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

justpoppingin

Hi guys,

Have finally reached a settlement with B&Q. It was long and arduous and I couldn't have done it without the support of the people on this list.

My thanks go especially to Tom for starting all this off and to Pocoyo for keeping it going.

I'd also like to thank Darryl at Bond Pearce who was unswervingly polite and helpful whilst remaining tenacious in defending his client. I'd also like to say how sorry I feel for Russ in B&Q Customer Services who thought he had a simple job just ringing people up and asking for their money. The poor lad simply wasn't prepared nor equipped to deal with the delivery fiasco B&Q dealt out.

The gist of my argument that brought about the successful conclusion goes something like:

B&Q didn't honour their side of the agreement because the goods sent did not match those offered in the agreement.

Having formally rejected the goods, I was going to levy a £10/day charge for storing B&Q's goods until they were collected. The storage charge to be paid before the goods were released.

I set a deadline of 1 week for B&Q to either give me a firm delivery date for the equipment they agreed to supply, that date to be no later than 9th December, or to pay my claim in full.

If B&Q could neither set a firm delivery date nor send me the money by the deadline, I was going to re-open court proceedings and add the storage charge to my claim.



The cheque arrived Friday. In full and final settlement of my claim.

Only took six months.

I now have the joy of watching B&Q try and organise themselves to come and collect the goods I've rejected.

I hope this of some use to others.

JPM_2

Well done justpoppingin at last a result, as you say it only took B&Q 6 months to come to their senses, I rejected the tank after looking it up online & finding it has differant dimensions to the one I ordered and that B&Q were trying to settle on the cheap.Still waiting to hear back from Bond Pearce.Thanks for letting us know off your success. I am sure all those who are still waiting for a settlement will feel the same. :T:T

http://www.water-tanks.net/acatalog/1100litre_Water_Tanks.html

http://www.rapidplumbing.co.uk/acatalog/ECO1100_Litre_Underground_Water_Tanks_.html

TBeckett100

well done troops. Not only did you guys win your butt but you managed to reject it and go for the full whack. Personally, it was never about the money, just the principle and having to prove something to the doubters. I found negotiation useful in complaining now if I refer in my letters asking the customer services department googling Beckett and B&Q. Also, I managed to help someone with a loss of bargain case at Asos over a designer jacket. I guess they say knowledge is power and my thanks for this goes to Taxiphil who created a monster in me.

Dying to know how much it has cost B&Q overall. From what I hear from very reputable sources who effectively cleans the horses teeth, we are buying property with it.

its been nearly a year since the dishwashers came onto the scene. I guess now the claims are winding down, save for those who are reading this now and thinking hmmmmm.....

My thanks also to Poyoco for keeping this going as well.

Remember, if you can spare a pint for me please donate to www.justgiving.com/lossofbargain we are at £80 recorded donations but I know 100% that private donations have also been made which well exceed this figure.

Finally, thanks to all that claimed. Whilst I never made it far in my 2nd claim, you guys placed trust in a strangers word, risked money (some of you didnt really have to lose) and went for it. Happy Christmas to all. Which reminds me, I have some Christmas cards to write to some new people I have met this year

Signing off now this thread forever.
Tom

Hellowski

Has anyone else settled? Or got a court date?

Anihilator

Having read through this thread and it seems to be very much the case of what amatuar lawyers think is dangerous.

Yes Loss of a bargain is enforceable however B&Q could rightly insist on seeing proof that the lost bargain is/was purchased Hence it looses much benefit to what in here were a majority of spurous profit making claims.

Secondly anyone who could be shown to have known such would be screwed, this is easily done by asking people to prove what they would use it for and a lot of folk wouldnt be able to do this.

B&Q shot themselves in the foot here but a lot of these cases wouldnt win in court, please also note a small claim court hearing isnt binding precedent case law so referring to TBeckett v B&Q has no bearing in law.

Finally I would add that TBeckets explaination for removing his own website was a load of crap and it would never be an argument to suceed in law. Imo he is on an ego trip and didnt have the balls to keep the website up once things got risky.

taxiphil

Anihilator wrote: »

Yes Loss of a bargain is enforceable however B&Q could rightly insist on seeing proof that the lost bargain is/was purchased

Absolutely totally and utterly wrong. The whole purpose of the "loss of bargain" remedy is to grant the injured party the means to put themselves in the same position they would have been in if the contract had been performed.

