Rainwater Tank 1100 Litre £1498.00now£50.00@B&Q smaller one also avail for same price

Lynsey

Just another thought, but if we win this it would another giant killing act.

David v Goliath
George v Dragon
Hereford v Newcastle Utd (sadly)

Great achievments of the past, but what if a simple MSE member beat BOTH BP and B&Q??

.........just a thought.

Lynsey

Pocoyo

Alias_Omega wrote: »

What happens when the 28 days are up.. Does it have to be day 29 before you can move on?

If it was to get to that step, at what time can you start to move on.?

How long does the next step take.?

You should have received the defense from Bond Pearce after 28 days which they also forward to the court. They usually wait until the last possible moment to submit it. Your case will be assigned to your local court and you will be sent a short form to complete for the court to assess the outline of your case.

I got my questionnaire from the court about 7-10 days after I received the defense from Bond Pearce. Haven't had a court date yet.

muppet_66

after putting in the initial claim with moneyclaim what if nothing has been received after 28 days? or even 38 days for that matter?

Pocoyo

muppet_66 wrote: »

after putting in the initial claim with moneyclaim what if nothing has been received after 28 days? or even 38 days for that matter?

Then you can log on to the moneyclaim website and request a "judgement by default".

justpoppingin

Hi guys,

Been away for a while. Just caught up with proceedings.

I had two letters awaiting me. One was from the court with a notice of the defence and the other was from BP. Summary of the BP letter

* Our client didn't do it Gov.
* You were a bad person because you only ordered the tanks because you knew there was a recurring error on the website.
* Our client is confident in their position.
* Our client will "rely fully on their terms and conditions of sale."
* Because we want to look good in court, we are offering you a settlement.
* Our client would like to offer to supply you with Argonaut tanks for the price originally advertised in diy.com
* Our client will pay your court fees.


I've had this letter for a few hours now, but I couldn't type anything for the tears running down my cheeks.

Does anyone know what the Civil Procedure Rules part 27.14 are ?

I could google them I suppose, but I'm still rushing round catching up with things.

Lynsey

Costs on the small claims track

27.14

(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.
(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;


(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

(c) any court fees paid by that other party;

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for an expert’s fees; and

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.


(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901 (a lay representative).

(5) Where –
(a) the financial value of a claim exceeds the limit for the small claims track; but

(b) the claim has been allocated to the small claims track in accordance with rule 26.7(3),

the small claims track costs provisions will apply unless the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply.

(6) Where the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply, the claim and any appeal will be treated for the purposes of costs as if it were proceeding on the fast track except that trial costs will be in the discretion of the court and will not exceed the amount set out for the value of claim in rule 46.2 (amount of fast track trial costs).

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part27.htm#IDAIJLCC

Lynsey

Pocoyo

I'll be putting something up on my blog later about how you may want to respond to this.

henpecked1

if someone called me a liar (* You were a bad person because you only ordered the tanks because you knew there was a recurring error on the website.) I would write back and say thank you for the letter. I am appauled that you think this of a B&Q customer (fantastic PR) and decline the offer on the basis you are not a secret gagged shopper and you will let a judge decide on whether you were a) shopper looking for a bargain and will sue to clear your name in a matter of principle or b) out for a cash wodge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the judge looks at law and case law and not on heresay comments made on a forum after the event.

If they are confident then they will allow this to go to court. if it was about saving costs, party animal frampton will be dealing with it.

justpoppingin wrote: »

* Our client will "rely fully on their terms and conditions of sale."

I wouldn't as it clearly sets out a contract is formed at law.


if it was me, i would think I have paid my court fee and I have nothing more to lose whereas someone else may have a little more to lose? I am confused with the sudden availability of the water butts, now they have stock, surely they can deal with failed orders? or are the water butts returns, therefore not new....

come on tbeckett what would you do from the sidelines?

Lynsey

From TS:

Should B&Q subsequently be able to supply the product it would be difficult to sustain a claim for loss of bargain as B&Q are still willing to contract.

If you get offered what was ordered then you have been placed back to your original position.
Why would you then decline??

Lynsey

Alias_Omega

today is..