Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 8th Jun 17, 7:51 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 9Thanks
    onyx911
    Ombudsman rejected S75 Claim for £12,250.What next?
    • #1
    • 8th Jun 17, 7:51 PM
    Ombudsman rejected S75 Claim for £12,250.What next? 8th Jun 17 at 7:51 PM
    The complaint related to a kitchen ordered through a local kitchen store. The kitchen ordered on 14 December 2015 was by a well known manufacturer. The price for the kitchen and appliances were £24,500 and the deposit paid on 14 December 2015 was £12,250. The deposit was paid by Tesco Mastercard (£250) and debit card (£12,000). The Seller required 12 weeks notice to place the order with the manufacturer. At this stage, the Seller was well aware that we were in the early stages of a construction project to extend our house and kitchen.
    Due to very poor workmanship, the building project was halted in April 2016 and the builder's contract terminated. The builder had not complied with any of the Building Regulations and the Local Council required the partially completed extension to be demolished and rebuilt. I was out over £26,000 and therefore entered into litigation with the builder and private building control inspector in August 2016. The Seller was kept informed of events at regular intervals. The litigation was settled almost in full in January 2017.

    I notified the Seller in November 2016 that a new builder had been appointed and the building project would commence in January 2017. At this stage of our litigation, the settlement negotiations were well underway and we were able to appoint a new builder.

    On 5 November 2016 I received an e mail from the Seller notifying me that certain doors/units we had ordered are no longer available and those parts of the kitchen design would need to be amended. I met with the Sellerís design manager on the 26 November 2016 and discussed various proposals, none of which I accepted but stated that I was open to further suggestions. The Seller suggested that an alternative supplier could make the kitchen but the price of the kitchen had gone up by £2,400. The new manufacturer is one that I had never heard of whereas the one previously selected was is a widely recognised kitchen brand.
    I informed him that we did not want to proceed with the alternative brand and required the refund of our deposit.
    In the e mail dated 14 December 2016, I stated that this sale is covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Under Chapter 2, Section 11, the goods are to be as described and any changes made after entering into a contract are not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and trader. The material changes here are the change of manufacturer of the new units and the significant price difference between the price we agreed. Essentially, we are no longer being offered the kitchen we contracted to buy.
    The Seller has refused to refund the deposit.
    I then made a claim to Tesco Mastercard in January 2017 under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Tesco responded with their final decision and have also refused to refund the deposit on the basis that they do not believe the Seller has breached the contract. Tesco are also relying on various terms of the Contract which do not comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore cannot be enforced for example the seller's right to charge an increased price and substitute the product. I then made a claim to the Financial Ombudsman I set out below the basis of Tescoís refusal and why I believe them to be incorrect.
    Tesco state that they are unable to see where the merchant has breached or misrepresented the contract. They failed to consider the clauses of the Consumer Rights Act that I had pointed them to.


    1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 2, Section 11 states that the goods are to be as described and any changes made after entering into a contract are not effective unless expressly agreed between the Consumer and Trader.


    3 Part 2 Section 62 (1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that an unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the customer. Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 deems the following may be unfair, (12) allowing the trader to decide the characteristics of the subject matter of the contract after the consumer is bound, (14) allowing the trader discretion to set the price after the consumer is bound, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer is bound, (15) allowing the trader to increase the price of goods without giving the consumer the right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded.

    Part 2 Section 62 (4) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that a term is unfair, if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the partiesí rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the customer.

    It appears both Tesco and the Ombudsman are looking purely at whether there was any wrong doing on the part of the retailer. They maintain that the retailer did nothing wrong in this instance. We donít disagree however it seems clear that the change of product and increased cost do not comply with the Consumer Rights Act. We surely canít be bound to a contract where the item we contracted to buy isnít available and the seller can substitute it for any other brand and at any other cost and we just have to pay? The increase in £2,400 being 10% is no small amount.

    Any advice would be appreciated.
Page 4
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 9th Jun 17, 6:20 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    The problem you have is that the financial ombudsman are not just pen pushers denying claims. There is legal due process they go through and the courts will have a similar understanding of the circumstances.
    The extra costs are down to a significant delay that could have constituted a breach on your part. Have you stopped to think that they could have forced you to conclude the contract much earlier? Significant delays don't just go one way.


