In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

In the grand scheme of things, you have come this far, you may as well
press on I would say.

Quite. And check if they have a Facebook/Twitter page. And give the facts
on that.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 7/31/2013 11:47 AM, Rick Hughes wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

You might want to try getting a local newspaper interested.

On 31/07/13 16:52, GB wrote:
On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"



Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

I think you should go for it. Make sure the court hearing is a local
court for you, not Machine Mart.



Do it.

Mostly the other side simply doesn't turn up.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

Oh, that does it. They can go and **** themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
cost them.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:22:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Quite. And check if they have a Facebook/Twitter page. And give the facts
on that.

If it's their page, how long do you think any negativity will stay up?

Could start another FB/**** page, setting out the facts.

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:22:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Quite. And check if they have a Facebook/Twitter page. And give the facts
on that.

If it's their page, how long do you think any negativity will stay up?

Could start another FB/**** page, setting out the facts.
If the OP wants to branch out with a website, they haven't registered
machinemart.me.uk
--
Nick (=----)

On 31/07/2013 17:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"



Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

In the grand scheme of things, you have come this far, you may as well
press on I would say.


+1
Hopefully you won't be out of pocket when (not if) you win

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:08:30 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

Oh, that does it. They can go and **** themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
cost them.

Ditto. Since this was first mentioned in here they have lost over 900 quid a
year repeat business (just one product line)

The catalogues they send now go straight in the bin.



--

On Thursday 01 August 2013 08:47 The Other Mike wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:08:30 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

Oh, that does it. They can go and **** themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
cost them.

Ditto. Since this was first mentioned in here they have lost over 900
quid a year repeat business (just one product line)

The catalogues they send now go straight in the bin.


You really should write that down and send it to the head office, CC'd to
the branch.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 01/08/2013 08:47, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:08:30 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

Oh, that does it. They can go and **** themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
cost them.

Ditto. Since this was first mentioned in here they have lost over 900 quid a
year repeat business (just one product line)

The catalogues they send now go straight in the bin.



If anybody wanted to tell them they have lost business ...
The email address is

On 31/07/2013 16:52, GB wrote:
On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:


I think you should go for it. Make sure the court hearing is a local
court for you, not Machine Mart.




Just contacted Court .. case was already scheduled for 14 Aug, so paid
£25 and said proceed.

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 12:24:52 PM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

Just contacted Court .. case was already scheduled for 14 Aug, so paid
£25 and said proceed.

bravo! bring it on ;)

Jim K

In article , Rick Hughes
scribeth thus
On 01/08/2013 08:47, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:08:30 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

Oh, that does it. They can go and **** themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
cost them.

Ditto. Since this was first mentioned in here they have lost over 900 quid a
year repeat business (just one product line)

The catalogues they send now go straight in the bin.



If anybody wanted to tell them they have lost business ...
The email address is

Quite but let's see the outcome of the case first..

If .. they had any sense they'd give you a few quid as compensation and
apologies.

It's typical useless management. This has cost them business as people
here now perhaps won't go there human nature being what it is.


Now what do you remember more?.

The 364 times your car started OK, or the one time it didn't?..


--
Tony Sayer

On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"



Update on this ..... Mediation went ahead, not sure why Machine Mart
opted for it they refused any compromise or to accept any offer.
Machine Mart stated contractually they have provided a Credit note with
stated T&C's and have met them.
Although Mediator tried to position morally they had not explained time
limit, and they could keep a long term customer by making a compromise
they refused.

They were not interested that original item was "not fit for purpose"

Now been told if I want it to go before a judge it will be another £25
fee and a further £25 costs if I don't win.

They are bluffing! Pay the £25 as you have a good case.

--
Peter Crosland

On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
.... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

Caveat Emptor

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:28:30 PM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine

Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of

magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.



Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only

give a Credit Note.



Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told

credit note expired.

In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not

mentioned by the shop at the time.





I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed

suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value

of goods.





Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they

therefore dispute the claim.

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380

damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Hmm The Ryanair school of customer care then ?

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit note
I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have dealt
with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for much
less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380) ...
this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch manager.
Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if you
accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

As I advised you back in April:

"You weren't obliged to accept a credit note but having done so you have
waived your rights to compensation or replacement of the original goods.
Lack of knowledge of your rights under law is not the court's problem or in
fact the seller's. As to the small print on the credit note, again you
should have read it carefully first. I'm afraid you therefore don't have a
claim against them.

