Responding to a refund request / pre-court letter?

GDB2222

DavidP24 wrote: »

So is she a solicitor governed by CPR?

The pre-action protocols apply to everybody, not just solicitors.

It's sensible to try to knock this case on the head now, as court proceedings are stressful and time consuming for all concerned. So, do reply to the letter you have received, but I suggest:
a) Keep your reply factual and helpful.
b) Deal with the issues and avoid being dramatic.

So, don't say "which is vexatious, without merit and hereby rejected". Instead, be polite but firm. "I am sorry, but I am unable to accede to your request for compensation, as any damage to your hair was not caused by me."

Your case is surely not that the customer's hair was undamaged, so don't bother talking about alleged damage.

I would try to be conciliatory, rather than antagonistic, whilst at the same time being clear that the damage was caused by the wrong product being used by the second stylist. After all, you don't want this customer saying nasty thing about you behind your back.

You have a cast iron case, except for one possibility, namely that you did not make it clear to the customer that she needed to use the correct product to remove the hair extensions. Or if the product you used was very unusual.

As you should by now have realised, you should not do this work without insurance. Things can go wrong.

DavidP24

They apply when there are proceedings, I am well aware what they govern but it is never going to get that far because it will never go to Court.

OF COURSE it is "it is vexatious, OF COURSE it is without merit and OF COURSE it should be rejected".

She has alleged that it is damaged, is there a professional expert report, I thought not, by saying alleged she is not acknowledging or admitting that the hair is damaged and giving the claimant another hurdle to jump.

The fact that you find this antagonistic is exactly the desired result, it shows that the OP's girlfriend is not going to be a walk over, it will send her running with her tail between her legs.

She does not have to give her instructions on removing it or warn her, the 3rd party is the one with a duty of case on the service that she was providing.

The fact that she came back to the op's girlfriend to have it removed demonstrates that, also anyone who has used such hair products knows that they each use their own adhesives and you must use the appropriate agents to break down those adhesives.

These are chemicals.

Probably better to write a letter of your own rather than nit picking through other people's.

GDB2222

I have been in business on my own account for many, many years. The main aim for the business in a matter like this should be to protect its reputation. Trying to get the complainant to scuttle away, tail between legs, is likely to be counter-productive in that respect. Sorting this sort of problem out as amicably as possible seems to have worked well for me.

That's my experience. Yours is different, apparently.

DavidP24

In life I generally react the way I am treated and if someone comes at me quoting legal copy and paste I hit back hard and fast, I find it prevents any further nonsense.

A person like this will already have attempted to tarnish the reputation of the girlfriend, if any of it causes her serious harm there is the Defamation Act 2013, but in there has been no talk of this so not assuming anything.

In business I would bend over backward to help a genuine customer, even lose money if it was my mistake.

This is not the case here, what she should have done is come back to OP's girlfriend, told her 3rd party had screwed up her hair, ask for a statement blaming them and gone after 3rd party. Now she has burned her bridges.

There are many people out there who will copy some template letter, filing a well constructed claim, even in small claims track is expensive and not a step to be taken lightly. If I felt the OP had been in the wrong then I would have suggested they settle.

What the girlfriend can do is learn some lessons from this experience, produce a one place document that the client signs before any procedure explaining that product they use are for professionals only and may require special skills and or agents to remove. Offering free advice for such removal and taking no responsibility should they try to remove them personally or via a 3rd party. Some professional indemnity insurance would be a good idea, one with legal cover!

paddyrg

I think a formal rejection is prudent, if nothing else it in itself moves the onus back to the claimant and clarifies the position and will be useful to show to a judge should things go down that path.

Personally I agree very much with the sentiment but not fully the words and tone of the "vexatious" response. Whilst it may sound scarier to use hard nosed language, I think it's important not to use language with specific legal meaning (vexatious, as although the claim may be without merit, it may not actually be intended to harass and be genuinely intentioned after a dose of Judge Rinder) as courts do favour clear and understandable communication, and many an amateur pseudo-Latin contact has come unstuck.

Ok, clearly this isn't a contract, but the intention is to be unambiguous, and so it's an opportunity to be really clear without making insinuations about motive - no need to open a new battlefront. I'd personally dial down the tone a little as well, just for the sake of goodwill, or to at least seem before any judge like I was trying to deescalate firmly.

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear whoever,

Thank you for your letter, however I wish to be clear that I shall not be refunding you.

You came for fitting on December (date), maintenance (removal and refitting) on March (or date), but went to a different stylist who caused damage around (date). I am clearly not liable for that stylist's damage, and you may get more satisfaction taking this up with them.

Professional stylists use a variety of chemicals to ensure a high quality, long lasting result for the client. Not all of these chemicals are compatible, which is why a professional stylist will match the removal and maintenance treatments to the appropriate chemicals as directed by the manufacturer, to avoid damage and allowing the client many years of trouble-free wear. Your choice to use a stylist who used incompatible chemicals is no refection on the high standard of materials and fitting supplied by me.

If you feel to take this to court, it is your right to do so. My response to the judge will be a vigorous defence as I am wholly blameless in your choice of stylist. I hope you find some satisfaction with that stylist instead, and if you ever wish to return for a professional refitting, you'll be welcome to return.

Yours faithful, etc"

That's the kind of tone I'd take - firm but sympathetic that the client is a tightwad numpty who tried to cut corners and is suffering the consequences, whilst still pointing out that they were previously happy, and that you're working to the manufacturer's instructions as a professional, and that is unprofessional to apply incompatible chemicals. And just to hammer home your professionalism, you welcome her back to have a proper job done. And supplying a copy of the letter to the judge would of course demonstrate that you're being patient, biting your tongue, being very clear, not trying to threaten or dominate, etc.

