A customer of ours has received a claim form filed on MCOL to recover money from an outstanding parking invoice. Can anyone give advice on what we should do at this point? In April of this year the customer came to our premises to collect goods from the rear of our store, OPC ticketed his vehicle while he was loading. Unfortunately he wrote a letter to OPC hoping for appeal but didnt keep a copy of this though he thinks he may have mentioned in there that it was he who was the driver at the time. Since this letter he is adamant that he received no further letters from OPC until receiving this claim where the amount claimed has now increased to over £200 plus court fees.

May sound harsh but that scheme sounds perfectly legitimate and definitely not underhand. It does seem that your tag name is fairly appropriate!! Ignoring problems rarely means they go away.

It's in the T&C's on their website, displayed at the till, and also appears on the receipt i received on the last item i purchased there. The one difference there may be, on checking the site t&c's it would appear that this reads only 14days, though my receipt clearly shows 28, worth checking.

Great news that you're finally getting somewhere. Whether or not the retailer tells you the responsibility is with the manufacturer they are incorrect. The Sale Of Goods Act is very clear and it is the responsibility of the retailer with whom you have the contract to resolve any issues. You have no contract with the manufacturer at all at any time so they are not obliged to assist, though clearly it is usually in their interests to help out in th event of problem to attempt to preserve their reputation.

Your contract is always with the seller and never expires.

It should be apparent by looking at the difference in height between the kerbs at either side of the dropped bit !

The SIA put out of business several 'decent' clampers, myself included, and effectively only made it cost effective to operate if you are actually clamping and enforcing the charges or by penalising another of the innocent victims in these scenarios the land owner themselves. The SIA are a bureaucratic waste of space.

Just noticed no-one followed this up Tookie43 It doesn't matter how many of these you receive, ignore every single one of them. These [problematic] are kept in business by people paying them without understanding their rights. You do not have a legal obligation to pay them anything, ever... 1 ticket or 100 tickets, makes no difference.

Paint matching ?

Additionally, if the goods were purchased on your credit card you may have another route to claim there.

Horrendous experience, You do not have to submit to a search You do not have to give any details (not even a legal duty to supply these to a police officer, maybe a moral one though) You do not have to go with them anywhere With hindsight you should have insisted that the police were called immediately and if not then just left. As for your merchandise you should ensure these are returned to you at their expense and ask that you are compensated for the wrongful arrest.

Whilst their staff never seem particularly knowledgable they have always been helpful to me (Sutton branch). I've used their policy of no quibble 28day refund on a few occasions and never had a single argument from them.

or refund (of all costs including delivery) - no quibbling - your choice

Unfortunately the delivery date can no longer be relied on as part of the contract. Once they change the date and you accept you are accepting that the delivery date is not of the essence of the contract.

I think you are right oldandrew though there might be able to claim that as the fault already existed and was reported that the service supplied by the engineer on the previous visit was not up to standard and therefore should be fixed under the warranty. Goods and Services have to be up to standard, if the engineer confirmed that the brackets were broken on his previous visit that should have been resolved.

Absolutely right, Amazon are obliged to refund you the full cost of your order (not just the item you are missing) as they have not fulfilled their contract, ie they have not delivered your goods. There is no requirement for you to make an additional purchase to entitle you to this. You should insist on this, if they do not agree, then put your request in writing, letter before action, giving them 7 days to comply, templates available in the library.

Ultimately though it is the retailer who you have your contract with (Sale Of Goods Act) not the manufacturer.

Or an even better idea use Google checkout where possible. Paypal are a joke when it comes to handling disputes charging over the top fees and resolving queries with what appears to be little logic. Ah yes, eBay don't allow Google Checkout as it is an unsafe payment method , is that restriction of trade ?

I'm sure that someone with greater knowledge should be able to clarify, As far as i was aware the 12months guarantee offered by a manufacturer is actually in addition to your statutory rights which state that the goods are fit for purpose. You are theroetically able to request a repair or replacement in a 'reasonable' amount of time, even beyond the 12 months if you could reasonably expect the purchase to last beyond that period, though at £90 (or thereabouts, probably not). I'm unable to find any reference to it but i'm sure i read a case which was successfully brought against a washing machine manufaturer on this.

