Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm wondering whether you would be interested in spending a small amount of money bringing a legal action against this company in order to test the water – a sort of Pathfinder. We want to minimise your losses in the most likely event that you would not be able to enforce the judgement that we would want to maximise the risk and liability for them. It is clear that you are the owner of the vehicle and it is clear that they are depriving you of the use of it and by withholding it from you they are treating it as if they were the owners. There is a tort called "Conversion" which is where you do somebody wrong by treating their goods as your own. It is pretty well the civil equivalent of the crime of theft. "Conversion" refers to the act of converting your ownership into their ownership. It seems to me that that is what is happening here. You could bring a small claim in the County Court for conversion. Damages for conversion are awarded effectively for the insult of the fact that your ownership has been interfered with. This means that the damages don't necessarily have to reflect your actual losses and when one makes the claim in conversion, one generally identifies an upper limit for damages and asked the court to exercise its discretion in making its award. You could bring an action in conversion for anything from, say maximum damages £50 – to thousands of pounds if you wanted. Bringing an action for a large sum would incur greater costs. I don't see any point because as I said, the chances of enforcement are very slim. However, it might be interesting to sue for conversion damages not exceeding £650 in the discretion of the court. If you are awarded £600 or more then you could instruct High Court enforcement officers to enforce the judgement. These people have enormous power and they don't stand for any nonsense. Also the cost of enforcement by High Court enforcement officers is expensive but this would be borne by the defendant. Although this wouldn't provide any instant solutions for you, it would be interesting to see what the response of the seller might be – if anything. It might even prompt them to refund your money – although don't bank on it. The cost of bringing an action for conversion for damages not exceeding £650 would be £70 to begin the action and then a hearing fee of £80. The cost of attempting to enforce the judgement would be £66. As I said, you may consider that this would be throwing good money after bad but it might produce some interesting results. If they defended the claim then you are probably be risking all of this money – about £210. If they didn't defend the claim then you wouldn't pay the hearing fee – although the rest of the cost would have to be incurred. Please think about this. Frankly as far as I can see it is the only way you might be to make some kind of progress.
    • When she died us 3 wives of her sons were offered to choose a piece from her vast collection.  I chose this piece. When I told my husband I wanted out, I asked if I could keep the piece and he said no.  He still has a key to my house and I did say he could come whilst I am out to collect his things but I may just rethink that! 
    • I think we need to see the RAC report We need to see the advertising which was used to sell the car We need to see the exchange which you have already had with the dealer.   We will also need to see this invoice or other evidence that people are relying on to suggest that it is a trade sale. Please can you post these documents up in PDF format - single file multipage. The right way round and in the correct order   Also, it is likely that you will have to litigate on this. Are you prepared to do so? Are you happy to do it on your own with our assistance?
    • Read carefully as it is a badly formatted document.  It says weekly total for whole year and that from April 2021 you will be paying £111.60 per week in total.   Seems quite reasonable to me £101.23 rent per week and £10.37 services charges per week.   For this type of Housing they have agreement with Government that the increase in rent including services charges will be below a certain percentage.     
    • Is there a misunderstanding here?   I had gathered that the dealer had said that they were selling on behalf of someone else - a private owner - and therefore the sale was not a trade sale and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   But my site team colleague is suggesting that this not be correct and that in fact the dealer is saying that they sold the car to you and that you were buying it as a trader and therefore it was a "trade sale" and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   In fact going back over the posts so far I see that both scenarios may have been suggested. The RAC seems to be saying that the sale was a trade sale - within the trade.  The dealer seems to be saying that they were selling on behalf of someone else - I am presuming a private owner on commission. I suppose that we had better clear this up - although if no indication of any of this was given at the time of sale that it is a standard consumer contract and subject to the 2015 Act.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Currys laptop and Sales of goods Act


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5081 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

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!

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.

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...