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"

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:28:30 PM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

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

give a Credit Note.

Excellent. I hope you win and am confident you will.

What was written on the credit not is irrelevant, the goods were unfit for purpose, you were entitled to a refund, they only fobbed you off with credit not because they'd misinformed you.

I don't believe they can claim for any of their costs in the County Court, they're trying to scare you off with the £380 counter claim.

Bunch of low-life con artists.

Onetap wrote:
I don't believe they can claim for any of their costs in the County
Court, they're trying to scare you off with the £380 counter claim.

Why should they not be allowed to claim for any of their costs?


--
Adam

Rick Hughes wrote:

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Seems those items are in line with what the court *can* award if you lose

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Seems those items are in line with what the court *can* award if you lose

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB




I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.

On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

On 21/04/2013 20:46, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

I found myself in similar situation a year or so ago, good luck.

IMHO guess they wont show

On Sunday 21 April 2013 19:47 Onetap wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:28:30 PM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

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

give a Credit Note.

Excellent. I hope you win and am confident you will.

What was written on the credit not is irrelevant, the goods were unfit
for purpose, you were entitled to a refund, they only fobbed you off with
credit not because they'd misinformed you.

I don't believe they can claim for any of their costs in the County
Court, they're trying to scare you off with the £380 counter claim.

Bunch of low-life con artists.

and I'm very pleased to see them named and shamed here.

******s...
--
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

In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

I've just had a look there and didn't see your posting. I wonder if you
mentioned Machine Mart in the posting? The Mod's on there are very
twitchy about creating problems by mentioning identifiable entities.
They are much more likely to let posts through that don't mention them
directly, you are also more likely to get more detailed advice. There
are 5 posts awaiting moderation there at the moment.

--
Bill

In message , Bill
writes
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

I've just had a look there and didn't see your posting. I wonder if
you mentioned Machine Mart in the posting? The Mod's on there are very
twitchy about creating problems by mentioning identifiable entities.
They are much more likely to let posts through that don't mention them
directly, you are also more likely to get more detailed advice. There
are 5 posts awaiting moderation there at the moment.

And no sooner had I posted the above and a Mod' cleared the waiting list
and your post appeared, is someone watching uk.diy ?


--
Bill

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"


Bluffing.

I won't be buying from them in future, thats for sure.

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

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Onetap
wrote:

I don't believe they can claim for any of their costs in the County Court, they're trying to scare you off with the £380 counter claim.

County courts hear a number of cases and in most costs are awarded
against losing parties. However, for cases heard on the small claims
track the losing party, if a business, will not usually be awarded
costs unless the judge believes the case against them was without
merit.

In article , Rick Hughes
scribeth thus
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"


How very poorly they've handled this, it must have already have cost
them and will, by the look of it, cost them even more.

How much better if they just said sorry you weren't happy with your
purchase, please bring or send it back and we'll give you a full refund.

Chances are that you'll do business with them again. I would.

and

Some on here now won't bother buying from them!...


They could learn from the likes of John Lewis, excellent service and
even Toolstation had very good service there too with something I didn't
like the look of when I got it hack home....
--
Tony Sayer

On 21/04/2013 22:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Bill
writes
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

I've just had a look there and didn't see your posting. I wonder if
you mentioned Machine Mart in the posting? The Mod's on there are
very twitchy about creating problems by mentioning identifiable
entities. They are much more likely to let posts through that don't
mention them directly, you are also more likely to get more detailed
advice. There are 5 posts awaiting moderation there at the moment.

And no sooner had I posted the above and a Mod' cleared the waiting list
and your post appeared, is someone watching uk.diy ?


moderation queue here

http://www.moderation.org.uk/3displa...ory_output.php

In message , Bob writes
On 21/04/2013 22:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Bill
writes
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 21/04/2013 20:20, Bob wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:


I suggest the OP posts over on uk.legal.moderated where you will get
some helpful interesting responses.


I have done that today ... (following your advice)

I've just had a look there and didn't see your posting. I wonder if
you mentioned Machine Mart in the posting? The Mod's on there are
very twitchy about creating problems by mentioning identifiable
entities. They are much more likely to let posts through that don't
mention them directly, you are also more likely to get more detailed
advice. There are 5 posts awaiting moderation there at the moment.

And no sooner had I posted the above and a Mod' cleared the waiting list
and your post appeared, is someone watching uk.diy ?


moderation queue here

http://www.moderation.org.uk/3displa...ory_output.php


That is where I got my figures from. But it's academic now as the post
has appeared. There again it can be an education to see why some have
been rejected.


--
Bill

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
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"

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.
--
Dave Baker

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:19:13 +0100, Dave Baker wrote:

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.

What is £5 note but a "credit note" against the Bank of England? They
don't have expiry dates...

The expiry date should have been pointed out by the store at time of
issue, giving the OP the choice to accept those terms or decline themand
insist on his right to a full refund. The "opened box" is not a reason
for the store to not accept the refund, how is the OP to inspect the
goods without opening the box? Would they insist on payment for "opened
box" if he had opened the box in store and decided not to buy?

