It is an interesting picture that is starting to form. Thermagas Ltd have not filed their accounts this year, but are based in Essex, not Chorley. Thermagas Heating Ltd are based in Chorley, but are showing as "Dormant". With all their different trading styles it may be that they are actually unincorporated, which will make things much more interesting when it comes to enforcing any judgement. I wonder if anyone can join the dots for me. I have seen something mentioned about "M W Distributions" being linked as well. I cannot believe that Chris Whalley is the only person involved, even though all roads seem to lead back to her.

Well, another day goes by, and Thermagas, Thermagas Heating Ltd, Thermagas Spares Centre Ltd or thermagasplc.com, warmorwet.com, or whatever they want to call themselves, have now decided that the best approach is to totally ignore my requests for a resolution. I have offered Christine Whalley (Director), or Chris Whalley as she calls herself, a further week to come up with a solution, but they have made no attempt to agree a date to come and inspect the gas fire. It would seem that this company has no idea of their responsibilities under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. From the look of it I am not alone having problems with this company: http://www.canyoutrustthem.com/index.php?go=details&id=20334 If you are considering buying a Royal 400 Solo remote control gas fire (made by Sirocco in Poland) please be aware that however good the fire may be, if it goes wrong you could well find that the company has no spare parts.

The claim has already been issued. Thermagas just wish to delegate the whole issue to the manufacturers, and have failed to make any agreement whatsoever to resolve the matter. Their exact words are, "..the fire must be left in place for it to be tested for whatever the alleged fault is and a proper determination is made", yet they have failed to make any attempt to carry out this inspection. The original issue was raised with them on 8th March, and the only attempt to diagnose the problem has been by telephone - they have had 5 weeks. SoGA requires that repairs be carried out in a timely manner, and that customers should not be inconvenienced. In cases where repairs are not possible in a reasonable time-frame then a refund or replacement should be offered. The manufacturer (Sirocco) are basically saying that they do not have the parts so cannot fit parts they have not got. They will also not send out an engineer to properly diagnose the fault. Basically, Thermagas have sold me a fire that (for whatever reason) does not work, and due to the alleged lack of spare parts is unlikely to be repairable for many weeks. Personally, I feel that parts could be obtained from one of the fires that are sitting in a warehouse waiting to be sold, since the same model of fire is still available at various retailers. However, this would require someone to get off their backside and actually wish to help resolve the issue. From the snide comments that have been forthcoming from Sirocco I am guessing that they are being somewhat disingenuous when they say they want to resolve the issue quickly. Even without the fault, the product was not advertised as being an obsolete model for which spare parts were not easily available - perhaps another SoGA breach?

Well, had a message last night from Arthur Wright, CEO of Sirocco, again stating that they have no parts so cannot repair the fire, and also accusing me of being unreasonable. Somewhere, someone is missing the point. My contract is with Thermagas, and they have duties under the Sale of Goods Act. I have no contract with Sirocco whatsoever, yet Thermagas seem to believe they can sit back and do nothing. The facts are simple, these gas fires are still being sold and are in stock. I understand that the fires are supplied by the manufacturer directly when an order is placed. Logic therefore suggest that there is a batch of new fires, with the necessary parts, that could be accessed today. The part could then be replaced when the new stock arrives. Simple. As yet, this simple solution has failed to get a response. I think that another issue needs highlighting in all this, and that is the fact that Termagas (warmorwet.com) will not deal with technical questions and complaints about faulty products when you contact them. Their first advice is that you ring the premium rate telephone number supplied by the manufacturer. This number costs £1 per minute, and means Sirocco make money on the call. When will these companies learn that being a retailer comes with responsibilities which you cannot just delegate to others. So, still no progress, no offer to resolve the issue, no date when the issue may be resolved, just complaints about me complaining!

Thermagas promised that a manger from Sirocco would call me back either last night or this morning. No call, no email, no surprise! The issue as far as I am concerned is clear cut. Sirocco will not send out an engineer to inspect the fire, Thermagas (warmorwet.com) will not accept the fire back without an in situ inspection. So, it is a clear stand-off. Claim now issued against Thermagas Ltd under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

