The no written quote thing is an evidential issue. You can probably force this issue and get it sorted, but it will strain your relationship with your neighbours. The guy is obviously working on such low margins, and seems to have poor admin too, that he is just unable to sort it out - he just does not have the funds to do so. It seems to be a fairly unprofessional outfit. This puts you in a really difficult position, almost lose-lose. What do you least prefer - the door as is or the fall-out in forcing the issue? I might be tempted to try a negotiated compromise on the problem, paying maybe 50% and keeping the door. After all, it is only the outside of the door. In all the places I've lived I've never had a choice what sort of front door I've had.

the 2012 stuff is restricted, but providing you are ok with that, i.e. you have permission, then you might be on reasonable grounds.

Both, depending on the circumstances. I appreciate that doesn't help much. If you have contracted for a thing at a certain price (and provided that the contract is valid) then if the seller doesn't supply the thing you can get it elsewhere. If this costs you more then you can recover your losses, i.e. the difference in the sale price.

but the govt/public owns lots of stuff that we then pay for (as customers) and then the directors etc make money out of it. I'm not sure I really follow what your problem is. Many companies will have no limit on the number of directors they need, an time in a job doesn't necessarily restrict how much you get paid, especially for jobs at the top of massive companies like the post.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ You'll need to select the right company and then click on this. Then go to 'order information on this company' on the right. The information is freely available, in that it is easy to get, but there will be a cost to get it.

if you've sent off the AQ then there is little help we can provide now. Time to play the cards as they fall. I think you have a reasonable chance if you clearly and concisely argue your case. Keep it simple, don't try and get too legal and complicated. He said it was something, it wasn't, what you bought was not what was advertised.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. You'll see from earlier in the thread I've advised on how to potentially make this case, and have critiqued claims that have been posted. Fuzz can decide whether to accept my advice or not. From what I have seen I have concerns that the case is as clear cut and as easy to win as folk think. It is winnable, but it will be hard and the argument needs to be spot on. Too many of the arguments that have been posted here are ropey.

You'd hope so, but it often isn't like that. Just go through these boards, especially the debt collection ones and you'll get a flavour. You will need to put a simple, non-contradictory claim across that is clear and accurate. In many cases what a claimant thinks is a clear case is often not to the impartial and objective outsider. If you try and argue stuff that has been decided very definitively in higher courts you'll get nowhere. Likewise, don't take a scatter gun approach and throw everything you have at them. this is often a recipe for disaster with litigants in person tripping themselves up. It is designed to be simple, but it is a court and it is your job to prove your case. On an issue like this, it will be tough. I wish you luck, but I hope you are being careful, there is quite a great deal of scope to hash this up. You'll have a better idea where you stand when you get their defence.

True. But in order to make a good claim, you need to put forward a clear, reasoned, accurate legal argument. Most litigants in person, or google lawyers fail because they don't properly understand the issues and obsess over irrelevancies. For eg, the issues about when s75 applies are fairly well established. Not usually worth arguing about unless it is your only argument.

so. What happened?

"The LACORS arguments are quite strong with case law and CCA interpretations quoted." They would be if they got them right and in context. A court would find this as persuasive as cheese. It is too confused and too contradictory. The other side would just pull out the bits that support their case and would then throw it back at you. This leaves you with the situation where you need to discredit the document yourself or try and argue that some bits are right and others wrong. Which is what the other side will be doing. It will all end badly.

Yes - read very thoroughly, and you'll note it is a quite odd, and generally contradictory document. I have substantial concerns about its legal accuracy and clarity. It seems to suggest that there is certainty where there is none, and doesn't explain damages properly. Also, the stuff about the OFT/Lloyds case is very odd. It seems to be entirely contradictory, quoting case law that it then says, at the end of the para, in a round about way, that it doesn't apply. They are right by the way, none of it does, so why quote it? It is written in a very undergraduate-LLB style. All academics and no practical application. Again, para three seems to be saying one thing and then concludes to the contrary with the last sentence. I suspect that this document was written by one person and then a lawyer or someone that knew what they were talking about added in some sentences at the end, that is why there is some stuff that is right, but that that the bulk of the document is just plain odd. Some, for eg the bit about circumstances changing giving rise to a claim is just plain wrong. In summary - this is the only really important part: "...[a] claimant cannot recover damages for any part of his loss consequent on the defendant's breach of contract which the claimant could have avoided by taking reasonable steps...wherever the innocent party, following the defendant's breach, is able to find substitute performance from a 3rd party, the mitigation rules give him a strong incentive to accept the substitute" (Chitty...)." This means - if it is the same course, you need to accept the replacement. In my view, not helpful at all to any cases being brought. A competent trainee would destroy any arguments based on it.

stop smoking. Save a fortune. Be healthier and have a nice holiday.

