Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
  • Our picks

sparkyreb

Pcworld missleading saleperson. Customer services Fob Off

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4491 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

i am not saying other garages are not qualified to fix ford cars. im saying that to keep your rights go to the right people.

 

Yes. The retailer. And only the retailer.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an unfair term for a warranty to insist that only an "authorised" dealership can repair a car under warranty. So long as the work is necessary, done to the same standard and the costs reasonable, a consumer can go to whoever he wishes for repair. The seller has the legal responsibility. The consumer has choice. There is a difference.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erm complete rubbish - thats like saying the only place you can get your ford car fixed is at a ford garage...

 

To be honest it IS complete rubbish BUT PC World only offer the repair service as a convenience for customers. By law they COULD just send it to the manufacturer to be fixed, if they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could do - it is an option, but it is not the only one. without re-iterating points already made, the main issue is that it is ultimately down to the seller to sort the problem out, and the method must be reasonable. The consumer has teh right to have it fixed elsewhere and reclaim teh cost from the seller. That is something that does not seem to be getting through to some people


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consumer has to give the trader a reasonable opportunity to put the faults right first, however. The court will look to see if the consumer has done so.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The consumer has to give the trader a reasonable opportunity to put the faults right first, however. The court will look to see if the consumer has done so.

 

Quite right.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailpointofview

read your own threads people .. your contradicting yourself..

 

gyzmo - yes it is unfair that only an autherised dealership can deal with it. yes you can go to whoever you want. but going to that 15yo boy who just passed his IT GSCE exam to fix your product is not gonna play well if future problems occur and you try to reclaim your right later.

 

Rosie -the retailer is correct. but demanding at store level is going to get you no-where. store level staff do not have the expertise necessary to fix issues. contact head office of companies FIRST.

 

if you are at all interested in getting the products fixed and not affect your rights at all id suggest contacting the head office for a list of their autherised repair services. and who will they suggest. THE MANUFACTURER. as this is where your product ends up anyway.

 

getting the retailer to call and arrange with the manufacturer will take 48hours for the manufacturer to call you back to arrange the courier/repairer.

 

contacting them yourself saves this time. also manufacturers have to state that it does not affect your legal rights. so if they repair or replace the product with diferent parts or a whole different model. IT DOES NOT affect your legal rights.

 

so seller asking you to contact the manufacturer is a remdey. by asking the buyer to call direct helps with the reasonable time. by it being the manufacturer there are no costs. and by not having to leave your house as the manufacturer comes to you, it is least inconvenient.

 

again manufacturers do not afect your legal rights. but unknown repairs can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is really being missed here. Firstly, I said in my previous post that the work would have to be of a satisfactory standard. Going to a 15 yr old would clearly not fall within this case, so why raise it? Secondly, the Sale and Supply of Goods Regulations places the burden of sorting problems out on the seller. 48B of Soga requires the seller to remedy the situation at their cost. It does not to tell the customer to go elsewhere. Telling a consumer to contact the manufacturer is NOT a remedy. Let me make this clear. IF THE SELLER IS REQUIRED TO REMEDY A PROBLEM, REMEDY IT HE MUST.

 

That is exactly why the regulations were brought in, and the entire point of my posts - about sellers shirking their responsibilities. You are confusing what a consumer may do with what a seller must do. Stop it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailpointofview

it is only illegal if the buyer requests to wait those 48hours for the retailer to call the manufacturer to get them to call you and THEN the retailer refuses to call them.

 

also i am just saying it may take 48 hours to call you back to arrange the pickup.. but in a busy company it can take upto a week. becareful here by you agreeing to wait 48hours to a week you are also agreeing to an extension of the reasonable time.

 

yes stores have something like a 28day policy where if it not fixed within this time you get a automatic refund/replacement. but this is only policy not law. they could ignore their policies if they chose to and just go by law and so if it takes a week to call you to arrange the pickup. you have agreed this. if it takes 28 days to repair it then that also classes as reasonable time(35 days total). so dont always rely on the stores 28day policy because if you agree to wait you could be agreeing to wait longer.

 

no where in law does it say manufacturers CANNOT repair it. NO WHERE does it say the original sales person has to repair it. all it says is that a remedy has to be found which is dealt with within reasonable time, least inconvenience and without cost to buyer.

 

calling the manufacturer is a remedy. and extra laws where the manufacturers warrenty and services do not affect your legal rights also helps the buyer to with all future issues.