I recently bought a Royal 400 Solo Gas Fire from warmorwet.com (Thermagas Ltd). When my Gas Safe engineer came to do the installation it became clear that the fire was faulty. He diagnosed it as a faulty gas valve. I suppose I should have then smelled a rat when I contacted Thermagas to report the fault, as they said they were not responsible and directed me to the Sirocco Fires (the manufacturer) premium rate support line, which charges £1 per minute! Eventually however, after I said I was not prepared to pay for a premium rate telephone call, and that it was their responsibility to resolve the problem, they agreed to call the company themselves. A couple of days later I got a call back from a Sirocco engineer, who said that he could not come out for at least two weeks, but doubted that it was the gas valve. He said it was most likely an electrical fault and said he would send out the relevant part, which turned out to be a battery box. Please remember that this diagnosis was done on the telephone without looking at the fire, and totally went against what my Gas Safe engineer had diagnosed from a full inspection! When the part arrived I called my gas engineer back, and again, nothing worked. His view was that they had just sent the cheapest part in the hope that it would "do the job" and save them having to come out and properly diagnose what was wrong. I contacted the retailer and manufacturer again by email, and eventually the Sirocco engineer rang again. This time he said that he would order a full "tray", and when it arrived he would arrange to visit. I asked that he contact me with an update, as I did not want to allow the issue to drag on too long. Two weeks passed by, and no call. I then rang and left a message with the engineer (no reply), and also contacted Thermagas by email. After a second email I got a promise that a message had been sent to Sirocco asking them to get in touch. This morning I had an email from Arthur Wright, CEO of Sirocco, with an address in Poland. The email said that the parts were out of stock, and I would have to wait for at least a month before the parts would arrive in Poland from Italy, and then be sent to the engineer. He also had the nerve to suggest that I would have to give them my Credit/Debit card number!! I would warn anyone about buying this type of fire (or indeed any Sirocco fire) as clearly if you have a breakdown it is possible that parts will have to be sourced from Italy via Poland. I could understand it if the gas fire was old, but this model is available from numerous suppliers. I would also suggest that for Thermagas to direct its customers to a £1 per minute premium rate telephone number, rather than seek to resolve issues themselves, cannot be said to offer good customer service. The item was faulty when supplied, and I have to say that Thermagas Ltd (trading as Warm or Wet, Leigh St, Chorley) have tried every trick in the book to deflect me from my rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). I have no doubt that they have a stock of these gas fires from which they could obtain the required part, and could easily have arranged to get an engineer to visit and resolve the matter during the last month. Instead, I have been played between retailer and manufacturer. I have now formally rejected the gas fire, and advised them that I want the matter resolving this week. I will update as things develop. It is worth adding that this has been going on throughout the coldest March on record.

As it is the same car I would say that it breaches the rules - certainly it is against the spirit.

Having a trawl round the internet, it looks as though the attempts to get hold of the trust funds are still going through the Jamaican Court of Appeal. A case was listed or w/c 4th June, but I cannot find any details.

The last I heard from the FFCT liquidators was in February, and that was just a copy of a letter to creditors that was sent out in October last year. The court had instructed the liquidator to do a full audit of the trust fund, but there has been no update that I am aware of - have you seen anything more recent?

I had the misfortune to book this hotel, and would advise anyone to avoid it. This is my TA review: The links below provide more reviews, and the EXTREMELY misleading website for the hotel - indeed the cost for breakfast has risen to £5 since it was last updated, the TV's in the rooms do not work, and my room certainly did not include tea and coffee making facilities. There are plenty of budget hotels in the London area that offer a comfortable place to stay - this is NOT one of them! http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g1934185-d1013924-Reviews-Mary_Rose_Inn-Orpington_Kent_England.html http://www.maryroseinn.com/

Since each day we are filmed and watched by cameras everywhere, and we are monitored and recorded on the phone for many legal reasons, being violated and spied upon is part of modern day life. You are entitled to your opinion, but as far as I and Ofcom are concerned, the recording of calls under these circumstances is perfectly legal. If you have the resources and legal knowledge to try and create some caselaw to the contrary, then please feel free to give me a call - although of course you will already know that your call is being recorded, and in any case I am ex-directory.

I could not possibly comment.

Okay...let's try ofcom then: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/consumer/advice/faqs/prvfaq3.htm I record all calls for my own purposes - just as CAG advise all users to do when the are able. One of those purposes is to settle any dispute over what someone may have agreed verbally. Quite correctly, I will inform the caller concerned IF a dispute occurs at a later date that I have a recording of the call. Generally that settles the issue and there is no need for further disclosure. As far as using such evidence in court, yes, it is correct that the other party may not agree to it being used. Of course, a judge will make his own mind up of what that says about their case. Having said that, on every occasion where I have raised the fact that a call has been recorded, the other party has accepted liability for what was said and settled the dispute. I would add that, in this particular case, I have not had to disclose the recorded calls to anyone. If Motability asks for them, I will advise that they need to seek permission from Bristol Street Motors for me to release them. Tell me, what are Motability going to think if Bristol Street refused permission?

Had a call from Motability yesterday, and they are not happy at all with the treatment that we have had. I gather that discussions are taking place with senior management at Bristol Street over their procedures. As yet, I have not had any further contact from Bristol Street, but I have told Motability that I expect a full explanation of why their Motability accredited staff are misrepresenting Motability policy, and why I was persistently lied to by at least two members of their staff. I also require assurances that this will not happen again at the company. I also wish to discuss the time, and inconvenience that this has caused. So, some progress, but let's see what Bristol Street Motors do next.