The snag is that it's the OP's word against the stores, no real evidence
that he wasn't told of the expiry date. But what would a "reasonable man
on the street" think as fair?

--
Cheers
Dave.

I'd have thought the defence ran like this.
You fount it faulty. You returned it for a refund. they refused, but gave a
credit now thereby admitting liability for faulty goods. You now require
what you should have been given in the first place, the value of the faulty
goods.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
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"

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:19:47 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:19:13 +0100, Dave Baker wrote:

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.

What is £5 note but a "credit note" against the Bank of England? They
don't have expiry dates...

The expiry date should have been pointed out by the store at time of
issue, giving the OP the choice to accept those terms or decline themand
insist on his right to a full refund. The "opened box" is not a reason
for the store to not accept the refund, how is the OP to inspect the
goods without opening the box? Would they insist on payment for "opened
box" if he had opened the box in store and decided not to buy?

The snag is that it's the OP's word against the stores, no real evidence
that he wasn't told of the expiry date. But what would a "reasonable man
on the street" think as fair?

AFAIK this is not relevant. No T&Cs can override your rights set out
in legislation. If the product is faulty and you return it next day
they have to give you a refund if requested. There is no obligation
to repackage the item(s).

Assumming this is a B2C transaction then the OP will win.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:27:28 +0100, Mark wrote:

AFAIK this is not relevant. No T&Cs can override your rights set out
in legislation. If the product is faulty and you return it next day
they have to give you a refund if requested. There is no obligation
to repackage the item(s).

I quite agree this "refunds only given with complete undanaged packaing
all instructions and accesories" is only so they can take it out back to
the shrink wrap machine and put it back on sale. Or send it off to one of
the "catalog returns" firms who flog of stuff by the pallet load.

If I take something back these days it probably will have the packaging
and instructions (Why do I need 'em...) but will also have a note written
inside the instructions that it has been returned faulty and what the
fault was.

I've bought stuff in the past that has been faulty and there has been
someone elses pencil notes on setup/config in the instructions. Or in the
case of a leaky kettle it was still wet inside. Both items where sold "as
new" not "customer returns"...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Seems those items are in line with what the court *can* award if you lose

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

I was under the impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:40:23 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Seems those items are in line with what the court *can* award if you lose

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

I was under the impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...

IIRC Moneyclaim online just allows you to file the claim without
filling in paper forms and delivering them to your local court. If
the defendent files a defence the case is reallocated to a court local
to the customer. I don't speak from first hand experience as I have
only used the paper system.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 22 Apr 2013 13:57:25 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-04-22, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:40:23 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"

Seems those items are in line with what the court *can* award if you lose

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

I was under the impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...

IIRC Moneyclaim online just allows you to file the claim without
filling in paper forms and delivering them to your local court. If
the defendent files a defence the case is reallocated to a court local
to the customer.
^^^^^^^^^

Supplier. When I sued a 2nd hand car dealer in Small Claims Court, the
case was heard in the vendors local court.

That's unusal. It is normally the customer that gets the choice. Was
there any special circumstances?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:37:52 +0100, Mark wrote:

IIRC Moneyclaim online just allows you to file the claim without
filling in paper forms and delivering them to your local court. If
the defendent files a defence the case is reallocated to a court
local to the customer.
^^^^^^^^^

Supplier. When I sued a 2nd hand car dealer in Small Claims Court, the
case was heard in the vendors local court.

That's unusal. It is normally the customer that gets the choice. Was
there any special circumstances?

I thought it was local to the orginal plaintiff.

--
Cheers
Dave.

John Rumm wrote:

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

I was under the impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.

I think it suggests (or maybe requires) a mediation stage first, but
failing that, you end up in court, I think it's geared to being
"friendly" to the small guy representing himself, with a presumption
against huge costs, even if you lose

Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...

I'm sure there's an element of that, OTOH maybe they're make on offer
"on the court steps" ...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:37:54 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:37:52 +0100, Mark wrote:

IIRC Moneyclaim online just allows you to file the claim without
filling in paper forms and delivering them to your local court. If
the defendent files a defence the case is reallocated to a court
local to the customer.
^^^^^^^^^

Supplier. When I sued a 2nd hand car dealer in Small Claims Court, the
case was heard in the vendors local court.

That's unusal. It is normally the customer that gets the choice. Was
there any special circumstances?

I thought it was local to the orginal plaintiff.

The default is that the claim will be heard in the court nearest the
defendant. However, if the defendant is a business and the claimant a
consumer the case will be allocated to a court near the claimant if
they so request.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 2:19:13 AM UTC+1, Dave Baker wrote:
"Rick Hughes" wrote in message

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.

True, but he wouldn't have accepted it of they hadn't misinformed him; we'll only offer a credit note, you've opened the box.


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 believe the T&Cs have to be available and agreed before the contract; you can't amend them afterwards. If it's your argument that he agreed to another contract by accepting the credit note, putting the T&Cs on the credit note suggests he hadn't seen them when agreeing to take it.

On 22/04/2013 22:24, Onetap wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 2:19:13 AM UTC+1, Dave Baker wrote:
"Rick Hughes" wrote in message

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.

True, but he wouldn't have accepted it of they hadn't misinformed him; we'll only offer a credit note, you've opened the box.