I suggest they may well succeed for reasonable out of pocket costs against
you although time away from office is not normally something allowed in the
Small Claims track.

I would think carefully about continuing with this. So far all you have lost
is the filing fee if you discontinue the claim."

20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and consumer rights
advice made this a very simple judgement for me. County court judges are in
the law business - not the right and wrong business. They will rule on the
law and not how hard done you felt yourself to be be. The fact that the
judge disallowed costs and made a statement about MM's behaviour showed how
strongly he felt about how you were treated but there was nothing he could
have done in law to help you further.

Unfortunately most of the advice you received on here was based on complete
lack of legal knowledge and just how people felt about the matter which
motivated you to waste even more money on the claim. This is irrelevant
advice and drowned out the correct advice which was to swallow your loss.
Signal to noise ratio etc or to put it another way, free advice from non
experts is generally worth exactly what you paid for it. Sorry you lost the
filing fee in addition to the cost of the goods. As you say, caveat emptor
and there's no substitute for knowing your rights. A minimal amount of
Googling "before" going back to them to complain would have avoided the
whole mess.
--
Dave Baker

On 14/08/2013 13:45, Dave Baker wrote:

Unfortunately most of the advice you received on here was based on
complete lack of legal knowledge and just how people felt about the
matter which motivated you to waste even more money on the claim.

I was one of the herd, as you put it, who advised going ahead with the
claim. That was based on my personal experience that large companies
such as this often do not want to spend time and money defending claims,
even if they reckon they can win them. It's a commercial decision, and I
think MM made a poor one.

Of course, my advice was based on a gamble that MM would not defend the
claim, but I stand by it.

Rick Hughes wrote:

Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

And from me. Sorry to hear it was thrown out.

I shall continue to remind people to avoid Machine Mart.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 14/08/2013 13:15, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.

Disappointing to hear that, although reading between the lines a little
one gets the feeling that the judge was on you side even if the
technical detail of the case had to decide the outcome.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 14/08/2013 13:45, Dave Baker wrote:

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...

20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and consumer
rights advice made this a very simple judgement for me. County court
judges are in the law business - not the right and wrong business. They
will rule on the law and not how hard done you felt yourself to be be.

Agreed, although I am slightly surprised there is not an angle of attack
in the unfair contract terms legislation - since he was pushed into
agreeing to a contract without first having sight of it. Perhaps the
argument is that he should have insisted on seeing the full T&Cs first.

The fact that the judge disallowed costs and made a statement about MM's
behaviour showed how strongly he felt about how you were treated but
there was nothing he could have done in law to help you further.

Yup

Unfortunately most of the advice you received on here was based on
complete lack of legal knowledge and just how people felt about the
matter which motivated you to waste even more money on the claim. This

True, although I am sure the OP was well aware of the provenance of the
advice he received.

is irrelevant advice and drowned out the correct advice which was to
swallow your loss. Signal to noise ratio etc or to put it another way,
free advice from non experts is generally worth exactly what you paid
for it. Sorry you lost the filing fee in addition to the cost of the
goods. As you say, caveat emptor and there's no substitute for knowing
your rights. A minimal amount of Googling "before" going back to them to
complain would have avoided the whole mess.

In spite of the poor outcome for the OP, my own feeling is that not all
is lost in this situation - since the result may influence behaviour in
the futu

They have injured their public reputation, and also educated anyone who
reads this account to insist on their statutory rights. I expect a good
number of us will be less willing to give them business in the future,
and be far more robust in dealing with any problems with them.

The fact that their "costs" scare tactic was quashed is obviously for
the greater good - and may make them less likely to attempt that in the
future.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.


--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

"Jeremy Nicoll - news posts" wrote
in message nvalid...
John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.

They would have no prima facie grounds to do so. The laws on defamation are
somewhat onerous on the accused and the only instance in UK law where the
accused has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser prove the
accused's guilt however a factual reporting of the events of a matter
constitute no grounds for defamation. They might have grounds if they could
accuse the OP of misrepresenting those facts but otherwise no and in any
case no grounds against anyone else unconnected with the matter discussing
what they'd read. As always, someone complaining in public about work or
goods has to be very careful to be strictly accurate and not introduce bias
or untruths.