 

yes you can ask the head office to contact the manufacturer on your behalf. but we all know what call centres are like. why use a middle man?? it does not affect your legal rights.

 

after the manufacturer period then the seller has to find another remedy costing them more money.

 

one thing i don't suggest is getting unknown joe bloggs down the road to deal with it. ask the seller for a list of their recognised repairers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailpointofview

a remedy.. a remedy.

did you see anywhere that is says the seller had to repair it themselves?? no. they just have to ensure they find a solution that does not cost the buyer any money, is fixed within reasonable time and least inconvenience to the buyer.

show me where it says "NO ONE ELSE CAN DEAL WITH IT"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailpointofview
The consumer has the right to have it fixed elsewhere and reclaim the cost from the seller. That is something that does not seem to be getting through to some people

 

and then

 

The issue is really being missed here. Firstly, I said in my previous post that the work would have to be of a satisfactory standard. Going to a 15 yr old would clearly not fall within this case, so why raise it? Secondly, the Sale and Supply of Goods Regulations places the burden of sorting problems out on the seller. 48B of Soga requires the seller to remedy the situation at their cost. It does not to tell the customer to go elsewhere. Telling a consumer to contact the manufacturer is NOT a remedy. Let me make this clear. IF THE SELLER IS REQUIRED TO REMEDY A PROBLEM, REMEDY IT HE MUST.

 

That is exactly why the regulations were brought in, and the entire point of my posts - about sellers shirking their responsibilities. You are confusing what a consumer may do with what a seller must do. Stop it.

 

so the buyer can go to whomever they want and get re-imbursed later.. or the seller is the only one that can deal with it..

 

?????

 

telling the buyer to go to the manufacturer is the same as you going elsewhere.

 

but the important thing is that manufacturers do not affect your rights.. elsewhere might. manufacturers dont ask for costs upfront, elsewhere might.

 

so, clarify your point to me??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again....

 

It is the obligation of the seller to remedy the situation.

It is the choice of the consumer, subject to reasonableness, to use someone other than the seller.

If the consumer goes to the seller, the seller cannot fob him off by telling the consumer to go elsewhere.

 

I do not see where the difficulty is in this. I do not see where there is any contradiction in what I have said. I do not know, frankly, why i am even bothering to entertaining this issue any further.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but the important thing is that manufacturers do not affect your rights.. elsewhere might. manufacturers dont ask for costs upfront, elsewhere might.

 

so, clarify your point to me??

 

actually thats wrong too, if you go to the manufacturer and they then swap the faulty item you have a new different item to the one being sold this CAN affect your SoGA rights as it is a different item to the one you bought. This is why it's important to go through the retailer not the manufacturer.

 

Also, back to the car example. You are allowed to use other mechanics as long as they use ford recognised parts and techniques in maintaining the car - it won't affect the waranty. If there was a fault in the engine why would you pay to replace it (if covered under waranty) and not take it straight back to the main dealership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, In fact its the supply of Goods and Services Act that takes effect in such circumstances. SoGA wont come into it once the item is swapped.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would still be the SoGA, but the amended Act to account for the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations which amended the main Act on 31 March 2003.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Soga applies to goods where there is money as consideration in a contract of sale. Where there is an exchange of the item, the supply is no longer for money as consideration, nor is it a contract of sale and so the SGSA would come into effect. At least that's what my lecturer, a former solicitor and Trading Standards Officer taught me. Having looked at the regulations, I cannot see where ny term there introduces anything different. I have heard this mentioned before, but no-one I know actually agrees with it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point of view and not something that has ever come up in my training or my job.

 

I would imagine that your rights will continue from the original contract of sale (i.e. the six years would not start over again once the goods were replaced) so therefore there would still have been consideration. That's my initial thought on the matter. I can't check this out at the moment but will run it past a few people when I can.

 

 

Incidentally what I was taught (a few years ago now) was that if there was no consideration, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act would apply.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailpointofview

Also, back to the car example. You are allowed to use other mechanics as long as they use ford recognised parts and techniques in maintaining the car - it won't affect the waranty. If there was a fault in the engine why would you pay to replace it (if covered under waranty) and not take it straight back to the main dealership?

 

so going to somewhere where they use the manufacturer recognised parts and the manufacturer recognised techniques.

 

are you saying the manufacturer does not have these parts or skills????

if the manufacturer does have the parts and skills then by your own admission then using the manufacturer as a method of getting it replaced is an option the buyer can use.