    They will see this significant delay as a contributing factor to the rising costs, outwith the sellers control. It's not as if they are just sticking the extra on for profit.
    Originally posted by bris
    This is not strictly true. Just based on what the case worker told me on the phone yesterday. Under S75 they can only consider breach of contract or misrepresentation by the seller. Obviously that's not the case here so I accept their decision and I'm not using their route of appeal. My complaint was that the seller requiring us to complete the contract on an alternative product at a price they specify may be unfair under the specific clauses of the CRA i set out in the original post. The case worker said they can't consider the contract terms and whether they are enforeable but suggested I see alternative advice such as CAB or OFT.

    The case workers are not solicitors. They make an assessment based on their training and if I don't agree then it can be escalated to an Ombudsman. That can take a few months as there are many case workers but not as many ombudsman.

    Out of interest, where is it you think I have breached the contract? There was no completion date and no one has ever suggested a breach on our part so I'm interested.
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 9th Jun 17, 6:33 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    I think that if I were in your position I would be seriously considering this. You get the kitchen (more or less) that you want, without losing the deposit. It'll cost a bit more than you originally bargained for, but may be worth it if you get (more or less) what you originally wanted.


    But make sure you get a good joiner/carpenter. (Do your research. It's the sort of decision I hate having to make. I'd go with personal recommendations, but I think you said earlier the original builder had been recommended!)


    Good luck


    (Edit: but if you have faith in your barrister - you've used them in the earlier settlement? - see what they think about this idea)
    Originally posted by Manxman in exile
    Thank you. We've definitely learned a lesson regarding trademan. The new building firm are a local family run company, well known locally, members of the FMB, very high rating on checkatrade etc. They are a lot more expensive and the settlement doesn't nearly cover their cost but we didn't want to take any chances this time. My new moto in life is "pay peanuts, get monkeys"

    I have sent the documents to the barrister and his clerk is going to come back to me with a fee on Monday. I hope its reasonable because he was very good.
    • lincroft1710
    • By lincroft1710 9th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    • 9,428 Posts
    • 7,403 Thanks
    lincroft1710
    members of the FMB, very high rating on checkatrade.
    Originally posted by onyx911
    Unfortunately, membership of the FMB isn't a guarantee of anything, it is very easy to become a member. I'm not sure how reliable checkatrade is for sourcing good tradespeople.
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 9th Jun 17, 8:39 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    Unfortunately, membership of the FMB isn't a guarantee of anything, it is very easy to become a member. I'm not sure how reliable checkatrade is for sourcing good tradespeople.
    Originally posted by lincroft1710
    Thank you. It's very difficult to find someone reliable and trustworthy.

    We are at the tail end of our extension and the builder seems to be doing a good job. The Local Authority building control (didn't use private inspector this time) have been really good. They were obviously well aware of what happened with previous builder/building control and they've been very thorough in their inspections, even knocking on the door or calling after every inspection to confirm what they checked. I didn't ask them to do this.

    Almost felt sorry for the new builder who has been in the business for 37 years and never been scrutinised like this! To be fair, he hasn't complained and always maintained he is happy for his work to be thoroughly inspected.

