Section 75 claim on range cooker held in storage

lewisgriffy

Thanks Terry Towelling.

The handwritten invoice clearly shows a description of the range cooker model followed by the model number. However there's no serial number to uniquely identify it. The delivery address (our second property) is also on the invoice as well as a note saying it would be needed in June 2016 (purchase date was March 2016). It's incidental information, but points towards the fact that the cooker was either with them or with us.

On the upside, although we didn't choose an unusual model, there were quite a few variations on a theme (different finishes/configurations etc) and the model number could be linked to a very limited number of stock items in my opinion. The impression I had of the company at the time of purchase was that most stock was on display in the showroom. Any items that had been sold were clearly labelled as such.

Bermonia

With regards to your query about asking Lloyds to contact the administrators on your behalf... I wouldn’t waste your time, they are not going to want to get involved in a matter that is not there problem, also I don’t see how they would have the authority to act on your behalf in this matter, meaning that the administrator could rightly refuse to respond (GDPR).

MEM62

I think that this claim is on a weak footing. Once paid for the, cooker was available for delivery to the OP. In fact, the supplier contacted the OP several times to make delivery arrangements and they would not accept delivery.

With respect to the storage itself, I would take the view that the claim would hinge on the terms and conditions of the agreement to store the goods. (Under normal circumstances, goods would be stored at the owners risk) In this case I expect that the storage was without a formal agreement and reliant on the goodwill of the vendor. In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to expect the goods to be stored for over two years from the date of purchase and the OP should have been aware that this was not without risk.

Section 75 only makes Lloyds liable for the same contractual terms as the seller. As there was not contract in respect of the storage I do not see any liability for Lloyd's. If the OP wishes to remove their business from Lloyds because Lloyds do not wish to compensate him for a liability that is not theirs then that is the OP's prerogative. However, that will achieve nothing.

18cc

Searching for the liquidators show they seem to be employed by Menzies LLP and a search of that name finds the following contact details I may be wrong but it's worth a try

CARDIFF
Menzies LLP Cardiff
2 Sovereign Quay
Havannah Street
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff
CF10 5SF

CALL: +44 (0)29 2049 5444
FAX: +44 (0)2920492666
EMAIL: cardiff@menzies.co.uk

18cc

You can search on that company number and you will find what the liquidators did they appear to have completed their distribution of payments etc and the liquidation case is closed not sure if there's anything you can do about it...
here for example is the report in the paper

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/company/03287834

lewisgriffy

Bermonia - I understand, thanks.

lewisgriffy

Again MEM62, thanks for your response. You've confirmed what I feared when making the claim.

However I've not given up yet in the hope someone might advise me of another course of action I might take.

lewisgriffy

Many thanks 18cc, this is most helpful.

I intend phoning Menzies LLP this afternoon.
Apart from being courteous and to the point, how should I prepare for the phone call, and what action might be reaonable for me to expect for their part?

Again, many thanks.

18cc

I certainly can't help you as to what action would be reasonable on their part other than to say they are a firm of Chartered Accountants and that they will act according to the law so I suppose the first thing you should try and find out it is where you stand legally they I am sure will help you with that

eddddy

lewisgriffy wrote: »

Many thanks 18cc, this is most helpful.

I intend phoning Menzies LLP this afternoon.
Apart from being courteous and to the point, how should I prepare for the phone call, and what action might be reaonable for me to expect for their part?

Again, many thanks.

TBH, the best outcome might be if they say that the cooker still belonged to the company, as it hadn't been delivered to you.

That might give you some basis for a section 75 claim.