This is irrelevant for UK stuff. In the UK we get six years to pursue a claim.

If the car has been destroyed, then you can't sue for a breach of contract relating to it; it can't be rejected. It is also going to be difficult to establish a breach. The two issues are not separate.

1. This thread is quite old. I dare say it is resolved one way or the other. 2. Nothing is ever bullet proof.

i think that you are a bit buggered, honestly. There was a failure of consideration for the first sale and so title did not pass, so he had no title to sell to you. this will probably leave you without the car but with a civil claim against the person that sold you the car. I might be wrong though; this is my gut response and I've not looked into it properly.

I think that this is going to be a hard case for you to mount, not impossible, but hard. The tests you need to meet under the SOGA can generally be limited by the price paid and the expected quality of goods of that type; by that I mean that the standard you might expect of a new Landy is not that you will expect of a ten year old model. In many respects, you almost need to expect some problems. Sometimes what is said in an advert is a condition or term of the contract, sometimes it is a 'mere puff' and there is no right of redress attached. The trader might simply argue that the vehicle was in 'excellent condition' for its age and type, not as might be compared to a model with half the mileage and only 3 years old. Even if you win, the having it repaired might go out of the window as it is disproportionate to the purchase price. I think that the argument might fly, as there is a 25% difference, but it is something to take into consideration. I also think that the argument should be that it is not of satisfactory quality because it is not free from defects or that it is reasonably durable, not that it is not fit for the purpose. It is, it just needs repair. If you'd bought it to seat 10 people, then it would not be fit for the purpose but as it is, with repair, it is. If I have read it right, is it the case that the dealer did some work on the car before you bought it and that this was caused the fault?

you in england or scotland?

The shareholders will own it. You can get a list of who they are from Companies House, although it might cost you a few quid. The general public can be shareholders. The only difference between a plc and a ltd co is that with a plc the shares are openly traded on the stock market. With a ltd co they might be, depending on the number of shares and the size of the company. Google seems to indicate the RM employees might be shareholders, or were given the opportunity to buy shares. Not sure how far this plan got or whether it was implemented.

this is all very odd - what is with all the private PMs? that sort of thing always seems ropey to me. As to the claim - can't add anything to the above advice. Depending on the amounts involved, and what actually happened with the photos, then I'd consult a professional.

It isn't that the agreement isn't valid, or that it isn't bound by the consumer credit act, it is that section 75 of the consumer credit act (the bit that makes barclays liable for any breaches of contract or misrep on the part of advent) does not apply. Most of the rest of the consumer credit act will apply to the agreement.

A google tells me it was bbc breakfast a couple of years ago. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2062757 That is the point - next directory is an account only business. There isn't an online version of the Next shop you'd otherwise go to. The t's and c's (which you can access at any time) are reasonably clear about this: "the supplier of the goods featured is Next Directory.' Although they are less clear about what this actually means, it does explain what is happening. It should, in my view, have some sort of fairly obvious sign saying 'this isn't next, it is a credit based catalogue company'.

I'm sure this was on BBC breakfast or something a year or so ago. I think that the problem is that Next don't sell stuff online - Next Directory do. They are two separate beasts.

if it is faulty, and if it isn't like the one you saw on display, then you have a claim but might need to sue to enforce your rights. Often in these cases sofas do just need plumping and/or bedding in and are not actually faulty or are not sufficiently different from the one on display to allow a claim. On you know if it is OK or not. You don't need to go to the furniture ombudsman if you don't want to. In your place I might tell the finance company that you are taking it to the financial ombudsman. this will get it escalated to another department (probably) and they'll be looking at a bill of £500 or so whether they win or not. You might get it sorted.