obvious v itcsales.co.uk *** I WON ***

[obvious]

Well thanks for that. Bit of a shock :O

 

I wont go into a detailed reply but I cant help wondering why the Defence Lawyer doesn't seem to feel that the overriding 'no costs rule' (Rule 27) applies as this has been allocated to the Small Claims track? Is he implying a 'vexatious defence'...if such a thing exists?

 

Tboner, you seem to be taking an unusual interest in this case. The forum you "use all the time" I'm assuming is http://forums.hexus.net/member.php?u=13460 where you've made a total of two posts, both of which were in the ITC thread. Curioser and curioser. Your defence lawyer can't spell either.

 

The phrase "See you on the 5th October" springs to mind

[blacksheep1979]

10% eh? sounds like an offer - but supposedly he doesn't even know what goods you should have got and what you did get and therefore the difference in price.....

[Rich44]

not to mention the bit where he totally ignores you saying they started to ignore you AND not to mention that the goods were not as described lol

[obvious]

His tame 'lawyer' shares the same spelling and sentence structure. There are quite a few examples eg the 'lawyer' is quoted as saying

I am afraid the information provided By Peter ( Tboner) from both this forum and another confirms all of this in detail.

while Tboner refers to himself as

Tboner ( Peter )

..note the spacing and parentheses used. Coincidence?

 

Also the 'lawyer' seems to believe in something called "General Pursuant costs" which strangely don't get any hits on google

 

Perhaps he got his law degree out of a cracker? (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

[Movingon]

I think that both TBoner and Obvious are basically putting their cases at real risk of failure by discussing the points of Law so clearly here. I think the wiser course would be to keep your counsel as far as the finer points of your case are concerned, and wait until the court date...

[obvious]

I think that both TBoner and Obvious are basically putting their cases at real risk of failure by discussing the points of Law so clearly here. I think the wiser course would be to keep your counsel as far as the finer points of your case are concerned, and wait until the court date...

 

Thanks On the one hand I dont see why the facts should hurt me but that's probably naive.

[Tboner]

Hello

 

I thought this was a discussion forum ? Oh well "obviously not"

 

I type up a telephone conversation with Peter and get slated, the original interest was from the other forum not 1 because i had purchased from them and had no problems at all? and spent 5 years working at the Consumer advice bureau so i thought it was a little odd.

 

I will ask Peter next week about rule 27 as that is beyond my full understanding and see what he has to say and try to post next weekend. Still the question remains on your reply do you still have the unusable goods that you claimed your chargeback on ? Which is what the whole case is about surely ?

 

Regards and best intentions

 

Tboner

[jonni2bad]

Unless one of the above posters is actually ITC, then we are of course getting one side of the story. If your side (obvious) is a fair reflection of the case without undue bias, then I personally think that the prelim hearing will be of great concern to ITC.

 

I do not consider that your partial chargeback has resulted in goods 'not paid for in full' (post 19) and I'm certain the Judge will see the same too. Any reference to you making the most of the goods obtained is irrelevant and forms no part of the case in question.

 

I also think that ITC may have been hasty in starting legal proceedings. For that very reason, we here suggest 2 letters each of 14 days to try to reach settlement before starting action - this is 28 days min of course - and the court would normally look to a calendar month as a reasonable amount of time.

 

The fact that the dispute may have lasted longer is not the issue.

 

When is your prelim hearing?

[Philly2001]

Edited by moderator.

You don't need to register under another username - keep using TBoner, that way we all know who we are talking to!

Have a nice day.

[obvious]

Unless one of the above posters is actually ITC, then we are of course getting one side of the story. If your side (obvious) is a fair reflection of the case without undue bias, then I personally think that the prelim hearing will be of great concern to ITC.

 

I do not consider that your partial chargeback has resulted in goods 'not paid for in full' (post 19) and I'm certain the Judge will see the same too. Any reference to you making the most of the goods obtained is irrelevant and forms no part of the case in question.

 

I also think that ITC may have been hasty in starting legal proceedings. For that very reason, we here suggest 2 letters each of 14 days to try to reach settlement before starting action - this is 28 days min of course - and the court would normally look to a calendar month as a reasonable amount of time.

 

The fact that the dispute may have lasted longer is not the issue.

 

When is your prelim hearing?

Thanks jonni2bad. The prelim is on October 5th.

 

I'll take a little more care when posting details so please forgive me if I dont answer all questions fully from now on.

 

Tboner, if you are an ITC representative (and that's by no means certain) then it's pretty underhand to be posting here incognito solely with the purpose of wrong-footing me. It doesn't reflect well on your company.

[obvious]

I type up a telephone conversation with Peter and get slated

 

Umm.. I thought you were supposed to be Peter?

[Guest Lueeze]

Geez how underhanded, I suggest you contact Dave and see if you can get IP addy for this guy, that will show who he really is!!

 

I would also print these posts off (Tboners) and take it as evidence. Why would a new user with no posts come here and then post on your thread AND discuss at length with a lawyer you case?? THEN put you off??? Hmm Tboner I suggest you should be banned, you have no interest in reclaiming bank charges or anything of the sort.

 

*Reported to Admin*

[jonni2bad]

Thread being monitored.....

[obvious]

Tboner (and his alias) have just been busted over at hexus.net

 

Bogus legal advice eh? Continue like this and it will not go well.

[Guest Lueeze]

Make sure you print it all off as evidence.

 

[EDITED] Beware of potentially libellous comments, please.