Interesting article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article740615.ece This is pretty much the opinion that we have obtained.

He is wrong.

The problem is that it takes about two months for a new car to arrive at the showroom from the manufacturer. In relation to recording telephone calls it is perfectly legal for an individual to record their own calls for their own personal use - and personal use would include verifying facts in a legal case or consumer dispute. Personal use is also likely to include posting exerts on your own Internet blog, or on a forum. On the other hand, a company or organisation MUST advise an individual, and must also adhere to data protection legislation regarding the use they make of such a recording. CAG advises that where possible users record telephone conversations to ensure that facts cannot later be distorted.

Well, the lies continue. It seems that Ted (see below) has now gone on holiday - strange when he was supposed to be handing a car over to me today! Just had a chap on the phone from Bristol Street Derby, who basically said nothing. He can't speak to Phil Bexon (again, see below), and he can't now speak to Ted - very convenient indeed. Other than to acknowledge that I have complained, I cannot really see why he bothered to call. Complaint now made to Motability - lets see if they are going to condone their trained and accredited dealers telling lies to customers? This is the letter I sent to Bristol Street Head Office on Friday:

Cheers - thanks for that, will have a look over there.

Be warned, Bristol Street Motors Derby are a total shambles, and have let us down badly with our replacement Motability vehicle. I suppose we should have smelled a rat when we booked a test drive a few months ago. Initially no record was made of the booking, so we were left waiting in vain for the car arriving. When we asked about where the car was we were told that no booking had been made (although we had received a confirmation), and that nobody could come out that day. It took another week to organise a new test drive, only for the salesman to turn up saying he was short of time - the result was that our "test-drive" lasted less than ten minutes, and we never even got to drive the car. Anyway, we did decide that the car would be suitable, and duly placed the order. We agreed on the colour (which was subsequently not available). We agreed that if the deposit was reduced on the new price list that we would pay the lower price (we were later told that this was not possible - it was only when I noted that I had a recording of the telephone conversation that they reduced the deposit). Numerous other things were discussed, including that I would collect the car on Monday 18th, and that my wife would not be present when the car was to be collected. Despite this again being recorded it seems that the staff member was not supposed to have said this, and now they are refusing to release the car for three weeks. If you are buying a car from Bristol Street Motors Derby, I would strongly advise that you get EVERYTHING in writing, and if you can, ensure that you record all telephone conversations. I have mp3 evidence that their staff tell lies, and then they make excuses when they are caught out - and they NEVER say sorry for messing you about. I have to say that I have never come across a more disorganised company since we started our involvement with Motability.

Limitation on a martgage debt is 12 years, and I am guessing that it works both ways.

Just a thought. From my experience family loans would not normally be classed as income, but I think I can see why they may have made the decision. Firstly, if the loan was substantial, and there was no immediate provable agreement to refund, this may cause questions to be asked. This will be especially so when the amounts start to get near the £6 savings limit. Another thing that worries me is that you say your mother loaned you money "most months". This may be being questioned as a "regular income", and not a "loan", which would be more likely to be a one-off, or occasional thing. Unfortunately people will often make decisions on an individual's circumstances without fully investigating - mainly due to lack of time and resources, and sometimes on nothing more than a feeling that something is not right. This sort of decision making is often the cause of much misery and hardship, and can be very difficult to overturn without some input from a professional advice worker with access to the right people.

Sorry to see what you are going through, however I would suggest that you need to get some legal, as well as benefit advice. My feeling is that you need to speak to the Citizen's Advice Bureau, who have advisor's that can give you the help you need to get through this. They will also be able to get direct contact with supervisors and managers at the various agencies, and hopefully unravel some of this for you. They can be contacted on 08444 111 444, or look for your local office - if you cannot find the number your local library will have it. Let us know what they say, and I am sure that some of our members with benefit experience will post on specific issues you have raised. It is most important though that you speak to the CAB, as they can work with you to plan a way through this nightmare.

It depends on the administrators, and what financial arrangements have been made. I am presuming that the old company has gone into liquidation, and a new company has been set up. Legally the debts remain with the old company, but part of the buy-out may have included a clause to deal with customers like yourself. Very often administrators just wash their hands of these things, and leave people to join the queue with the other creditors. They take the view that the money from the buy-out should be distributed amongst ALL creditors equally (or as the law allows), rather than offer more goodwill to the customers. Generally the advice from Consumer Direct (Trading Standards) is to seek to get a chargeback from your debit card provider. If they can't/won't help, then approach the administrator directly. If all else fails you may need to go through Trading Standards, but if that ends up being the case you could just end up waiting in line with the other creditors.

Excellent news - a great result indeed.