I have however in the past successfully used the 1997 Protection from
Harassment Act as a private individual to dissuade someone under police
caution from ranting endlessly on as many internet forums as he could find
about engine work he'd asked to be done by me, which was indeed done exactly
as he'd asked, but then he decided when the engine parts he'd obtained from
or had machined by various different parties to his instructions wouldn't
fit together that he'd asked for the wrong thing and it was my fault for not
being psychic enough to know that. However a company cannot rely on this
act, only a private individual.
--
Dave Baker

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and consumer
rights advice made this a very simple judgement for me. County court
judges are in the law business - not the right and wrong business. They
will rule on the law and not how hard done you felt yourself to be be.

Agreed, although I am slightly surprised there is not an angle of attack
in the unfair contract terms legislation - since he was pushed into
agreeing to a contract without first having sight of it.

Think you'd have to go a few courts higher to argue that. Sadly, it's
often the case that if you sign to having agreed to conditions you're
stuck with them - even if they later seem unfair.

There was a recent one on the radio - someone had booked a holiday and
paid by credit card. The hotel was rubbish and totally misrepresented in
the blurb, but the credit card company refused to help because 'terms and
conditions' had been signed.

--
*El nino made me do it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.

Oh Ghod not again. It was bad enough when some stupid firm tried to sue me
and other posters for libel when he asked if he should pay thousands of
pounds to a company to have his CV rewritten and submitted for "executive
jobs not open to the public". I told him that if he just wanted a good
looking CV there were cheaper options.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 14/08/2013 16:45, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.



It just seems so out of step with other retailers. I look forward to
them going bust

On 14/08/2013 13:15, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

And mine.



Caveat Emptor


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 13:15 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

Caveat Emptor

I for one promise solomly to never buy anything from the ******s.

Sorry you did not win. However, congrats on seeing them turn green as they
claim was rejected.

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 14/08/2013 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and
consumer rights advice made this a very simple judgement for me.
County court judges are in the law business - not the right and
wrong business. They will rule on the law and not how hard done
you felt yourself to be be.

Agreed, although I am slightly surprised there is not an angle of
attack in the unfair contract terms legislation - since he was
pushed into agreeing to a contract without first having sight of
it.

I was also thinking that. I guess the credit note had the wording. If
not the OP could have had his own set of conditions of accepting a
credit note. I wonder what the judge would have made of this!

Think you'd have to go a few courts higher to argue that. Sadly,
it's often the case that if you sign to having agreed to conditions
you're stuck with them - even if they later seem unfair.

There was a recent one on the radio - someone had booked a holiday
and paid by credit card. The hotel was rubbish and totally
misrepresented in the blurb, but the credit card company refused to
help because 'terms and conditions' had been signed.

Some credit cards will do anything to save paying out.

On 14/08/2013 21:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 13:15 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

Caveat Emptor

I for one promise solomly to never buy anything from the ******s.

I may not go that far - I have had occassions where they are the only
place in the area that is open and has what I need to carry on. I will
however only be using them as a last resort.

SteveW

On 14/08/2013 21:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 13:15 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

Caveat Emptor

I for one promise solomly to never buy anything from the ******s.

Sorry you did not win. However, congrats on seeing them turn green as they
claim was rejected.

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

On 14/08/2013 21:34, Rick Hughes wrote:

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw
dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:15:24 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

Caveat Emptor


An unfair result and shows how screwed up the law can be. However, that they
are maybe down £380 quid brings me great pleasure (although I reckon they were
trying to pull a fast one there)

A letter will go the Machine Mart head office in the next few days detailing the
size of repeat business their head in the sand lets just shaft the customer
approach has caused.

--

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:45:17 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.

Fortunately we are all free to call Machine Mart a bunch of ****s

To avoid any doubt that is

MACHINE MART LIMITED
211 LOWER PARLIAMENT STREET
NOTTINGHAM
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
NG1 1GN

Company No. 01555925

and not any other bunch of litigious shysters going by any similar name.


--

On 14/08/2013 22:18, GB wrote:
On 14/08/2013 21:34, Rick Hughes wrote:

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw
dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?



He came form Nottingham, claimed they had to hire a car (200) plus 45p
per mile for a 440mile round trip.
Judge threw out all travel claim.
He also tried to claim for days wages as well (also rejected)

On Thursday 15 August 2013 09:27 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 14/08/2013 22:18, GB wrote:
On 14/08/2013 21:34, Rick Hughes wrote:

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw
dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?