    Lesson definitely learned.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 9th Jun 17, 8:41 PM
    • 9,734 Posts
    • 6,759 Thanks
    neilmcl
    Unfortunately, membership of the FMB isn't a guarantee of anything, it is very easy to become a member. I'm not sure how reliable checkatrade is for sourcing good tradespeople.
    Originally posted by lincroft1710
    They tend to be better then most of the others as they do, as the name suggests, check all sorts of things such as references, qualifications and accreditations, id checks, insurance as well as actually interviewing the trader.
    • angryparcel
    • By angryparcel 9th Jun 17, 9:36 PM
    • 910 Posts
    • 516 Thanks
    angryparcel
    members of the FMB,
    Originally posted by onyx911
    That means nothing. a few year back my brother had an extension build and the quality of work was shocking.
    The builder was a member of the FMB, so my brother contacted them and the sent out an inspector to have a look ( but inspector is just another builder), he agreed the work was shoddy, so he put report into the FMB who told the builder to return and fix things, he returned once to remove the patio doors to put them in the right way round ( yes he had the inside of the door on the outside) and he never returned to put anything else right. FMB could not force the builder to return
    • Blackbeard of Perranporth
    • By Blackbeard of Perranporth 10th Jun 17, 2:43 PM
    • 4,394 Posts
    • 26,504 Thanks
    Blackbeard of Perranporth
    Don't tell me. Another job done on the cheap and no sign of an architect?
    Last edited by Blackbeard of Perranporth; 10-06-2017 at 3:55 PM.
    Your thoughts fade
    As you shake between the fags
    • bris
    • By bris 10th Jun 17, 3:24 PM
    • 6,656 Posts
    • 5,702 Thanks
    bris
    Out of interest, where is it you think I have breached the contract? There was no completion date and no one has ever suggested a breach on our part so I'm interested.
    Originally posted by onyx911
    When you first entered into the contract you would have given them a rough estimate, i.e "the builder reckons he will be done in around 12 weeks". This is a guide for the kitchen seller.


    When the timescale over that becomes unreasonable then they can or may be able to force your hand by issuing you with a "time is of the essence" letter giving you a deadline. Two years is a significant delay that could easily be considered unreasonable. I never not said they ever suggested you were in breach but that they could have. The seller has been patient with you but your delays have meant a cost increase not of there doing. The below quote was taken from a solicitors website explaining time is of the essence in contracts.


    3. a party who has been subjected to unreasonable delay gives notice to the other party and makes time of the essence.
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 10th Jun 17, 10:58 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    When you first entered into the contract you would have given them a rough estimate, i.e "the builder reckons he will be done in around 12 weeks". This is a guide for the kitchen seller.


    When the timescale over that becomes unreasonable then they can or may be able to force your hand by issuing you with a "time is of the essence" letter giving you a deadline. Two years is a significant delay that could easily be considered unreasonable. I never not said they ever suggested you were in breach but that they could have. The seller has been patient with you but your delays have meant a cost increase not of there doing. The below quote was taken from a solicitors website explaining time is of the essence in contracts.


    3. a party who has been subjected to unreasonable delay gives notice to the other party and makes time of the essence.
    Originally posted by bris
    Wrong again. I'll never know why people are quick to make assumptions. If original post is too long to read then ask questions. We did not give an estimate of time frame. We had literally just started the extension. The seller said to call them when we were 12 weeks away from kitchen being fitted. If it's not clear from that statement then let me state we were considerably more than 12 weeks away.

    Now that you've mentioned it, it would have been sensible for the seller to tell us to wait until that 12 week mark before taking our order. Definitely makes more sense than taking an order for some time in the foreseeable future.

    Yes the seller would not have expected it to be a year before we were ready to give an estimated completion date but to keep suggesting there was an agreed date is factually incorrect.

    Regarding time is of the essence, there would have to have been a clause in the contract to apply this. Commonly used in new build and construction contracts. My first job after university (many moons ago) was for a National housebuilder. The vast majority of houses back then were bought off plan - (in some cases 2 years or more before completion) When the completion date is not known then a clause is provided for completion to take place on x number of days notice given by the seller. If this date was then not met, either party could serve notice requiring the other to complete. Whenever we served this notice, we stated that time was of the essence.

    This is not something the kitchen seller included in their contract. There was no clause requiring the contract to be completed. Only a clause stating that we can't hold the seller liable for any delays to the delivery or installation of the kitchen.. This goes back to my earlier point about making assumptions.
    Last edited by onyx911; 11-06-2017 at 8:01 AM.
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 10th Jun 17, 11:04 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    Don't tell me. Another job done on the cheap and no sign of an architect?
    Originally posted by Blackbeard of Perranporth
    I don't know if this was directed at me or the poster above me. In case it was me, no, not done on the cheap. There was an architect and we have plans/ planning permission. There was a structural engineer and plans passed by building control. Original builder wasn't cheap, but he was cheaper than the new builder.
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 11th Jun 17, 9:02 AM
    • 13,849 Posts
    • 74,114 Thanks
    GDB2222
    Wrong again. I'll never know why people are quick to make assumptions. If original post is too long to read then ask questions. We did not give an estimate of time frame. We had literally just started the extension. The seller said to call them when we were 12 weeks away from kitchen being fitted. If it's not clear from that statement then let me state we were considerably more than 12 weeks away.