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 believe the T&Cs have to be available and agreed before the contract; you can't amend them afterwards. If it's your argument that he agreed to another contract by accepting the credit note, putting the T&Cs on the credit note suggests he hadn't seen them when agreeing to take it.

I see nothing whatsoever about credit notes on their current Store T&C
on their website.

--
Rod

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:11:07 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...art27#IDAKBTBB

I was under the impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.

I think it suggests (or maybe requires) a mediation stage first, but
failing that, you end up in court, I think it's geared to being
"friendly" to the small guy representing himself, with a presumption
against huge costs, even if you lose

There should be a pre-action protocol followed in any case. The court
would most likely criticise the plaintiff if they could not show they
gave the retailer a reasonable chance to resolve the issue first.
Court action is, and should always be, a last resort.

Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...

I'm sure there's an element of that, OTOH maybe they're make on offer
"on the court steps" ...

Most likely before that.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 22/04/2013 12:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
he impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...


They have sent me for N180 ... and on that 2 points ...
Sect A ... Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small
Claims Mediation Service .... any reason I should not tick YES ?

Sect D ... About the hearing
At which county court would you prefer the small claims hearing to be head ?

Papers were served at Northampton CC, should I leave it as there or am I
better or worse off if I request local CC ?


This claim was submitted via Money Claim on Line

In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 22/04/2013 12:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
he impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...


They have sent me for N180 ... and on that 2 points ...
Sect A ... Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small
Claims Mediation Service .... any reason I should not tick YES ?

No & if you don't you will look bad.

Sect D ... About the hearing
At which county court would you prefer the small claims hearing to be head ?

Papers were served at Northampton CC, should I leave it as there or am
I better or worse off if I request local CC ?

Which CC will make no difference. Choose the one that's most convenient
for you.

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:09:21 +0100, Rick Hughes
wrote:

On 22/04/2013 12:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
he impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...


They have sent me for N180 ... and on that 2 points ...
Sect A ... Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small
Claims Mediation Service .... any reason I should not tick YES ?

It may look bad if you don't.

Sect D ... About the hearing
At which county court would you prefer the small claims hearing to be head ?

Papers were served at Northampton CC, should I leave it as there or am I
better or worse off if I request local CC ?

Request a local court unless you want to travel to Northhampton.

This claim was submitted via Money Claim on Line

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 24/04/2013 14:10, postmaster @ stejonda wrote:
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
On 22/04/2013 12:40, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/04/2013 19:54, Andy Burns wrote:
he impression that the key point of the moneyclaim online
facility is that it can all be dealt with without a court appearance.
Hence it sounds like they are trying scare tactics...


They have sent me for N180 ... and on that 2 points ...
Sect A ... Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small
Claims Mediation Service .... any reason I should not tick YES ?

No & if you don't you will look bad.

Sect D ... About the hearing
At which county court would you prefer the small claims hearing to be
head ?

Papers were served at Northampton CC, should I leave it as there or am
I better or worse off if I request local CC ?

Which CC will make no difference. Choose the one that's most convenient
for you.

A local CC will may actually be an advantage, as it may make it even
more likely that no-one from the company will turn up and the OP will
win by default.

SteveW

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.


Onto step 2 now ... have submitted the form they wanted (where they
issued counter claim of almost 8x value of goods in travel costs.

I have accepted Mediation path ... and also again stated I will accept
wither of following:
1. a credit note they will honour
2. refund
3. return of goods - I can sell elsewhere


I am hoping that court will look favourably on the fact that I am being
fully reasonable.

In message , Rick Hughes
writes
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.


Onto step 2 now ... have submitted the form they wanted (where they
issued counter claim of almost 8x value of goods in travel costs.

I have accepted Mediation path ... and also again stated I will accept
wither of following:
1. a credit note they will honour
2. refund
3. return of goods - I can sell elsewhere


I am hoping that court will look favourably on the fact that I am being
fully reasonable.

Why are you accepting return of the goods if they were not fit for
purpose? That's contradictory.

--
Simon

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

On 01/05/2013 17:44, 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.


Onto step 2 now ... have submitted the form they wanted (where they
issued counter claim of almost 8x value of goods in travel costs.

I have accepted Mediation path ... and also again stated I will accept
wither of following:
1. a credit note they will honour
2. refund
3. return of goods - I can sell elsewhere

I am hoping that court will look favourably on the fact that I am being
fully reasonable.

Not sure I would offer to take the goods back since you already rejected
them once as being crap...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 01/05/2013 18:30, postmaster @ stejonda wrote:
In message , Rick Hughes
writes
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.


Onto step 2 now ... have submitted the form they wanted (where they
issued counter claim of almost 8x value of goods in travel costs.

I have accepted Mediation path ... and also again stated I will accept
wither of following:
1. a credit note they will honour
2. refund
3. return of goods - I can sell elsewhere


I am hoping that court will look favourably on the fact that I am
being fully reasonable.

Why are you accepting return of the goods if they were not fit for
purpose? That's contradictory.

+1
I think MM might use that against you in court

--
David

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.

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.

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.


--
Cheers,

John.

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