 

ok if the item is then swapped or replaced the seller has to autherise and accept the replacement as part of their contract.

 

your probably reading this same bit twice from a different thread but it helps to know some retail and manufacturer facts and not only law.

 

manufacturers contact the retailer informing them of their findings. by law manufacturers have to do this so that they do not affect consumers rights. at this point the manufacturer will inform the seller that they cannot repair the item and either accept the replacement the manufacturer offers thus the seller knowing about the new product keeps the SOGA contract intact. or to get the seller to replace the product from the sellers stock. again keeping the soga contract intact

 

if going to an independant then realise this.

if the manufactuer does not have the parts to fix it.. the independant wont be able to source it. because where do you think the independant will get them from.....

 

unless recognised by the seller or manufacturer the independant would not be classed as repairing to a reasonable standard if it went wrong again in the future, thus affecting consumer rights.

 

so check with the manufacturer or retailer who they recognise FIRST

 

manufacturers do not affect consumer rights.

call the DTI PLEASE!!!

 

manufacturers are 100% the independant repair service who should be used for all the reasons above. parts, experience, knowledge, reasonable time, least inconvenient etc etc.

 

all the retailer does is saves time. all the big retailers need to do is explain its in benefit to the buyer.

 

if however the buyer refuses to go to the manufacturer then they seller has two options.

 

if after the 28days have passed since purchase the seller does not have to offer a refund. instead the seller has to offer a replacement or an alternative repair method. the case in retail is that the head office need to be informed so that consumers rights are kept intact.

the contract is with the company not the salesguy. so head office need to be contacted with a remedy.

 

the local store/sales guy does not have authority. the head office does. thats why complaining to the manager at the store wont get you anywhere. as he does not have the authority head office do.

 

so as with many posts going into the store and acting like a 5yo having a tantrum will get you no-where. contact head office FIRST is the best option.

again they will offer you to go via manufacturer as it is the fastest, and easiest and least inconvenient solution for the buyer. if the buyer refuses this then head office can then offer a replacement. if the buyer refuses this then there needs to be a good reason why a refund should be offered.

 

and it is not legal to ask for a refund just because the buyer is unhappy, without allowing the seller to repair or replace.

 

but yea as good customer service the retailer normally gives in and allows a refund. just to shut the 5yo up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

manufacturers are 100% the independant repair service who should be used for all the reasons above. parts, experience, knowledge, reasonable time, least inconvenient etc etc.

 

You keep quoting this nonsense as though it is some sales mantra. It is simply untrue. PCWorld may avail themselves of the manufacturer for repairs, but not the rest of DSG - they use another third party - Homeserve.

 

Even where DSG use the manufacturer, it is entirely possible that the manufacturer will use a third party. Any HP certified company/engineer can do HP warranty work on an advance exchange basis for parts and an invoice basis for labour.

 

Also, what does the retailer do once the manufacturer warranty has expired - they can still be liable for repairs - the manufacturer is not and may not provide any further support whatsoever?

 

 

the local store/sales guy does not have authority. the head office does. thats why complaining to the manager at the store wont get you anywhere. as he does not have the authority head office do.

 

The internal policies of the retailers are completely irrelevant to the customer. In truth, the retailer's policies and training should be changed in order that the local store can deal with such matters. Other retailers can manage this - if I buy something faulty from Tesco, I return it to the local store less than a mile away - they don't tell me I should contact Head Office in Cheshunt - in fact, I would think that HO might be a little confused if consumers did this. Tesco expect the local store to manage this.

 

BTW, it wouldn't hurt if such training also included correct details about how the SoGA gives consumers rights well beyond the 12 month manufacturer warranty.

 

so as with many posts going into the store and acting like a 5yo having a tantrum will get you no-where.

AND

as good customer service the retailer normally gives in and allows a refund. just to shut the 5yo up.

 

You seem to contradict yourself a little there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an interesting point of view and not something that has ever come up in my training or my job.

 

I would imagine that your rights will continue from the original contract of sale (i.e. the six years would not start over again once the goods were replaced) so therefore there would still have been consideration. That's my initial thought on the matter. I can't check this out at the moment but will run it past a few people when I can.

 

 

Incidentally what I was taught (a few years ago now) was that if there was no consideration, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act would apply.

 

Thanks Rosie, that would help me - get a feeling I might have misunderstood my lecturer icon11.gif


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...