Looks like we'd all take slightly different approaches, I'm sure you'll find something in between them all that feels right for you.

DavidP24

I like that! I can see it would get the desired results, I would probably still use mine because it is a smackdown.

To me it was vexatious because rather than call the company and say she had a problem she went with this stupid letter which was never going to get her what she wanted.

Then the follow up quoting CPR in an attempt to intimidate.

I am glad you did not use "inter alia" etc

One type in the "if you feel paragraph"

paddyrg

DavidP24 wrote: »

I like that! I can see it would get the desired results, I would probably still use mine because it is a smackdown.

To me it was vexatious because rather than call the company and say she had a problem she went with this stupid letter which was never going to get her what she wanted.

Then the follow up quoting CPR in an attempt to intimidate.

I am glad you did not use "inter alia" etc

One type in the "if you feel paragraph"

Different approaches resonate with different folks

I'm fond of keeping things simple - "I'm not going to give your money, this is why I'm not going to give you money, if you try to make me give you money I will fight you" is what we're both saying with different styling. I deliberately avoid florid language just in case I'm ever held to account for my words - I want to be certain I said exactly what I meant, and meant what I said, instead of leaving some get-out or sidetrack distraction without realising it. It happens when people copy/paste some internet legalese as if it's a magical incantation! Sov Cits are especially bad for this.

Parts of the motor racing industry have moved over to all pure English for some huge value contacts instead of allowing a lawyer to encode legalese, then another decode it, ask the client, encode a response, etc. When there's disagreement, it's a case of going to court to argue semantics as well as details. Only lawyers win ;-).

Contracts are about agreeing in peacetime how you'll behave in war, I appreciate this thread isn't about that, but as a principle feel it's better to get the agreed intention listed in a way both sides cannot claim to be bamboozled by ;-). "The jurisdiction of the English courts shall be applied to all clauses herein" doesn't mean more than "If we cannot agree between us, we both trust a court in England to give a fair and final decision". Clearly it's an exaggerated example, so just adding it for example/context. Neither party can claim not to understand what they were signing.

Anyway, OP, couple of options for you there, hope you find you can deflect your aggressive ex client. Keep copies with dates for everything you send or receive, just neatly in a pile. If they call you up to real court or TV court that pile is what you submit in defence, and the judge will thank you for being clear and methodical. They absolutely love to see facts, without emotion, in order, nice and clear, and the party that presents that is frequently the ultimate winner. I know this is terribly dull and worrying, but try to not worry. If you're taken to court, it's only scary because it's new, not because it's actually dangerous. Nobody can go to prison, there's no barrister cross-examination, nobody is going to get shouted at, and frankly it'll be a quick and easy job for the judge to decide. It's very mundane. So take a deep breath, this'll pass, it's just a boring interlude.

deegee1971

Thank you for all the responses, and I'm sorry I managed to cause such drama between a couple of highly respected members of the site!

Anyway, I think I'm running with the following:

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx,

I have received your email, sought advice from a solicitor and would like to highlight the following chronological sequence of events

27/12/16 1st Fitting

9/2/17 - I completed maintenance (complete removal and refitting) – I experienced no problems and received a message of thanks on 13th February 2017

19/3/17 – Message received saying you were taking a break from extensions, to which I enquired if you required me for removal. You replied “Naa thats fine I used the hairdryer to get them out xxxx”

21/03/17 – Message received to say you’d been to a salon for removal, where the hairdresser had struggled (causing hair loss and damage). You asked what product should be used and asked for a refund

21/03/17 – I advised you that an oil based extension remover is required for removal

22/03/17 – Message received where you stated that “the hairdresser used oil spray”. This is not the same as oil based extension remover.

I appreciate that the two products are easily confused but therein lies the benefit of employing a professional to complete the work. I obviously cannot be held accountable for another hairdresser’s lack of experience and consequent negligence. As such, it is clear that you are writing to the wrong party.

Furthermore, I would suggest seeking paid legal advice, as you are quoting the wrong legislation. The Sale of Goods Act wouldn’t apply here since the contract was formed in 2016. It would have been the Supply of Goods and Services Act and would fall under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I wish you every success in pursuing a claim, and trust that this will end any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

DavidP24

Gosh it is worse than I thought, she took them out with heat, who knows what impact that had on adhesive. She did this BEFORE asking you for advice and at her own risk.

Then she went to hairdresser who tried to remove them, who knows what with, how and with what force. Again she did this without seeking professional advice from you to establish the required product to safely remove them.

ONLY THEN did she ask for advice, AFTER TWO BOTCHED ATTEMPTS, one by her and one by another person.

Your letter seems fine. Sometimes you need to be careful of incriminating yourself by giving too much detail, starting with WITHOUT PREJUDICE means your letter can't be produced in Court by them but you can introduce it if you choose to.

I would take screenshots of the comms just in case assuming this was in some messaging app.

As I have said from the beginning, this is not going to Court and there is no reason for you to accept ADR not are you obliged to.

paddyrg

Furthermore, I would suggest seeking paid legal advice, as you are quoting the wrong legislation. The Sale of Goods Act wouldn’t apply here since the contract was formed in 2016. It would have been the Supply of Goods and Services Act and would fall under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I don't think this paragraph adds anything, I'd be inclined to leave it out - it complicates things unnecessarily. Just my thought though

I have received your email, sought advice from a solicitor and would like to highlight the following chronological sequence of events

If this is true, our opinion here is meaningless, if it's untrue, I wouldn't state it