See #17 and #18... [Edit: it's the fabric under the sofa. Usually plain hessian]

Perhaps. But it can't do any harm to spell out to the UK based operation what the legal position is. That would be my next step. What would be the cause of action against DHL in any case? Was @Andyorch wrong when he said ?

Courts enforce the law - they don't enforce ADR decisions except incidentally insofar as those decisions align with the law. If the retailer won't cough up you will be suing them because they have breached s29 of the legislation I linked to above, not because they haven't complied with some ADR decision. So you don't need to look it up: "29 Passing of risk (1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms. (2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of— (a) the consumer, or (b) a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods" What this means is that the goods remain the responsibility of the seller until they have been delivered into your "physical possession". If they are never delivered to you, you are entitled to a full refund. That's what will form the basis of any legal claim you make, and I don't think it will do any harm to make that clear in your letter before claim. It makes it look like you know what you are talking about, which always helps... At the same time it can't do any harm to remind the retailer that they have already lost the ADR decision - but I don't think that is the main plank of your case. Was the legal position not covered when you prepared your ADR complaint? Anyway, see what @BankFodder suggests tomorrow regarding the content of your letter before claim [NB - I was in the middle of editing my post #28 when you replied to the unedited version with your post #29]

I don't think you are suing them to enforce the ADR decision. You are suing them because under s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) the goods remain at the seller's risk until they are delivered into the physical possession of the consumer. That means that you are entitled to a full refund for any goods you have paid for that are never delivered to you. You are basically making the same case that you must have made to the ADR service for them to find in your favour... [You can mention the ADR decision in support of your case, but the legal substance of any court claim you make is based on the law as outlined above, not on the ADR decision itself]

Ah. So it's neither of the things I thought it would be... Assuming that the torn dust sheet and missing legs meant that the delivered sofa did not conform to contract (eg it was not of satisfactory quality) I think if I were you I'd be arguing with Natuzzi that when you you were exercising your statutory right under s20 and s22 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to make a "short-term rejection" of the sofa for a full refund, and that they should have refunded you then. The legislation doesn't give the retailer any right not to accept your rejection when you exercise the short-term right to reject. The retailer plays no part in it. See what others (eg @BankFodder) think, but I'd be inclined to take the position that when you telephoned them to ask for a refund you were clearly exercising your statutory short-term right to reject the goods and you are owed a full refund. If they won't play ball you'll have to consider suing them. (I assume you do not want to accept the repaired sofa and their offer of £300? You have to remember that it can always be a bit of a lottery if these things get to court - you can't necessarily predict with certainty that you would win) [NB - all the above is based on the assumption that the torn dust sheet and missing legs justified your rejection of the sofa in the first place. Obviously Natuzzi will argue that they didn't. I can't say either way as I wasn't there...]

What do Natuzzi mean when they refer to the "dust sheet"? Are they referring to the actual fabric covering of the sofa itself, or do they mean a temporary dust sheet put over the sofa to protect its fabric covering during transport? If the former then I think you still have a remedy and you might even still be able to exercise the short-term right to reject. When was the sofa originally delivered? And was it returned on the same day? And I presume Natuzzi still have it in their possession - it hasn't been returned to you yet?

@jk2054 - are you sure the decision is legally binding on the retailer? I ask because in #8 you posted a quote saying: "Whilst the Final Determination is legally binding on the trader once it is accepted, RetailADR does not have the express power to enforce traders to oblige with our Final Determination. This power is reserved strictly for the Courts." What does the bit in bold mean? Is a decision only legally binding on the retailer once they've accepted it? I presume this retailer is not accepting the decision and therefroe it is not legally binding? (I'm asking because I don't understandwhat that bit means) I note rule 8.6 of the scheme says it will fine members £100 ( ) if they don't adhere to a decision. Have you asked the scheme if they are fining the retailer and - if not - why not? If the retailer isn't going to cough up you I think you'll have to sue them. (Out of interest - what was the substance of the complaint? Goods not received? Can you explain what happened?0

If I were you I'd simply go back and quote s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to them: "29 Passing of risk (1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms. (2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of— (a) the consumer, or (b) a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods." If they (Kooples) are saying that the courier left the goods unattended outside your house, then they are rather stupidly admitting that the goods were never delivered into your "physical possession" from the outset, and that they remained liable for them. You can further point out to them that the legislation says nothing about you having to provide proof of identity in order to get your refund. Who you are is irrelevant anyway. All they need to do is to process the refund to the card you originally paid with. If they still won't cough up you'll need to send a Letter Before Claim and sue them. [Edit: a Declaration of Honour sounds decidedly French. Perhaps that - plus proof of ID - is how they do things in France]

I hope this forum has not given questionable advice...