He came form Nottingham, claimed they had to hire a car (200) plus 45p
per mile for a 440mile round trip.
Judge threw out all travel claim.
He also tried to claim for days wages as well (also rejected)

Dork. Hope his bosses kicked someone in the nuts - all over a £38 product!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 14/08/2013 23:32, The Other Mike wrote:



The person who attended court and has been dealing with this was
Steve Carnell
After Sales Manager
Machine Mart
211 Lower Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 1GN

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2013 22:18, GB wrote:
On 14/08/2013 21:34, Rick Hughes wrote:

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw
dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?



He came form Nottingham, claimed they had to hire a car (200)

That really is taking the ****. Does the entire head office not have a
single employee with their own car or a company car capable of a 440 mile
round trip without breaking down? However unless they wanted to risk the
judge citing them for contempt or fraud they presumably did actually hire a
car and had a receipt to show in support of their expense claim which means
they really have ****ed away many hundreds of pounds to save £38 plus costs.
What complete ****ing idiots.

plus 45p
per mile for a 440mile round trip.
Judge threw out all travel claim.
He also tried to claim for days wages as well (also rejected)

Quite predictable as I said back in April, loss of income or wages is not
claimable in the small claims court at all which they ought to have known
and not tried it on with the judge and litigants in person in any county
court case are limited to claiming about £10 an hour for their case
preparation time regardless of their actual salary whereas lawyers can
charge £300 an hour or more which thoroughly ****es me off.

They clearly really annoyed the judge with their behaviour so I think you
have the moral victory. I'll be emailing them about the loss of any of my
future business also.
--
Dave Baker

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2013 22:18, GB wrote:
On 14/08/2013 21:34, Rick Hughes wrote:

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

£50 plus original item cost of £38

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw
dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?



He came form Nottingham, claimed they had to hire a car (200)

That really is taking the ****. Does the entire head office not have a
single employee with their own car or a company car capable of a 440 mile
round trip without breaking down? However unless they wanted to risk the
judge citing them for contempt or fraud they presumably did actually hire a
car and had a receipt to show in support of their expense claim which means
they really have ****ed away many hundreds of pounds to save £38 plus costs.
What complete ****ing idiots.

plus 45p
per mile for a 440mile round trip.
Judge threw out all travel claim.
He also tried to claim for days wages as well (also rejected)

Quite predictable as I said back in April, loss of income or wages is not
claimable in the small claims court at all which they ought to have known
and not tried it on with the judge and litigants in person in any county
court case are limited to claiming about £10 an hour for their case
preparation time regardless of their actual salary whereas lawyers can
charge £300 an hour or more which thoroughly ****es me off.

They clearly really annoyed the judge with their behaviour so I think you
have the moral victory. I'll be emailing them about the loss of any of my
future business also.
--
Dave Baker

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
They clearly really annoyed the judge with their behaviour so I think you
have the moral victory. I'll be emailing them about the loss of any of my
future business also.

and done.

email to FAO Mr Steve Carnell

"Dear Steve,

I've been following with interest for some months on Usenet in uk-d-i-y your
bizarre antics in refusing to refund Mr Rick Hughes £38 for the unfit for
purpose inspection light he returned to you (for a credit note which turned
out to have an expiration date he didn't know about and thence became
worthless) and your absurd behaviour in actually defending the case in court
for such a trivial amount and trying to claim hundreds of pounds in costs
from him rather than just play the white man. "Customer service" is
apparently a completely alien concept to you and trying to retain happy
customers, and thence hopefully over the years their friends and associates
too, possibly something you maybe once heard of but wish to take no part in.

In the past I've spent a fair bit with your company on engine building
equipment such as engine stands and a 1 ton engine crane. Not enough of
course on its own to make a scrap of difference to your annual results one
way or the other but small amounts from many customers is what adds up.

You are dear sir an absolute tosser and you and your company can be assured
of no further business from myself or any of my friends and colleagues I can
persuade likewise.

If you had a scrap of decency you'd apologise and refund Mr Hughes his £38
plus his court costs and he'd no doubt post that in the thread and you'd
regain the support of the many people who've been following the case.

Cordial regards,

David Baker"