Mostly the other side simply doesn't turn up.
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Oh, that does it. They can go and fuck themselves as far as I'm
concerned. This intransigent and stupid attitude of theirs will lose
them many times more than a simple replacement or refund would have
Quite but let's see the outcome of the case first..
If .. they had any sense they'd give you a few quid as compensation and
It's typical useless management. This has cost them business as people
here now perhaps won't go there human nature being what it is.
Now what do you remember more?.
The 364 times your car started OK, or the one time it didn't?..
OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...
Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit
note I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.
The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.
The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have
dealt with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for
much less cost that coming to court.
Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380)
... this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch
manager. Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.
However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if
you accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.
Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.
As I advised you back in April:
"You weren't obliged to accept a credit note but having done so you have
waived your rights to compensation or replacement of the original goods.
Lack of knowledge of your rights under law is not the court's problem or in
fact the seller's. As to the small print on the credit note, again you
should have read it carefully first. I'm afraid you therefore don't have a
claim against them.
I suggest they may well succeed for reasonable out of pocket costs against
you although time away from office is not normally something allowed in the
Small Claims track.
I would think carefully about continuing with this. So far all you have lost
is the filing fee if you discontinue the claim."
20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and consumer rights
advice made this a very simple judgement for me. County court judges are in
the law business - not the right and wrong business. They will rule on the
law and not how hard done you felt yourself to be be. The fact that the
judge disallowed costs and made a statement about MM's behaviour showed how
strongly he felt about how you were treated but there was nothing he could
have done in law to help you further.
Unfortunately most of the advice you received on here was based on complete
lack of legal knowledge and just how people felt about the matter which
motivated you to waste even more money on the claim. This is irrelevant
advice and drowned out the correct advice which was to swallow your loss.
Signal to noise ratio etc or to put it another way, free advice from non
experts is generally worth exactly what you paid for it. Sorry you lost the
filing fee in addition to the cost of the goods. As you say, caveat emptor
and there's no substitute for knowing your rights. A minimal amount of
Googling "before" going back to them to complain would have avoided the
I was one of the herd, as you put it, who advised going ahead with the
claim. That was based on my personal experience that large companies
such as this often do not want to spend time and money defending claims,
even if they reckon they can win them. It's a commercial decision, and I
think MM made a poor one.
Of course, my advice was based on a gamble that MM would not defend the
claim, but I stand by it.
Agreed, although I am slightly surprised there is not an angle of attack
in the unfair contract terms legislation - since he was pushed into
agreeing to a contract without first having sight of it. Perhaps the
argument is that he should have insisted on seeing the full T&Cs first.
True, although I am sure the OP was well aware of the provenance of the
advice he received.
In spite of the poor outcome for the OP, my own feeling is that not all
is lost in this situation - since the result may influence behaviour in
They have injured their public reputation, and also educated anyone who
reads this account to insist on their statutory rights. I expect a good
number of us will be less willing to give them business in the future,
and be far more robust in dealing with any problems with them.
The fact that their "costs" scare tactic was quashed is obviously for
the greater good - and may make them less likely to attempt that in the
They would have no prima facie grounds to do so. The laws on defamation are
somewhat onerous on the accused and the only instance in UK law where the
accused has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser prove the
accused's guilt however a factual reporting of the events of a matter
constitute no grounds for defamation. They might have grounds if they could
accuse the OP of misrepresenting those facts but otherwise no and in any
case no grounds against anyone else unconnected with the matter discussing
what they'd read. As always, someone complaining in public about work or
goods has to be very careful to be strictly accurate and not introduce bias
I have however in the past successfully used the 1997 Protection from
Harassment Act as a private individual to dissuade someone under police
caution from ranting endlessly on as many internet forums as he could find
about engine work he'd asked to be done by me, which was indeed done exactly
as he'd asked, but then he decided when the engine parts he'd obtained from
or had machined by various different parties to his instructions wouldn't
fit together that he'd asked for the wrong thing and it was my fault for not
being psychic enough to know that. However a company cannot rely on this
act, only a private individual.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.