Started court action to get refund on faulty goods

wealdroam

Watergirl wrote: »

Done. Have requested the cost of the sink, the £35 cost for starting MCOL and £50 to cover letters, emails, call etc. Taken out storage cost of sink and time off work from Husband. I'm not sure they are willing to negotiate, as they said they'd pay today and haven't, but worth a try as you suggest. Thanks again.

In post #7 you talk about £10 admin costs.

How on earth has that escalated to £50?

You cannot simply pluck a figure out of thin air. You must be able to substantiate any claim you make for your losses.

Watergirl

Calm down; I haven't asked you to pay it!

Either I wasn't clear or you have misinterpreted it my earlier post. Either way, I have added on a £10 admin fee for each letter that I have had to write to them. I don't think that's unreasonable at all and I certainly didn't pluck it out of thin air.

Even a cursory search online at admin fees imposed by companies that have to send letters to customers shows that £10 is not a high fee. Even doctors charge for letters and that's more than £10. Why should it be any different when it is the consumer that is inconvenienced?

We have had to make calls to resolve this and write letters, two of which were sent recorded, so I had to go to the post office, some miles away as we're rural, to send them.

If you think £10 is unreasonable, that's your opinion, but it's not fact. It's life. That's what people get charged by companies and this is a consumer championing website. I'm championing my rights.

wealdroam

Watergirl wrote: »

Calm down; I haven't asked you to pay it!

Either I wasn't clear or you have misinterpreted it my earlier post. Either way, I have added on a £10 admin fee for each letter that I have had to write to them. I don't think that's unreasonable at all and I certainly didn't pluck it out of thin air.

Even a cursory search online at admin fees imposed by companies that have to send letters to customers shows that £10 is not a high fee. Even doctors charge for letters and that's more than £10. Why should it be any different when it is the consumer that is inconvenienced?

We have had to make calls to resolve this and write letters, two of which were sent recorded, so I had to go to the post office, some miles away as we're rural, to send them.

If you think £10 is unreasonable, that's your opinion, but it's not fact. It's life. That's what people get charged by companies and this is a consumer championing website. I'm championing my rights.

£10 might well be the charge made by some companies whenever they write a letter, but you are not a company.

Your loss per letter is likely to be less than one pound - the cost of a stamp, envelope and a piece of paper.

You are right... that is my opinion, which of course isn't fact.

Did you say the cost of the item was £65?

LilElvis

Watergirl, I think the part you seem to be ignoring in the answers you have received are the phrases "quantifiable" and "substantiate". Simply because a doctor or a company charge "admin fees" of £10 or more does not mean that you can. You can substantiate certain costs e.g. the price of posting letters, the cost of telephone calls but not a round sum figure that has nothing to back it up. I am sure someone else will comment if they believe that costs can be attributed for your journeys to the post office (possibly at HMRC rates).

Of course you should get your money back, but you do risk jeopardising this by asking for additional sums you feel are reasonable but which cannot be substantiated.

The one way that you can potentially cost them money would be to post a brief, accurate review of your experience on the various review sites. Poor customer experiences really do deter potential new customers - it might also get them to buck their ideas up.

lucy03

I'd be very surprised if the judge doesn't strike out those administration charges from the claim made against the business. They are rather unreasonable IMO and in their defence the company could probably have a go at using that as evidence to show you've been unreasonable with regards to the entire case. However the sums are small and so I can't imagine they'd defend it, especially if the case is shifted to your local court.

The aim in court action is to always look as though you've done everything reasonably possible and been as reasonable as possible.

The court proceedings seem to have been taken a little early but I don't see that the Paypal matter would make any difference to the judge. I imagine the sink, court fees and actual costs (not random costs designed to bump up the claim) would be awarded by the court without any issues.

unholyangel

I think you've made a mistake claiming an "admin" fee for sending the letters rather than what it actually cost you.

As I previously advised, there's no entitlement to a loss that isn't mitigated. You can't simply say "x, y and z charge £10 a letter so I am too". You can only claim for losses actually incurred. Take bank charges for example - it was on the same basis that many people challenged those and won - because the amounts the banks were claiming were not reflective of their actual losses.

If they make an offer that covers the refund plus actual costs incurred - I'd advise you take it.

An email doesn't cost anything to send so I can't see anything that could be claimed in relation to that. Unless perhaps you've worded it in such a way that you've asked for a goodwill gesture of £50 to cover time/money spent with calls, emails & letters?

InquisitiveMind

marliepanda wrote: »

I doubt you can ask for he court fees as you could have mitigated your losses by starting a PayPal claim. Court should be used as the final option and the judge (if you get that far) will probably feel it is a waste of time

My thoughts too - why not use arbitration / ombudsman before court? It costs less to the tax payer and would be a faster solution.

Quentin

marliepanda wrote: »

I doubt you can ask for he court fees as you could have mitigated your losses by starting a PayPal claim. Court should be used as the final option and the judge (if you get that far) will probably feel it is a waste of time

The OP can include court fees in the claim.


That is the whole point of the requirement to send a "letter before action".


The debtor chose to ignore the LBA, or call the claimant's bluff by ignoring it.


As the debtor has now admitted the debt, (after seeing the claimant wasn't bluffing and causing the issue of the claim), then the claimant can pursue for the court fee, and will win that one!

marliepanda

Quentin wrote: »

The OP can include court fees in the claim.


That is the whole point of the requirement to send a "letter before action".


The debtor chose to ignore the LBA, or call the claimant's bluff by ignoring it.


As the debtor has now admitted the debt, (after seeing the claimant wasn't bluffing and causing the issue of the claim), then the claimant can pursue for the court fee, and will win that one!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with all the exorbitant fees she has asked for

pinkshoes

I don't get the whole admin fee thing other than the cost of the paper, envelope, stamp, and petrol to post it from a post office.

If your husband had to take a day off unpaid to wait for a collection that ever happened, then this should be claimed.