MattressNextDay[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] - Terrible customer service

cybergibbons

There has to be some case law out there. Can anyone find it?

Tim_Deegan

cybergibbons wrote: »

There has to be some case law out there. Can anyone find it?

Yes there will be, because my solicitor found it. In fact there would be whatever the outcome of the case was. So those who say they can't find it are obviously looking in the wrong place.

Optimist

cybergibbons wrote: »

There has to be some case law out there. Can anyone find it?

Heavens, yet another thread with the same old arguments, deja vu reigns.

There doesn't have to be case law on something like this. Case law is applicable from higher courts down so it would have to be a very expensive item or a very stubborn litigant to take a case such as this to a higher court. County court judgements do not form precedence on itself. One judge might decide DSRs do not apply for hygiene reasons, another might decide they do. However there is absolutely nothing in DSRs that say a retailer should be put in the position of being able to resell an item as new after the customer returns them.


In spite of this precedence bandied about by Tim but which he never puts up for examination, my advice to anyone in the situation of rejecting something like a mattress under DSRs and where the retailer is refusing to refund, would be to take it to court. There are good odds the case would never be defended and even if it were there are equally good odds that judgement would be given against the retailer.

Tim_Deegan

Optimist wrote: »

Heavens, yet another thread with the same old arguments, deja vu reigns.

There doesn't have to be case law on something like this. Case law is applicable from higher courts down so it would have to be a very expensive item or a very stubborn litigant to take a case such as this to a higher court. County court judgements do not form precedence on itself. One judge might decide DSRs do not apply for hygiene reasons, another might decide they do. However there is absolutely nothing in DSRs that say a retailer should be put in the position of being able to resell an item as new after the customer returns them.


In spite of this precedence bandied about by Tim but which he never puts up for examination, my advice to anyone in the situation of rejecting something like a mattress under DSRs and where the retailer is refusing to refund, would be to take it to court. There are good odds the case would never be defended and even if it were there are equally good odds that judgement would be given against the retailer.

You shouldn't really give people that advice, as it is actually wrong, and could cost people a lot of money in court fees.

cybergibbons

Optimist wrote: »

There doesn't have to be case law on something like this. Case law is applicable from higher courts down so it would have to be a very expensive item or a very stubborn litigant to take a case such as this to a higher court. County court judgements do not form precedence on itself.

I would be very surprised if not a single case has ended up in country court. I would be slightly surprised if a "class action" had never ended up in higher courts for a similar thing.

Regardless, although a county court judgement is not binding on any other judgement, they can still be cited. The judgement would need to robustly dispute the prior judgement.

Also, if the law is either clear cut, or universally interpreted as going one way or another, previous cases would give us a good idea of who is right and who is wrong.

Optimist

cybergibbons wrote: »

I would be very surprised if not a single case has ended up in country court. I would be slightly surprised if a "class action" had never ended up in higher courts for a similar thing.

Regardless, although a county court judgement is not binding on any other judgement, they can still be cited. The judgement would need to robustly dispute the prior judgement.

Also, if the law is either clear cut, or universally interpreted as going one way or another, previous cases would give us a good idea of who is right and who is wrong.

The law isnt clear cut they cant legislate for every eventuality so the use a broad brush, they need to keep lawyers employed thankfully..

Unfortunately we are still waiting for Tims information on previous judgements given to him by his solicitor and indeed in a previous thread he stated it was a judge no less.

Tim is a retailer so I can well understand his reticence to admit that DSRs do relate to mattress's but he keeps making sweeping statements about previous judgements yet gives no information about them which would settle the matter straight away

The fact that he also felt it necessary to settle a claim under DSRs before it came to court doesn't really add credence to his claims.

I must say I wasn't going to jump into any more mattress threads but I got to reading the same old things with absolutely no evidence given to prop Tims case up I jumped right in :rotfl:

Optimist

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

You shouldn't really give people that advice, as it is actually wrong, and could cost people a lot of money in court fees.

Read Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Orrin

If Tim was willing (or able) to provide some evidence to back up his claims I think he'd have done so by now. I expect we'll just have to read between those particular lines.

His bluster aside, it would be interesting to know if there have been any judgements as it's one of those areas where the industry universally seem to say one thing yet the law and government guidance suggest something else.

cybergibbons

It's annoyingly difficult to research county court judgements unfortunately - near impossible on the web. All you find are badly written summaries of some cases.

Jonjo42

Optimist wrote: »

Unfortunately we are still waiting for Tims information on previous judgements given to him by his solicitor and indeed in a previous thread he stated it was a judge no less.

:

You'll be waiting a long time...

Whilst he's on, maybe Tim could provide some kind of evidence to support his so called "FACTS" he uses to support his advice on mattress construction.

Where can we find the "FACTS" to support your theory that the La Romantica mattress construction is better than every other mattress available??