    Now that you've mentioned it, it would have been sensible for the seller to tell us to wait until that 12 week mark before taking our order. Definitely makes more sense than taking an order for some time in the foreseeable future.

    Yes the seller would not have expected it to be a year before we were ready to give an estimated completion date but to keep suggesting there was an agreed date is factually incorrect.

    Regarding time is of the essence, there would have to have been a clause in the contract to apply this. Commonly used in new build and construction contracts. My first job after university (many moons ago) was for a National housebuilder. The vast majority of houses back then were bought off plan - (in some cases 2 years or more before completion) When the completion date is not known then a clause is provided for completion to take place on x number of days notice given by the seller. If this date was then not met, either party could serve notice requiring the other to complete. Whenever we served this notice, we stated that time was of the essence.

    This is not something the kitchen seller included in their contract. There was no clause requiring the contract to be completed. Only a clause stating that we can't hold the seller liable for any delays to the delivery or installation of the kitchen.. This goes back to my earlier point about making assumptions.
    Originally posted by onyx911
    Obviously, nobody here has seen your contract with the seller. I have assumed that there are contract terms dealing with the situation where there's a prolonged delay, or at least implied terms. You are suggesting that any such terms not in your favour must fall foul of the consumer rights act, but that clearly depends on what is in the details. I would be interested in what your barrister says.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • pinkshoes
    • By pinkshoes 11th Jun 17, 9:12 AM
    • 15,023 Posts
    • 20,432 Thanks
    pinkshoes
    Why not just ask the company how much profit they were set to make on this project, and pay that from the deposit then have the rest returned?
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 11th Jun 17, 9:15 AM
    • 13,849 Posts
    • 74,114 Thanks
    GDB2222
    Why not just ask the company how much profit they were set to make on this project, and pay that from the deposit then have the rest returned?
    Originally posted by pinkshoes
    You don't think that might be £12000? They have their showroom and salesmen to support, plus a design service sold as a loss leader. I can well imagine there's a 100% markup.
    Last edited by GDB2222; 15-06-2017 at 8:03 AM.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • newwave19
    • By newwave19 15th Jun 17, 1:34 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    newwave19
    i would be very careful with this one as the retailer hasn't done anything wrong. From what I read, you paid a deposit, but didn't actually place an order at that time ("The Seller required 12 weeks notice to place the order with the manufacturer. At this stage, the Seller was well aware that we were in the early stages of a construction project to extend our house and kitchen."). Correct me if i'm wrong though.
    Secondly, the time scale isn't on your side. Even if you did order it, and it had of been delivered to the retailer, do you think its reasonable to have it left in they're store for over a year.
    If you do go down the legal route though, just remember that you might get hit with more than just your own legal fees.
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 3rd Jul 17, 8:26 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    Sorry about the delay on this but many of you said you'd be interested in what the barrister had to say. I had to wait 2 weeks for the written advice in the end and have appealed the Ombudsman decision based on the advice below. The initial decision from the FOS is by an adjudicator that is not legally trained. It's done that way to manage work loads. If a party doesn't agree with the decision then they can appeal to an actual Ombudsman which I did last week. I am copying most of the relevant sections of the barristers opinion below but have changed our name to Smiths (yes yes, I know, very unoriginal) and the name of the retailer to The Kitchen Store. The actual advice was 10 pages long and dealt with whether Tesco were liable under S75 (he concluded they were) and the procedure to appeal and if necessary, make a civil claim. Some of you did hit the nail on the head with your advice on the thread.


    Facts and Background
    1. The Smiths planned to build a new extension to the rear of their property which was to house a kitchen. They were in the early stages of that project when they approached THE KITCHEN STORE to quote for the supply of kitchen units, worktops and appliances.

    2. The Contract was entered into, on 14/12/15 by payment of the £12,250 deposit (half of the Contract price of £24,500). The Smiths paid £257 (including credit card fees) on their Tesco credit card and the remaining £12,000 on a debit card.

