On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you *required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive"
and inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

On 08/10/2019 14:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you *required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive"
and inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?


--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:26:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?

Yes, the Citizens Advice page I referenced has a suitable template
letter to use. This has another
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ms-court-claim

You will need to change them a bit as they are aimed at faulty goods
but the principle remains the same.

On 08/10/2019 14:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:26:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/10/2019 14:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you
*required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?

Ignoring the previous non-reply, you can try. However, even if they
ignore you, and you get as far as a court issuing a summons, they can
still apply to have it put aside on the grounds "they missed it". At
which point a court will suspend any action to give them a chance to
respond.

I know that much, because we had a customer skip without paying (long
story) and they ignored all letters, and we got judgement by default. But
the magistrate commented that they could have applied to have the
judgement set aside on those grounds. (They didn't but then neither did
we see the money ....)

Send the letter as a signed for delivery and they can't claim to have
not received it.

Funny isn't it, if you are sent a letter demanding payment by a utility
company, bank or credit card company and threatening court action, you
are DEEMED to have received it, without any proof.

SteveW

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 21:55:45 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:


Send the letter as a signed for delivery and they can't claim to have
not received it.

Actually, if you are dealing with unscrupulous dealers (which I
appreciate you say isn't the case here) you shouldn't use a signed for
service. Any cunning scrote would refuse to accept it thus providing
them with proof of non-delivery. Send it normal 1st class mail and
get a proof of posting. They will be deemed to have received two days
later.

As others have said this doesn't stop them claiming never to have
received it and courts will normally allow them to enter a defence but
can get a bit po faced about it.

Funny isn't it, if you are sent a letter demanding payment by a utility
company, bank or credit card company and threatening court action, you
are DEEMED to have received it, without any proof.

See above :-)

Methods of service

6.3 Rules and practice directions - service of documents.

"(1) A claim form may (subject to Section IV of this Part and the
rules in this Section relating to service out of the jurisdiction on
solicitors, European Lawyers and parties) be served by any of the
following methods –

(a) personal service in accordance with rule 6.5;

(b) first class post, document exchange or other service which
provides for delivery on the next business day, in accordance with
Practice Direction 6A;

(c) leaving it at a place specified in rule 6.7, 6.8, 6.9 or 6.10;

(d) fax or other means of electronic communication in accordance with
Practice Direction 6A; or

(e) any method authorised by the court under rule 6.15.

(2) A company may be served –

(a) by any method permitted under this Part; or

(b) by any of the methods of service permitted under the Companies Act
2006.

Just to say that at close of play last night I got a call.

"***** Vehicles here, if you get a new propshaft we will pay you for it
and fit it".

Immense relief.



--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 09/10/2019 10:05, Jethro_uk wrote:
One of my Dads friends used to work in the legal department at a large
company (in reality he was the legal department ...) about once a year
he'd have to rush to court because a disgruntled customer who knew how to
apply the law had managed to serve a winding up order. So it can be
done ....
I threatened the Ford Motor company with legal action once

Got paid instantly.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 08/10/2019 14:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:22:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you *required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

Funny that ... I had that grumble back in the 1990s too. In fact I first
became aware of it when a friend of my fathers got ripped off by a
builder.

Dastardly EU, using time travel to enforce their dastardly plans, eh ?


Everything is the EU's fault in the minds of brexiteers.
Its why they don't like the EU.

They also don't like being told they are wrong and killfile you for
doing so.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:22:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you *required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

Funny that ... I had that grumble back in the 1990s too. In fact I first
became aware of it when a friend of my fathers got ripped off by a
builder.

Dastardly EU, using time travel to enforce their dastardly plans, eh ?

It has always (or at least since 1893 and subsequent case law) in the
UK been the case that in any breach of contract the entity responsible
should normally have an opportunity to resolve the issue. However,
that was not cast in stone and showing objective reason why you didn't
want to allow an opportunity to remedy could be presented and often
was when the case was about faulty workmanship

When the European Commission set about reviewing the Consumer Acquis
they set as one of the principles of the legislation "keeping the
contract alive" and that canceling it must be the last resort.

One aim of the consumer Acquis was stated as being to encourage inter
community consumer trade and to simplify consumer legislation. In
both respects it has, to be kind, been somewhat less than successful.