They will pass your letter to their insurers, and the likelihood is that you will hear from solicitors appointed by the insurers. 

I assume that it was you who purchased these goods. 

As purcaser you have rights - and the seller has obligations - under the Consumer Rights Act. In particular, goods should be of satisfactory quality. Given that more than 30 days have elapsed since purchase, if these goods are not of satisfactory quality you do not have the right to reject them, but have the right to repair or replacement. You should raise this with the seller. 

is it relevant? 

If you release capital early, then - to state the obvious - it will not be available to you later. I am sure that you realise this: just make sure that you think these things through carefully. 

@BankFodder?? 

I think you need to emulate the current PM in this one respect: draw a line under it and move on. 

I mean that if you do what dx suggests and try to put in expert evidence via your witness statement, a vigilant judge will take a thick red pen to those parts of your statement and not take any account of the evidence. Exper evidence can only be introduced with permission of the court, and must comply with CPR Part 35. Attempts to introduce such evidence by any other means should be rejected. 

has this solicitor not given that advice? 

Really dx? *raised eyebrow*

An attempt to get expert evidence in by the back door but without permission of the court will be rejected by a vigilant judge, and the evidence disallowed. 

@honeybee13? 

It is of course possible to discuss procedural points without getting all nosey about the substance of the case. If the OP wishes to discuss on this basis, he should be permitted to do so. 

But an abnormal bank will? 

@honeybee13someone who knows came along earlier! 

There is plenty of guidance in the CPR. See 23.4.

@Ethel Street? 

You may be able to take out a secured loan, with you only as the borrower, but your husband would have to agree to the charge on the property.

Read Chapter 11 of the Judiciary's handbook for litigants in person.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf

Unless Mr Scott has deceived Currys to take advantage of a term such as only one per customer. Otherwise, I'd like to give you the information you're asking for

That is the point. In your claim you do not specify the latest SAR. They think your claim is about the earlier one. It is a misunderstanding that can be easily cleared up. 

It would not look good for Currys.

Anyway, I've finished up my coffee, it's time to catch the train. 

The voucher does not say that it may only be used on specified products. It says that one will be issued if you meet the trade in conditions, and that it may not be used for airtime or certain phones. There is nothing to say that you cannot use it to buy any other product. It's a one-time thing, it just happens. 

To answer the question whether Currys has a case against you, someone will need to analyse the detailed terms of the offer, anything you signed etc. 

This is not the shoplifting type of case that RLP pursues. If anything, Currys will pursue you, but I can't see this happening. You took advantage of a weakness in Currys' design of the particular promotion. The optics would not be good. 

I have the impression that your friend's gift card details may have been used fraudulently. Perhaps he should investigate it further with Currys. I am not sure he is right if his attitude is that you just don't argue any more. 

Maybe they listened to your advice not to give away the goods too soon. 

Your Particulars of Claim are nowhere near as clear as your summary of events. Did you ever receive an acknowledgement of your 2022 SAR? 

As quoted by you, the application notice and witness statement do not appear to comply with Practice Direction 24 para 2.3(b).

You have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Did you pay by credit card? That would give you additional avenues of redress.

Yes, sorry, dx is right.