It's such a shame you are having a hard time from these guys when you should be enjoying the run up to your new baby (good luck with that by the way). Ultimately though as with all the other threads in this section what the management company are doing bringing these guys in doesnt really change anything that much except for some new attempted mail scams coming through the post if you dont comply with their regulations. If you do receive any of their invoices (you refer to them as fines) just drop them in the bin, they really aren't worth the paper they are written on. The same goes for your visitors too. Best of luck and try not to worry.

Looking at the photo, even if the Blue vehicle hadnt turned out of the side street, the first stationary car in the box junction would barely have cleared it, no chance the second one would. The driver should have taken far more care when approaching the junction.

Can anyone give me any pointers on how i go about this, can i do this through MCOL, should I engage legal advice (being this is likely to go through small claims then i'd guess not as wouldn't get the cost back), and idea where i might get help on the wording, are there templates or similar i could look at? TIA Billy

We recently had an experience though we purchases the 'discounted' voucher from a store which included a free print or discount on the main picture. Whilst the products are probably overpriced the pictures we saw were excellent. I wasn't overly keen on the high pressure sales to round off the experience (though we had expected it before we went there - seems fairly usual for this type of product) but we decided to purchase one of the products. We collected the pictures and got them home, on putting them up i noticed a couple of problems, we immediately spoke to the Venture office (in Kingston) and they couldn't have been more helpful. The items were replaced, they even brought them to our home rather than have us collect the replacement. We then noticed another minor problem, again sincere apologies and more help than we could possibly expect (not to mention the £450 gift vouchers they have given for the troubles and cancellation of the credit agreement until we are 100% happy) - what more could we ask for? Considering the type of high pressure sales they use and their high prices, I find it particularly unusual that their customer service has been so good, at least in our experience. IMHO very well done to everyone at Venture for their speedy and helpful response in both my case and it would seem in yours.

An update on the story so far, can anyone give any further pointers - I sent in the suggested letter to the Sony Centre quoting the relevant section of the Sale of Goods act (thanks blitz), and received a response from them stating that they believed that offering the repair is good enough. I have also taken this up with the credit card company using a standard template and showing the breach of contract. They requested copies of the letters I sent to Sony and the responses which have been duly sent. I have today heard that Lloyds believe that a repair is all that is required of Sony and therefore they will take the matter no further. Question - Who should I take this up with now. I have issued a letter before Action to Sony and also included a similar statement in my final communication with Lloyds. Which of the two should I take to court, and does anyone know the process I should take to progress this, any pointers to templates would also be appreciated.? TIA Billy

I'm looking for a little advice before I try and take this any further and would be extremely grateful for any opinions. Background I purchased a new £800 television from 'The Sony Centre' online in January this year. I put the new television up on the wall and very quickly found there was a fault (a loud intermittent buzzing noise). I immediately contacted the retailer, within 12 days but had no response, i kept sending chases and followups until finally nearly a month after my first attempt i threatened to take the case further I had a response. They were very apologetic and offered to send an engineer to reapir the TV. Another month went by before the engineer finally turned up and replaced the power supply. That evening we found the fault had not been rectified. I again asked for a reply but was again kept waiting for days before after more chasing i was told they would need to take the television away for repair. The television has hardly been used since we purchased it (the buzzing is louder than the volume!!), so I asked that they replace it as the television was 'not fit for purpose'. I was told that as they had repaired it once LG would not accept the TV back and the only thing they could offer was another repair back at the engineers. I originally paid for the television by credit card so sent the credit card company a fairly standard request rejecting the goods (supplying them copies of my communications with the Sony centre) and pointing out that i had not had a satisfactory response from the retailer. They spoke to the retailer and apparently are happy that they retailer have offered a repair and will not take the matter any further. The television is clearly not working, having accepted a repair initially from the retailer can they now refuse to replace the unit on these grounds. If this is the case at what point can they give up trying to repair it or can i insist they replace the unit? Who should i take the matter further with, the credit card company or the retailer or both. And what would you recommend as my next step. TIA Billy