There is absolutely no requirement that the injured party has already put themselves into that position before claiming. That would be ludicrous, as the process of doing so is invariably more expensive than the original contract price (that's why we refer to the original contract as a "bargain") and hence only the wealthy would be able to sue.

Please check out the accuracy of your own legal advice before you criticise others.

Anihilator wrote: »

this is easily done by asking people to prove what they would use it for and a lot of folk wouldnt be able to do this.

I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody has to prove why they bought something. A contract was made between buyer and seller. End of story.

Anihilator

taxiphil wrote: »

Absolutely totally and utterly wrong. The whole purpose of the "loss of bargain" remedy is to grant the injured party the means to put themselves in the same position they would have been in if the contract had been performed.

There is absolutely no requirement that the injured party has already put themselves into that position before claiming. That would be ludicrous, as the process of doing so is invariably more expensive than the original contract price (that's why we refer to the original contract as a "bargain") and hence only the wealthy would be able to sue.

Please check out the accuracy of your own legal advice before you criticise others.



I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody has to prove why they bought something. A contract was made between buyer and seller. End of story.

and had the contract been performed you would have had a nice watertank hence its entirely fair and in keeping with the law to insist that you actually purchase the tank. Afterall thats what you wanted isnt it. You cant seriously expect to be given the cash but then be able to spend it on something seperate. If you are then you are contradicting your argument as you had no losses as you are able to survive without the tank.

And actually if B&Q provide evidence that the person had no intention of wanting a tank and did it just to sue then the court will want to see some reasoning. The court will not find in your favour simply to line your pockets as that would be a perverse unfair action. Courts do not like people who do such.

There are plenty of legal arguments that B&Q could use here and the fact that the majority of you have only sued to profit rather than get a water tank actually makes there case a lot easier.

Pocoyo

Lots of people have accepted B&Q's offer to supply the tank (note, they only offer this after a loss of bargain claim is lodged with the court). I was on the verge of doing the same until I saw that other people had been supplied with a completely different product with different specs and parts missing.

If the tank was priced at £930, I for one would not have purchased one but at £50 I decided it was a good investment for my allotment. Of course, none of that is any of yours or B&Q's business. Whoever heard of trading law requiring a justification for the reasons you purchase items?!

hesjane

Hi

I have followed this thread and enjoyed reading it. I didn't buy a water butt (seriously considered it, and yes it would have been for 'financial gain') but in response to Anihilator's rececent posts stating that this would have been a clause for B&Q to use not to settle - many people buy things at reduced prices and sell them on to make profit. They have no intention of sueing the sellers because they believe the price offered is incorrect.

The contract to supply does not mean the purchaser necessarily wanted the item for personal use, nor that they have to prove they wanted it for personal use. What the 'loss of bargain' claim is doing is putting the purchaser in the position they would have been in if B&Q had supplied the tank, ie funds in the bank (which is what they would have had if the tank had been delivered and subsequently resold for a profit).

PS. I don't purchase 'grabbits' to sell on and make a profit (although I know that some people do), but with a large profit on offer, such as the case with the water tank, I wouldn't blame anyone for trying. Again....does not mean they entered the contract with the prior intention of sueing for loss of bargain.

guy.pennington

Anihilator wrote: »

Having read through this thread and it seems to be very much the case of what amatuar lawyers think is dangerous.

Yes Loss of a bargain is enforceable however B&Q could rightly insist on seeing proof that the lost bargain is/was purchased Hence it looses much benefit to what in here were a majority of spurous profit making claims.

Secondly anyone who could be shown to have known such would be screwed, this is easily done by asking people to prove what they would use it for and a lot of folk wouldnt be able to do this.

B&Q shot themselves in the foot here but a lot of these cases wouldnt win in court, please also note a small claim court hearing isnt binding precedent case law so referring to TBeckett v B&Q has no bearing in law.

Finally I would add that TBeckets explaination for removing his own website was a load of crap and it would never be an argument to suceed in law. Imo he is on an ego trip and didnt have the balls to keep the website up once things got risky.

Clearly B&Q and their lawyers don't think most cases against them would fail, otherwise they would not be settling all actions 'out of court', firstly by offering alternative tanks, and laterly paying some claims in cash (e.g. justpoppingin and others).