@BillyS - assuming you follow dx100's advice, please let us know how your application gets on. Although he says: I suspect that if you were at fault in not updating your V5C, then you might find that the TEC will not automatically accept it, and will instead "... contact the local authority to ask them whether or not they will allow the motorist to" make the application. If you have failed to update your V5C when you should have done, it's vitally important that you give an acceptable explanation as to why you are out of time, otherwise the LA will likely tell the court that they should not accept the application. (See post #4 by @Bailiff Advice in the thread linked to by dx100.)

If that is true, can you explain what this is intended to mean? "19 Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods... ... (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. [my bold]" see: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) Like the OP I took it to mean what it appears to say. That if goods fail to conform* to contract within 6 months of purchase, then there is a statutory presumption that the non-conformity (or "fault" - call it what you will) was present at purchase**. If the wording does not mean that, what do you think it means? Under s19(15)(a) it is - of course - open to the retailer to rebut the statutory presumption. * The screen is faulty. ** Do you think there is a significant distinction between "... was present at purchase..." and what you describe as "... at time of manu..."? If so, what is the distinction, and why is it important?

That's correct. It's in s19(14) and (15)(a) here: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk). s19(14) creates the presumption and (15)(a) allows the retailer to rebut that presumption The difficulty you have is that Apple appear to have already confirmed that the "fault" was not present at purchase from JL, but was probably caused by you trapping the cable when closing it: You might find it difficult to convince JL on the balance of probabilities that this fault was present or inherent when you bought it..

Two minutes going to Havering's website and searching for "S8 permit" shows it's to do with school parking enforcement on Farm Road and Shade Mews in respect of Parsonage Farm school. (Is that where you are talking about?) The page tells you how to apply for a permit and what documents you need in order to do so. (And it looks like you can apply via MiPermit?) School parking enforcement - The school street scheme | Parking tickets and traffic fines | The London Borough Of Havering WWW.HAVERING.GOV.UK Pay or appeal parking fines issued within Havering If you are going to drive along Farm Road and/or Shade Mews you obviously need a permit. I don't see how you can challenge the PCN. The signage seems quite clear and the photo shows you driving past the two signs at the entrance to the road in question. You probably need to pay up before it escalates futher to bailiffs, but see if any other posters have any good ideas re a challenge. (PS - you might want to explore why MiPermit wouldn't let you buy a permit. That might form the basis of a challenge, but I simply don't know)

Forgive my ignorance, but who are "Mipermit" and what do they have to do with a council permit? Why didn't you just apply direct to Havering Borough Council for a permit like your housemate told you he had done in his email - "In September last year, a fellow housemate mentioned via email that there were restrictions in our area coming, they'd applied for a permit and I should to." I know you go on to say that it was unclear who you should apply to, but his email to you clearly shows forwarded confirmation from Havering that they had accepted his online application for a permit. Why didn't you just do the same? The signage seems quite clear to me. But see what others suggest. (If you still live there, do you now have a S8 permit from Havering?)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But what I don't understand is that although the claimant's particulars of claim seem to be seeking a declaration about the original right of way granted in July 1987, the OP seems to be implying that they (the OP) were deceived into granting further access rights during mediation in 2018. (I'm afraid I've found the OP's account of what has happened very confusing and very difficult to follow). @The Skiing Gardener said post #14: "We know about the reversing but both neighbours fitted gates which has stopped us turning. All the delivery drivers are also reversing into the main road too." This happens all the time in my neighbourhood. The answer is to reverse into your drive and not out of it.

Well if you've already complained to them and all they did was suggest you seek legal advice, then I suggest you seek that advice and consider suing them. You said previously that you've already spent £25k, but that your solicitor waived a further £5k in fees that was due to them. Were there any conditions attached to them not charging you that £5k? What was that £5k in respect of? I don't know about complaints to the legal ombudsman, but the OP should also be complaining to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA | Problems with law firms and individuals | Solicitors Regulation Authority) The problem is that I suspect the OP wants to complain about what their solicitor did (or failed to do...) back in 2018. If the OP wants to sue their former solicitor they need to do it within 6 years of whatever it is they're complaining about.