    3. The Contract provides that the kitchen was to be sourced by Second Nature Kitchen (ďSecond NatureĒ), which is a particular supplier of kitchen units. THE KITCHEN STORE was to source the made-to-measure units from Second Nature and supply them to the Smiths.

    4. There is no price breakdown of the Contract, which also includes several appliances supplied by external providers.

    5. There is no provision for installation of the kitchen.

    6. It is noted that the Ďcarcassesí are ďMade to Measure in 8-10 weeks (Ready Assembled)Ē.

    7. The T&C state the following of relevance:

    ď13. Design/Specification: The Seller reserves the right to alter, modify or improve the design of any Goods without notification. Purchaserís orders will be executed with current production.

    14. Cancellation of Orders: we regret that we are unable in any circumstances to accept cancellation of orders for goods that have been ordered or manufactured to customerís special requirements unless agreed by the Seller in writing.

    18. Nothing in these conditions shall affect the statutory rights of a consumer.Ē

    8. The order was not placed with Second Nature or the suppliers of the kitchen appliances by THE KITCHEN STORE therefore clause 14 of the Sellerís conditions does not apply.

    9. In April 2016, the Smiths ran into issues with the extension build and commenced litigation against the parties responsible, which was settled in January 2017. In November 2016, the Smiths s informed THE KITCHEN STORE that the extension works would recommence in January 2017.

    10. THE KITCHEN STORE then informed the Smiths that the curved internal doors, being a key feature of the kitchen design that they had ordered were no longer available. Following discussions, THE KITCHEN STORE suggested that an alternative supplier could provide the units but that the price would be increased by £2,400. The alternative supplier was considered by the Smiths to be inferior to Second Nature.

    11. Following this development, the Smiths emailed THE KITCHEN STORE on 14/12/16 to request a refund as they did not want to proceed with the alternative brand.

    12. THE KITCHEN STORE refused to refund and relied upon their T&C.

    13. The Smiths s accordingly wrote to Tesco on 6/1/17 requesting a refund. Tesco refused.

    14. The Smiths s then complained to the FOS, which investigated and rejected the complaint on 8/6/17. The essence of the reasoning was:
    a. There was no breach of contract or misrepresentation by THE KITCHEN STORE.
    b. It was not unreasonable for THE KITCHEN STORE to not place the order prior to the units being discontinued, as THE KITCHEN STORE would not have known if and when the issues with the extension would be resolved.
    c. The issue with parts being discontinued and the increases in price were due to issues outside THE KITCHEN STOREís control.
    d. Nothing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 indicated any wrongdoing by THE KITCHEN STORE.


    Claim for Return of the Deposit or Reduction in Price

    15. The Smiths have rightly placed reliance upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (ďCRAĒ), which since 1/10/15 has provided the principal source of redress for ďconsumersĒ in disputes with ďtradersĒ. In this case, it is plain that the Smiths were consumers and THE KITCHEN STORE was a trader.

    Breach

    16. Section 11 of the CRA provides:

    ď11 Goods to be as described
    (1) Every contract to supply goods by description is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the description.
    (2) If the supply is by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods matches the sample if the goods do not also match the description.
    (3) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description just becauseó
    (a) the goods are exposed for supply, and
    (b) they are selected by the consumer.
    (4) Any information that is provided by the trader about the goods and is information mentioned in paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 or 2 to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (main characteristics of goods) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.
    (5) A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.
    (6) [irrelevant]
    (7) See section 19 for a consumer's rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract.Ē

    17. I would consider the difference in brands/supplier and to be a breach of s11.

    18. It is a slightly unusual situation insofar as the goods have not actually been supplied. This is a case where the trader is telling the consumer that the goods it proposes to supply will breach s11. At common law, it would be referred to as an anticipatory breach.

    19. Addressing the point made (obliquely) in the FOS Determination, I do not think that THE KITCHEN STORE can escape liability on the basis that the discontinuance of the Second Nature units occurred during a period of delay for which it was not responsible. The test is whether the goods THE KITCHEN STORE proposes to supply under the Contract match the description of the Contract. They do not.

