Thanks for the reply! ...I don't expect them to pay the lot, but 50% of the undamaged would be a massive help. Is there any case history online that I can use to back up this argument? Or will threatening the FOS being enough? Cheers! M

Evening all! I'll try to keep this short Several weeks ago the floor began to collapse in the bathroom of my flat. It turns out that 2 leaks (1 in bathroom and 1 in adjacent kitchen) had weekened the floor (rotted boards/joists) and caused it to sink .. taking the loo/bath with it. The stud wall in between bathroom/neighbour along with a significant portion of kitchen cabinets were rotten too and fell apart on removal. Insurance company are coming back to me and saying they'll pay for 50% of the kitchen (in their opinion the damaged portion), they won't pay for a new sink even though buy replacing toilet/bath it now means the sink is horrible and doesn't match and they're also not agreeing to pay for the stud wall in between flats to be repaired properly with fireproof plasterboard. The Insurer is Ageas. Where do I stand re: matching items with such a claim? Surely the point of insurance is to restore you to the point you were at before the problem occurred. I'm going to be left with a non matching kitchen and bathroom - not how it was before. I'm already down £700 in excesses so where to go? Is it worth challenging? Thanks! Monty

According to them it was available and other customers are happy with it. I reckon a lot of them probably laid the wrong stuff unwittingly Monty

A contract was formed and now broken by them. I cannot now get the goods for the same price so I will have to pay more. This is as a result of them breaking their own contract. I should be left in the position had the contract never been breached, rather than the position had the contract never been formed. I believe this is the relevant section of legislation: Section 51 (3) Sale of Goods Act 1979 Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered or (if no time was fixed) at the time of the refusal to deliver. Totally wrong? Thanks! M

Evening all! In October we purchased 30 packs of solid oak flooring from B&Q, we used a 20% discount code at the time as part of a promotion that has now ended. On delivery we discovered that what we received was not solid oak, it was engineered oak flooring. It clearly didn't match what we'd paid for, or what it said on the box. B&Q re-ordered in the hope that the new boxes would contain the right stuff, but alas they did not. So they're now offering us a full refund, which sucks because: - We cannot re-purchase with discount code - An alternative product would cost considerably more from them or other sources at this time We paid in full, they agreed to deliver me the solid oak flooring and now they cannot. Their inability to fulfil my order is going to cost me money, simply put. I spoke to consumer direct .. they stated that sales of goods act means they only have to refund despite the fact I'm out of pocket. Supply of goods and services act apparently says that they would be liable for me getting the stuff from somewhere else and it costing me more but that doesn't apply here - not sure why, I did ask but she didn't seem too sure on the differences. After some googling this sounds like it falls squarely into section 51 of the sales of goods act territory, loss of bargain. Anyone agree? If so I should be able to go out and purchase goods that are similar and then claim the rest from B&Q as it is their fault that I had to do so in the first place. Some further questions / assumptions: - I paid in full, therefore the contract is binding right? I dont have a copy of their retail store T&C to read. - In order to purchase from elsewhere I need my refund as it is a large chunk of cash and we're in the middle of a renovation project. Can I accept the refund 'without prejudice' and then still make a claim later? Or is there another term for this? - As the goods are hard to compare directly (it's not like buying a Hotpoint XYZ which allows direct price comparisons) who is the judge of what is an equivalent to what we should have had? I'm speaking to the store manager tomorrow, just want to be nicely armed with the facts before I enter into any conversation. thanks! Monty PS: I dont mind going to small claims on this one, I did for another case a little while ago and the thrill of the win was well worth it

Hi all, I have to attend a hearing at the county court (small claims) with regards to monies paid for a wedding ring last November .. here's the long and short of it: - Wedding ring tried on and ordered, paid for in full - When it arrived it was incorrect 'weight' so we paid extra for better 'weight' and a new one was ordered - On receipt of 2nd ring we noticed that it was without a hallmark, shop offered a replacement but we turned this offer down and request a refund - The refund was rejected and they pestered us to collect a replacement ring (with hallmark this time) ever since After much time spent trying to reason with them (stating sale of goods act which says you're entitled to refund if goods aren't as described) they refused on the grounds that the ring was sized for us, and that it did indeed have a hallmark after all but it was 'polished off' in error. I was ignored after a while so I took it to small claims court who awarded me judgment (retailer didn't respond) and I then enforced the judgment via county bailiffs. Out of the blue they're alive again and I had to go to court while they applied to set it aside on the grounds that their MD was off sick - fishy but nothing I could do really - so back to court next week I go! All the advice I've received has been to go for it, and that I'm well within my rights to ask for a refund after receiving bad goods and that I dont have to give them a chance to rectify it but as the date approaches I'm getting edgy .. doesn't help that the MD's daughter is a bloody magistrate - not a fair right! Any hints / tips from people here on how to deal with this in court? Happy to post more details if it helps ... Thanks! Monty

Hi all, I've been at a property for over 2 years now (since April 2007) and about to move out. Was informed, to my shock, that I need to give 2 months notice - is that right? I thought 1 was compulsory? The terms from the agreement that I think are useful are: The Term 6 Months beginning on 20/04/07 1. This Agreement is intended to create (as amended by the Housing Act 1996)an Assured Shorthold Tenancy as defined in Section 20 Housing Act 1988 and the provisions for the recovery of possession by the Landlord in Section 21 thereof apply accordingly. 1.1 This Agreement may not be determined earlier than 6 months from the date of this Agreement other than pursuant of clause 4 hereof but may subsequently be determined by either party by giving not less than 2 months prior written notice (ending on a Rent paying day) to the other party. ..I read that as being 2 months notice if I leave after 6 months - is that the case? Is it watertight? Thanks! Monty