@The Skiing Gardener - a couple of questions for you. (Please number your answers appropriately. DO NOT simply quote my questions and then add your answers within the body of the quote. It makes it VERY confusing to follow your answers.) 1. Ref posts #3and #8: Are you saying that the terms of the final Tomlin Order you signed during mediation on 30 May 2018 were different from the terms you thought you had agreed on? I don't understand this. Did you not read what you were signing? Did the solicitor representing you not explain to you what you were signing? 2. What exactly in the Tomlin Order are you unhappy about? Is it the bit about access being increased at some point from 3m to 5.5m? Is it that increased width that the current claim is about? Or are you unhappy about the resurfacing and maintenance work? (It seems to me that everybody is contributing to the costs so I'm not sure what the issue might be?) 3. When you discovered (in 2018?) that the terms of the Tomlin Order were different from what you thought you'd agreed to, what steps did you or your solicitor take? 4. What outcome are you hoping for? The current claim seems only to be for £240 (and statutory interest) plus a declaration that the claimant "... enjoys a right of way over the whole of the Access (coloured grey on the plan attached to the transfer dated 31st July 1987)". Are you disputing the 1987 right of access? 5. I'm not being funny, but what have you spent £25k in legal fees on? So far as I can tell there was some sort of initial claim in 2018(?) but that was resolved (or should have been resolved) by the Tomlin order. Did legal representation for that cost you £25k? 6. You say you now have to reverse out of your property because of electric gates installed by the claimant. If the gates have been installed on the claimant's property, how do they affect you? Are they blocking a right of access you had? I don't understand how their installation has caused a problem.

I hate to say this, but if you've already spent £25k on legal fees and to no avail, I'm not sure what you can expect from posters on an internet forum. Disputes about property law issues can be very complex and very expensive and I'd suggest really require paid for professional advice. But see what others say. @BankFodder is usually very good in terms of giving reliable advice. (I think if I were you I'd be considering suing my - former? - solicitor...)

Thanks but I think it would be a bit easier to understand the problem and the sequence of events if the OP could give an itemised timeline of what has happened and when. eg: "1. The right of access which is the subject of this dispute was created on dd/mm/yyyy when the then owner of property A granted it to the then owner of property B. The land the right of access was granted over was defined as... 2. We bought property A on ....... 3. We had no problems with the then owners of propety B... 3. The claimant bought property B on ... 4. Starting in mm/yy the claimant has repeatedly complained about... etc etc". At the moment I'm not sure if there have been two claims made, and one has already gone to mediation, or what. The OP made no mention of mediation in the first post and just attached three documents with no real background explanation of what it was about. And the hearing is less than two weeks away. Why has the claimant retained a QC for a right of way dispute? Has the OP really already paid over £25k to their solicitor - who seems to have had the wool pulled over their eyes? I think more detail and background is required.

I think you should redo your second post as the way it's come out is more than a little confusing...

And I suspect that also goes for the other people whose Amazon accounts the OP has implicated... [Edit: And because other people are involved in this I think it might be unwise for the OP just to ignore it and not try to get to the bottom of it. I think they owe it to the others to try to bottom this out...]

Before you send* anything to amazon: Are you saying that you actually submitted your SAR request to the solicitors (not to Amazon) and that you are presuming that the solicitors have passed it onto Amazon? Hence the email to you from amazon asking for proof of identity? *I think BankFodder's draft in #58 was based on the premise that you had made your SAR direct to Amazon itself and not to the solicitors. I'm not certain the tone is 100% appropriate if you didn't address the original SAR direct to Amazon. (Like BankFodder I'm getting more confused about what has actually happened and what you are doing...)

@jenin2 - have the police given you a timescalse for getting back to them? If you still have some time left I'd be inclined to agree with @honeybee13 that you should wait to see whether @Man in the middle turns up with good advice.

Unless you either want to pay more for your energy "on principle", or your energy supplier won't allow you to pay by direct debit, it works out about 6% cheaper to pay by DD. It would seem odd not to want to... Cut unfair direct debits - MoneySavingExpert

OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually mean equality of arms and that you aren't somebody whose been misled by FMOTL nonsense. Equality of arms (an ECHR concept) basically refers to the conduct of a trial. If you have so far only received a NIP/s172 request then you are nowhere near a trial yet. If you haven't reached the SJPN (or similar) stage yet then you don't really know what evidence the police have against you. All you probabably have is a photo (taken from the front) to assist you in identifying the driver. If you were actually caught speeding when travelling away from the detection device, I'm sure they'll have evidence which shows that and which they can produce in court. But until you are actually charged with an offence, you aren't entitled to see the evidence against you, so you don't actually know yet what they have. Have you received a SJPN yet or are you still at the NIP/s172 stage? Unless you are confident that you could prove in court that the evidence against you does not show you were speeding, then I'm afraid you are in danger of playing "silly buggers" if the best straw you can clutch at is whether the evidence (which you haven't seen all of yet) shows you driving towards the device or away from it. This man was playing silly buggers with his children's inheritance: Man spends £30,000 fighting £100 speeding fine - BBC News The time to dispute the evidence against you is when you know you've actually seen all the evidence that the prosecution seeks to rely on - not before. If you aren't at the SJPN stage you don't yet know what that evidence is.