Am I being reasonable?

OlliesDad

Absolutely agree that the OP would likely win if it went to court, but they would have to be prepared.

Tozer

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Maybe if you're a material scientist but anyone else commenting 'it's obvious' isn't really much in the way of evidence.

No, I am going on my experience as a solicitor and the view that District Judges tend to take.

There is a principle in law called res ipsa loquitur. In English - the facts speak for themselves. The fact that a mirror stuck on a wall has not managed to survive 18 months is evidence by itself that it is not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose within the meaning of s.14(2) and (4) SOGA.

Again, Bathstore and/or credit card company will not fight this.

pitkin2020

I very much doubt they would even let it get to court, they are more than likely to settle before it gets there. Even if it does I think you have a good chance as bath store specialise in fittings for bathrooms, so a selling a mirror thats not fit for use in a bathroom isn't going to do their reputation any favours.

the182guy

I agree that Bath Store will settle out of court. How much will it actually cost them to give you a refund? £60? As opposed to taking it to court. Bath Store will lose more than £60 if they take it to court, regardless of the outcome.

jdturk

whilst generally I agree with the OP and expectations its the air of arrogance that gets to me. It riles me when a customer TELLS me what to do for my work as if I am incapabale of doing it myself and it wouldn't surprise me if it hadn't riled the person replying.

I understand SOGA, I understand how it works, I understand how even if the customer is wrong that simply replacing an item may have a greater benefit for the company and obviously from the correspondance the person replying understands SOGA and that is why they are standing their ground.

For what its worth I would expect the company to have helped you out and I think with an offer of 50% they have been reasonable (yes they should have offered this from the start)

Basically I think that maybe when you have problems you should have a better initial attitude to the people helping you and if then its not satisfactory then start spouting SOGA etc

I always go with the manner that if I have a problem with something that I wouldn't suggest anything about an FOC replacement untill I was told they wanted to charge me and then I may start quoting SOGA

Tozer

the182guy wrote: »

I agree that Bath Store will settle out of court. How much will it actually cost them to give you a refund? £60? As opposed to taking it to court. Bath Store will lose more than £60 if they take it to court, regardless of the outcome.

Yep. I've never actually seen a big corporate proceed to small claims unless there is a precedent to protect.

A) Claimants local court.

Reputational issues.

C) Management time involved in compiling witness statements, attending Court, etc.

D) Irrecoverable legal costs - £150-£200 per hour which, even if they win, will not be recoverable.

Simply, not worth it.

jdturk

Tozer wrote: »

Yep. I've never actually seen a big corporate proceed to small claims unless there is a precedent to protect.

A) Claimants local court.

Reputational issues.

C) Management time involved in compiling witness statements, attending Court, etc.

D) Irrecoverable legal costs - £150-£200 per hour which, even if they win, will not be recoverable.

Simply, not worth it.

See this is the problem, maybe the claiment should have to maybe face upto some costs if they lose so to protect the businesses getting claims such as this which they may feel they have a decent chance defending the claiments accusation.

To a limit obviously

Peter_Friswell

jdturk wrote: »

Basically I think that maybe when you have problems you should have a better initial attitude to the people helping you and if then its not satisfactory then start spouting SOGA etc

It may well be a matter of perception but I feel that my opening e-mail was pleasant and complimentary about their company. All I did, IMHO, was to state my requirements. Having re-read the original e-mail I still don't feel it was aggressive or belligerent. If I'm wrong then I' sure others on this forum will correct me.

Peter_Friswell

jdturk wrote: »

See this is the problem, maybe the claiment should have to maybe face upto some costs if they lose so to protect the businesses getting claims such as this which they may feel they have a decent chance defending the claiments accusation.

To a limit obviously

I have been on the other side in that I was the defendant. The claimant (is that correct?) brought a case that was judged "frivolous and vexatious" and ended up paying all the costs

Tozer

jdturk wrote: »

See this is the problem, maybe the claiment should have to maybe face upto some costs if they lose so to protect the businesses getting claims such as this which they may feel they have a decent chance defending the claiments accusation.

To a limit obviously

called "cost of doing business".

In this case????