Machine Mart - small claim

On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:

I think you should go for it. Make sure the court hearing is a local court for you, not Machine Mart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/07/13 16:52, GB wrote:

Do it.
Mostly the other side simply doesn't turn up.

--
Ineptocracy

(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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/07/2013 16:52, GB wrote:

Just contacted Court .. case was already scheduled for 14 Aug, so paid £25 and said proceed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 12:24:52 PM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

bravo! bring it on ;>)
Jim K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:

In the grand scheme of things, you have come this far, you may as well press on I would say.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite. And check if they have a Facebook/Twitter page. And give the facts on that.
--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/07/2013 17:14, John Rumm wrote:

+1 Hopefully you won't be out of pocket when (not if) you win
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2013 11:47 AM, Rick Hughes wrote:

You might want to try getting a local newspaper interested.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:47:44 +0100, Rick Hughes

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 cost them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ditto. Since this was first mentioned in here they have lost over 900 quid a year repeat business (just one product line)
The catalogues they send now go straight in the bin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday 01 August 2013 08:47 The Other Mike wrote in uk.d-i-y:

You really should write that down and send it to the head office, CC'd to the branch.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/08/2013 08:47, The Other Mike wrote:

If anybody wanted to tell them they have lost business ... The email address is snipped-for-privacy@machinemart.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 apologies.
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?..
--
Tony Sayer



  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/07/2013 16:47, Rick Hughes wrote:

They are bluffing! Pay the £25 as you have a good case.
--
Peter Crosland

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:

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.
Caveat Emptor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 whole mess.
--
Dave Baker


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/08/2013 13:45, Dave Baker wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/08/2013 13:45, Dave Baker wrote:

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.

Yup

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 the future:
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 future.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try letters-from-lawyers to us all.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in message wrote:

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 or untruths.
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.
--
Dave Baker


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.