[Rich44]

You'll need the evidence though rather than just some peoples say so, so might be worth asking the various admins of the sites to let you have the IP logs lol

[blacksheep1979]

Even if they are from the above mentioned company its hardly evidence

[Rich44]

Giving misleading information and not to mention acting in a child like fashion would put a rather large dent in their credibility though IF you could prove it was said company which is probably impossible esp if an employee posted from their home and it wasnt posted by a fixed IP address you couldnt prove it anyway again it would be balance of probabilities and a judge wouldnt be interested

[blacksheep1979]

trying to get someone to pay back money (wether or not it is owed) is not a criminal offence and personal statements like that won't stand up (and may not even be allowed) in court.

[Rich44]

The "evidence" I was referring to wasnt that ACTUAL posts it was the IP logs of the person posting I wasnt attempting to show that the posts themselves were legally binding at all, merely that if the OP intended to try and use them in court he would need the evidence to prove his claim that ITC had posted them.

 

Besides its about showing that you are have been reasonable about trying to settle before heading off to court and showing that you are the more credible person so you are believed hence the OP seeing if there is anything here he can use hence logs as evidence thats all.

 

As for the legalility of bringing any of this before a court thats beyond anything I could or would advise on anyway but having all of that to hand just in case even if you cannot use it can only be a good thing.

 

As I said earlier tho proving that was someone from ITC will probably be impossible anyway so the whole argument is void

[blacksheep1979]

It shows nothing, even if he can prove it came from ITC it doesn't show who it was and even if he could prove who it was it still won't be admissable.

 

I have a case in the small claims court atm where a couple of references would help bolster my case but am not able to enter them and they are signed and readily provable.

 

As to showing if he's been reasonable or not (not saying he isn't at all) it is just his side that has been put forward, I'm sure I could put forward a thread from ITC that would seem equally hard done by if you hadn't seen both sides.

[Rich44]

You are missing the point I wasnt saying that what has been posted here would be admissable in court I was saying that IF you were going to attempt that then you would need the evidence to back up your assertation ie the IP logs.

 

As for being reasonable I wasnt again ascertaining whether he was being reasonable or not however IF you could prove ITC made those comments 110% (which he cant) then their credibility would be shot thats all I was getting at.

 

Again im not saying who is being reasonable (im not the judge lol) BUT if everything in this thread is true and the ascertation that TBoner is from ITC then it shows how low a company will sink to try and get their own way and influence someone into giving up their rights.

 

Im not actually arguing with you re submitting to court at all, in fact I was agreeing with you that it would probably be inadmissable as theres no real way to prove that the posts came from ITC as I doubt they are big enough to have their own block of IP addresses to which you could do a reverse look up and prove it came from their offices (regardless of who posted it from there) I suspect it will either be a static IP address on an ADSL line or just a dynamic one either way as far as mere mortals are concerned its untraceable past the generic ISP in question and to get any further would involve considerable expense and time which would be totally worthless

[MARTIN3030]

I have been following this thread and you know what?

 

It has detracted so much from the original purpose that anyone reading this now with a constructive input would not even want to bother posting.

 

There obviously appears to be some well informed views that there has been some improper conduct going on here and the arguements that are ongoing are not really doing anyone any good since theres no gains to be made.

 

If its at all possible is there any chance that the thread can get back to its purpose by having constructive comments that will serve to attract other users to post......in a slightly more adult way to that of posts we are currently seeing.

 

[obvious]

I've been considering putting a copy of all correspondence between myself and ITC online so people can see the full picture. Things like ITC refusing to communicate via recorded delivery and stuff like that. I'm not sure if it's a good idea i.e. breaking confidentiality on what were originally private emails though. There were no privacy disclaimers. Making the entire sordid affair public would perhaps go some way to reinforcing my position with regard to honesty/integrity etc

 

Example: 7th March, they offered :-

 

Hi Paul

A decision has been agreed now on the PDA's with the following been offered:-

1) We would like you to agree the return the balance of the PDA's you currently have for a refund ... and the balance which have been sold or you wish to keep for outstanding sales (i.e. 5 units) a refund of £20 + vat per unit.

Please advise

Regards

Ian

 

This email came months after the initial purchase and after they'd refused to make an offer via recorded delivery. Since the partial chargeback was already done and dusted + I'd sold some of the units + I didn't like the offer, I didn't accept it.

 

A question I've got about the wording of the offer (which wasn't marked 'without prejudice' fwiw) is whether their use of "(i.e. 5 units)" can put a limit on the offer in terms of the number of units I "wish to keep". Surely the number of units "I wish to keep" is up to me rather than ITC and perhaps I could argue that this amounted to an offer of £20 per unit regardless of quantity?

 

Hope that makes sense.

[blacksheep1979]

the arguements that are ongoing are not really doing anyone any good since theres no gains to be made.

 

sorry if this is deemed off topic again, but establishing if something can or if something should be produced in court seems highly relevant as that seems to be the ultimate destination of the OP and ITC

 

in a slightly more adult way to that of posts we are currently seeing.

 

 

and that comment in itself is rather childish as its an attempt to insult myself and the other poster, whilst trying to cover your own back to comments that may be thrown your way.

 

All in all I see your post as irrelevant as it doesn't add to the topic by neither discussing wether or not the OP should or shouldn't produce these posts in court nor does it discuss the legalities of chargebacks etc.

 

 

Obvious

 

don't think there is a prob with posting the emails up on here - as has already been discussed it would be hard to prove it was you that had posted them and they probably wouldn't be admissable anyway.

 

As to their offers what was the market value of the items you requested and the ones that you received, also what sum did you charge back to them?