    Remedies Ė Rejection and Refund

    20. If s11 is breached, s19(3) provides that consumers have the short-time right to reject, the right to a repair or replacement and the right to a price reduction or final right to reject.

    21. By s20(5), the short-term or final right to reject is communicated to the seller by indication by the consumer to the trader that the consumer is rejecting the goods or treating the contract at an end.

    22. By s20(10), any right to reject entitles the consumer to a refund of any monies paid.

    23. The short-term right to reject is limited to 30 days from when ownership or possession of the goods has passed to the consumer, the goods have been delivered and (if installation is within the contract) installed Ė s22(3). Whilst it is obvious here that the Smiths s do not have possession of the goods under the Contract, they are further protected by s22(5), which expressly provides that the short-term right to reject is exercisable before the events specified in s22(3).

    Remedies Ė Discount/Alternative Performance

    24. I shall now address the alternative position Ė whether the Smiths s could proceed with the Contract but obtain a discount to take into account the breach of s11.

    25. In this vein, the Smiths s would seek to rely upon s23 Ė the right to require repair or replacement. However, I do not think this is open to the Smiths s. Section 23(3) provides that a consumer cannot require replacement if it is impossible. The Smiths s want units that are no longer available from THE KITCHEN STORE, so replacement is impossible. They are being offered alternative units from a different manufacturer, at a higher cost, which they do not want. This is not replacement as envisioned in the CRA.

    The Validity and/or Applicability of THE KITCHEN STOREís T&C

    26. As relevant to this case, s31 CRA provides that THE KITCHEN STORE cannot exclude or restrict its liability under s11, or restrict the remedies available to the Smiths s for any breach of s11.

    27. In my view, both clause 13 and clause 14 seek to do just that:
    a. Clause 13 purports to give THE KITCHEN STORE the right to alter the subject matter of the Contract, and therefore breach s11, without recourse to the Smiths s. This makes it ineffective under s31.
    b. Clause 14 purports to remove the Smiths sí rights to reject the goods under ss20-22 and/or s24. This makes it ineffective under s31.

    28. One might be forgiven for considering those clauses a little ironic given that clause 18 states ďNothing in these conditions shall affect the statutory rights of a consumer.Ē

    29. Given the my strong opinion above, I consider it unnecessary to further consider in detail whether the terms would be unfair under the CRA, although, for the avoidance of doubt, I do consider they would be taking into account the matters stated in section 62 CRA, as well as the indicative list of unfair terms in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the CRA (see 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 16).

    Conclusion
    a. The Smiths s should be entitled to a refund by exercising their short-term right under ss20-22 CRA for breach of s11 CRA on the basis that the goods THE KITCHEN STORE are proposing to supply do not match the description in the Contract. The goods have not yet been supplied so the Smiths s are not Ďout of timeí for pursuing this remedy.

    b. THE KITCHEN STOREís T&C are ineffective under s31 CRA because they purport to limit liability under s11 and remove the right to reject under ss20-22 and s24, which is prohibited.
    • Chrysalis
    • By Chrysalis 3rd Jul 17, 10:40 PM
    • 1,948 Posts
    • 893 Thanks
    Chrysalis
    thanks for keeping us updated, it be great if you let us know the result when it happens
    • The-Truth
    • By The-Truth 4th Jul 17, 4:29 AM
    • 424 Posts
    • 495 Thanks
    The-Truth
    I think you guys are really scrapping the barrell now on ways to criticise me.
    Originally posted by onyx911
    No it's you who is scraping the barrell with blaming the retailer!

    And to be honest you've been so legally hot headed the relationship to the party who could have actually helped you out here has been shattered!
    • onyx911
    • By onyx911 4th Jul 17, 5:41 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    onyx911
    No it's you who is scraping the barrell with blaming the retailer!

    And to be honest you've been so legally hot headed the relationship to the party who could have actually helped you out here has been shattered!
    Originally posted by The-Truth
    Did you even read counsel's opinion of the retailer's terms? or were you so desperate to post this comment you just skipped the last 3 pages of the thread? If you don't agree with the Opinion then I'd certainly be interested in how your take of the CRA 2015 differs from his. Maybe he missed something that I can bring to his attention.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

474Posts Today

4,636Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin