclays seem to know be denying ALL knowledge of it! and I know that they still hold the beneficial interest of these loans and that Elderbridge regularly contact Barclays for help and advise - I have contact with other account holders who have diary notes from Elderbridge showing contact to Barclays!..   This week I also had a reply from the FOS (only from an adjudicator not an ombudsman) and his initial opion is that it's ok for Elderbridge to claim the costs as we defaulted, he seems to be ignoring my argument that the relationship is unfair etc but I will be sending this back and asking for it to be looked at by an ombudsman.   But was hoping that someone here could give me any advise re all of this - sorry I know it's a lot!!
    • why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract? and no proof its paid this year either?  
    • pop the exhibits as a sep file i'll merge them for you
  • Our picks

sjc1985

Currys laptop and Sales of goods Act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4437 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

Btw, when you say "judge", what position do they hold?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no six year rule at all! The SOGA says that goods must last for a "reasonable time" after purchase, which is not defined, but depends on various factors, eg value, purpose for which they were acquired, etc etc.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no six year rule at all! The SOGA says that goods must last for a "reasonable time" after purchase, which is not defined, but depends on various factors, eg value, purpose for which they were acquired, etc etc.

 

The six year rule refrred to is the time limit imposed for action to be taken to court. The context to which RPOV has put it in bears no relation to reality or any fevered imagination or fantasy. In short, it is utter rubbish and not worth the bandwidth.

 

The only reason people continue to respond to RPOV is to ensure that the vulnerable do not make the mistake of following his (or her) advice. Personally, I think a warning should be put on:

 

"Warning: This person may be seriously detrimental to your consumer rights"

 

It won't happen, but it should.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The six year rule refrred to is the time limit imposed for action to be taken to court. The context to which RPOV has put it in bears no relation to reality or any fevered imagination or fantasy. In short, it is utter rubbish and not worth the bandwidth.

 

The only reason people continue to respond to RPOV is to ensure that the vulnerable do not make the mistake of following his (or her) advice. Personally, I think a warning should be put on:

 

"Warning: This person may be seriously detrimental to your consumer rights"

 

It won't happen, but it should.

well there is that, but also there's the "reasonable time", which is commonly defined as up to six years (five in Scotland) after purchase, for you to make a claim against the retailer for rectification of an inherent fault.

 

And as I said, the reasonable time can be no longer than six (or five) years, and is not defined in law. Because, you might expect a £5k product to last six years, but probably not a kettle costing £5. The expected lifespan of the product and its value and nature have to be accounted for.

 

The six years with relation to other issues, eg bank charges, is a totally different proposition.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailerspointofview
well there is that, but also there's the "reasonable time", which is commonly defined as up to six years (five in Scotland) after purchase, for you to make a claim against the retailer for rectification of an inherent fault.

 

And as I said, the reasonable time can be no longer than six (or five) years, and is not defined in law. Because, you might expect a £5k product to last six years, but probably not a kettle costing £5. The expected lifespan of the product and its value and nature have to be accounted for.

 

The six years with relation to other issues, eg bank charges, is a totally different proposition.

 

yep gyzmo UPTO.... so just because its not been 6 years does not mean they can demand repairs/ replacements.

 

AGAIN

batteries, ink cartridges, paper etc are classed as consumables. i wont waste a breath explaining what a consumable is.

 

but the life span on a tin of beans or ink etc are only a few months. so the issue the original poster of this thread had is that the battery has failed. due to many months of over charging. (plugging into mains)

 

by only charging for a couple hours a day and once a month fully depleeting the batteries charge (using till flat) and then re charging fully for 48 hours to fully refresh the battery still only has a approximate 6 month lifespan (1 or two years with certain sony batteries) so over charging all day over day would reduce the lifespan to a couple months.

 

seriously gyzmo if you want to pass you degree please get some real world expereince of the facts you are reading.. quoting from a book is great, using real life examples is much better.

 

and no offence. but as i own a shop i have yearly inspections from trading standards (all retailers do) i know of friends of mine with 50years real life expereince in SMALL CLAIMS.. you know that court you are trying to send everyone toooo... so their advice is right up your alley!! also to avoid situations and grey area's (oh yes there are grey area's in SOGA) i contact DTI, consumers direct and business link on occassions where a customers repair falls into this grey area.

 

so let me repeat that

50 years experience in small claims

10 years owning a retail store

yearly checkup as standard from trading standards

 

and yet i have not been sued once. DTI has never told me i am breaking the law. and the results of the TS checkups are all 100%

 

so you think your half finished degree beats my knowledge.

 

one thing to point out which may explain a few things. i know what rights buyers have, i know my responsibilities i know what is best for the customer too.

 

the only issue as you can tell by my shoddy spelling and grammer is that i have dyslexia. which means i find it harder to explain myself fully. but the facts are there.. and whether it takes 50 years for you to understand the facts then 50 years it will take.

 

i do not see this as a disability. as having it means i have learned to research, verify and check things double. so ensuring i know my stuff at the price of shoddy spelling is worth it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailerspointofview

yes gyzmo. use this website to test your understanding and find out who is right, buyer or seller...

 

 

but dont have the frame of mind

 

"its under 6 years so the buyer automatically has right to refund or take them to court"

 

law does not work like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes gyzmo. use this website to test your understanding and find out who is right, buyer or seller...

 

 

but dont have the frame of mind

 

"its under 6 years so the buyer automatically has right to refund or take them to court"

 

law does not work like that.

Well I suppose it does, but that always gives the court the right to a good laugh from time to time :D


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh jees, here we go.

 

You have upto 6 years to make a claim under the Limitation Act (1980). It means, as I have said before (but you have somehow managed to completely misinterpret) that this is the time limit that you have to make a claim in court. After this time period, you cannot make a claim in court.

 

The reasonable time has nothing to do with this six years. The reasonable time is a matter of fact (i.e, upto a court to decide what is reasonable, which is dependant upon the circumstances). Where the hell has this 6 years come from as to what is generally regarded as reasonable? Make up your mind.

 

So, before you start getting too smug, I suggest AGAIN that you read things properly before you post. And as for your knowledge, I think your previous posts bear testament to the lack of knowledge that you have of law. I'm not going to try and prove myself, I don't need to. All I want is for you to get your facts right before you post anything else, and save others the task of having to put things right so that some poor fool does not come up short after reading your drivel.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh jees, here we go.

 

You have upto 6 years to make a claim under the Limitation Act (1980). It means, as I have said before (but you have somehow managed to completely misinterpret) that this is the time limit that you have to make a claim in court. After this time period, you cannot make a claim in court.

 

The reasonable time has nothing to do with this six years. The reasonable time is a matter of fact (i.e, upto a court to decide what is reasonable, which is dependant upon the circumstances).

 

So, before you start getting too smug, I suggest AGAIN that you read things properly before you post. And as for your knowledge, I think your previous posts bear testament to the lack of knowledge that you have of law. I'm not going to try and prove myself, I don't need to. All I want is for you to get your facts right before you post anything else, and save others the task of having to put things right so that some poor fool does not come up short after reading your drivel.

 

Dude, i honestly believe you're wasting your time. There's only so many times you can repeat yourself before you get the brick wall feeling.

 

I'd not bother... If someone's willing to believe it then that's their issue.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is just one example.

 

secondly it went passed the 6 month period. because batteries are classed as a consumable they do not come under SOGA. just like a tin of beens with a 6 month use by date.

 

Lets say that the battery was described as "suitable for all Toshiba laptops", and it turns out that they are actually only compatible with Sony laptops. Lets also say that the seller of these batteries does does not actually own them or have title to them (they have been stolen).

 

Are you saying then, according to what I have quoted above, that the consumer has no rights under ss 12 or 13 of SoGA?

 

Or are you suggesting that all batteries were bought before 1894 (see s.1(1)). Or is it that batteries are things in action (s.61(1)).

 

If this is the combined knowledge of your experience, your "judge" friend and everything else, then god help anyone who shops at your place or goes to court.

 

Just do us all a favour and stop wasting bandwidth with your nonsense.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i wont waste a breath explaining what a consumable is.

 

I'm so desperately sorry. I don't think that any of realised that the simple acting of typing made you breathless.

 

 

but the life span on a tin of beans or ink etc are only a few months.

The lifespan of a tin of beans is actually many years - that is why they are tinned in the first place. Just to be sure, hang on, I'll go and look.

 

Yep, best before date over 5 years hence

 

 

by only charging for a couple hours a day and once a month fully depleeting the batteries charge (using till flat) and then re charging fully for 48 hours to fully refresh the battery still only has a approximate 6 month lifespan (1 or two years with certain sony batteries) so over charging all day over day would reduce the lifespan to a couple months.

 

My experience of serving Dell laptops for many years us that, depending on the battery technology, their lifespan is 18 - 24 months - even when nearly always used on a charger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if tested in court i would imagine a "reasonable" legth of time for a laptop battery to work would be perhaps 3-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I thank you for all your comments but we went to court yesterday and did completly great! Better than expected in fact! We had a full refund of the computer, warranty and interest on the time they have held the money for.

 

When we got there, the judge asked us if we liked to speak and the lawyer from the other side said yes.

 

We went into a room and he showed us his case which missed several vital points of our arguments... When I showed him our copies of everything, he informed us that he hadnt been told half of that and that he wasnt happy he had been sent there with only half the information for the case and their defence didnt cover half of what we had proof for.

 

He also told us that only 2 days before had he found out that packard bell had already attempted to repair the laptop as well...

 

He said that he was very sorry it had got this far and his exact words were

 

"Im not going into court with this and I think we best start talking money".

 

We walked away with £725 and there apologies for not conducting the case correctly.

 

Goes to show that if you fight a big company, you do sometimes win!


03/10/06-Data Protection Act request sent via recorded delivery

06/10/06- Letter signed for. 15th Nov cut off date.

10/10/06- Statements come in tatty brown envelope.

Will be claiming for £1946.22

23/10/06- Preliminary request for £1946.22 sent recorded delivery.

24/10/06-Letter signed for. 7th Nov cut off.

08/11/06- Standard letter received wanting more time.

 

23/03/07- Time up for NatWest to say whether defending or not.

19/03/07- Acknowledgement of service and saying was going to defend came through.

04/04/07- Deadline for Natwests defence.

03/04/07- Defence filed came through.

05/05/07- Letter from Court to say claim stayed until 27/06/07

25/06/07- Letter from court, claim stayed until further notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just didn't want to lose. An 11:59 settlement if ever there were one.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...