Brooke and Wilde - Administration

Ramsay92

Hi All, 

After some advice although from research i have done at present i cant see that we have any options. 

We purchased a new bed and mattress from Brooke and Wilde last year and have had a horrible customer journey from the start. Both items we're purchased using there own 0% finance via Duologi. 

Brooke and Wilde were semi cooperative at the start of our order however at the start of this year communication got worse and eventually they removed all communication channels. 

We have essentially been left with a broken bed that we have paid a lot of money for and this will now not be resolved as the company is winding into administration. 

The finance company Duologi have been less than helpful refusing to help us.  

• Based on our investigation, we’re not upholding your complaint as we can’t conclude that we’ve acted unfairly or in error.
• Due to your non-regulated loan agreement we don’t think Duologi would be liable for the purchases you’ve made with Brook and Wilde or the service they’ve provided. This also means we’ll expect your loan repayments to continue until the loan has been settled in full.
• We understand Brook and Wilde are in the process of going into liquidation. As such, we’ve been unable to obtain their comments or background. You may therefore want to contact the administrators (once appointed) to see if they can provide you with help and assistance.
• We should also add that Duologi provided payment to Brook and Wilde in good faith to fund the purchase and to allow you to take receipt of the goods, which we understand you have. We acknowledge you’re unhappy with the goods however had you made a cash purchase we consider that your situation would remain unchanged. Unfortunate as this is, we can’t be held liable because a retailer has wound up.

Brooke and Wilde were in the middle of replacing the bed and giving us a 25% discount due to an ever increasing list of errors. 

Do we have any options or do we simply have to accept that we have paid a lot of money for a broken bed. 

Thanks for any advice. 

Kind regards 
Carl 

DullGreyGuy

What were the terms of your credit?

Obviously the lenders are saying your loan falls outside of the CCA and therefore you have no S75 protection, this would suggest that the credit was under 12 months and paid in 3 or less instalments (from memory anyway)?

Assuming this is correct then you are an unsecured creditor to the company, not all companies that go into administration get liquidated, some can be turned around. but clearly the prospects aren't good at this point.

Did you have to pay an initial up front amount at all? If so how did you pay this?

born_again

Ramsay92 said:

Hi All, 

After some advice although from research i have done at present i cant see that we have any options. 

We purchased a new bed and mattress from Brooke and Wilde last year and have had a horrible customer journey from the start. Both items we're purchased using there own 0% finance via Duologi. 

Brooke and Wilde were semi cooperative at the start of our order however at the start of this year communication got worse and eventually they removed all communication channels. 

We have essentially been left with a broken bed that we have paid a lot of money for and this will now not be resolved as the company is winding into administration. 

The finance company Duologi have been less than helpful refusing to help us.  

• Based on our investigation, we’re not upholding your complaint as we can’t conclude that we’ve acted unfairly or in error.
• Due to your non-regulated loan agreement we don’t think Duologi would be liable for the purchases you’ve made with Brook and Wilde or the service they’ve provided. This also means we’ll expect your loan repayments to continue until the loan has been settled in full.
• We understand Brook and Wilde are in the process of going into liquidation. As such, we’ve been unable to obtain their comments or background. You may therefore want to contact the administrators (once appointed) to see if they can provide you with help and assistance.
• We should also add that Duologi provided payment to Brook and Wilde in good faith to fund the purchase and to allow you to take receipt of the goods, which we understand you have. We acknowledge you’re unhappy with the goods however had you made a cash purchase we consider that your situation would remain unchanged. Unfortunate as this is, we can’t be held liable because a retailer has wound up.

Brooke and Wilde were in the middle of replacing the bed and giving us a 25% discount due to an ever increasing list of errors. 

Do we have any options or do we simply have to accept that we have paid a lot of money for a broken bed. 

Thanks for any advice. 

Kind regards 
Carl 

Wonder why they said that when they were in trouble.😶‍🌫️

Contact
https://duologi.com/complaints/consumer-complaints/#faqs-nav

You may find you are covered under S75.

Grumpy_chap

The OP needs to look at all of this in a purely factual way.

The issues such as "horrible customer journey", semi-cooperative company, poor communication all have to be ignored.

What is the actual fault with the bed?  Not every fault would warrant a full refund or the replacement that is mentioned plus discount.
Irrespective of what may have been offered by way of discount / partial refund in addition to the replacement bed, the OP should assume that the supposed discount is not now going to happen.

The first route of call is the supplier.  That is closed down given the company is ceasing trading (unless they are brought out of administration in a way that also takes forward past liabilities).

The second route of redress would be to the credit provider.
What was the nature of the complaint that was lodged against the credit provider?
Why is the credit provider indicating the agreement was unregulated?

It may be that S75 is applicable - this holds the credit provider equally liable as the supplier. 
BUT, the credit provider has already indicated that they do not consider that S75 applies to the agreement.
Also, if S75 does apply, there needs to be a fault that warrants some remedy.  The OP has not shared the details of the fault in this thread.

The OP needs to maintain the credit payments for now.
Then verify and potentially resubmit their claim to the credit provider, in a structured way and draw attention to the fact they consider it to be a S75 claim.  This, of course, depends on establishing that the finance is within scope of S75.
If the finance company refuse to accept that S75 may apply (not just that there is no grounds for remedy), then a complaint to the ombudsman may be required - that would need to be after all the credit suppliers complaint process has been exhausted.

screech_78

Duologi do state that only credit agreements 12 months + are regulated. Anything less is unregulated so I’m guessing this applies to the OP and therefore probably won’t have any luck going down that route.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other options really. 

PHK

Grumpy_chap said:

The OP needs to look at all of this in a purely factual way.

The issues such as "horrible customer journey", semi-cooperative company, poor communication all have to be ignored.

What is the actual fault with the bed?  Not every fault would warrant a full refund or the replacement that is mentioned plus discount.
Irrespective of what may have been offered by way of discount / partial refund in addition to the replacement bed, the OP should assume that the supposed discount is not now going to happen.

The first route of call is the supplier.  That is closed down given the company is ceasing trading (unless they are brought out of administration in a way that also takes forward past liabilities).

The second route of redress would be to the credit provider.
What was the nature of the complaint that was lodged against the credit provider?
Why is the credit provider indicating the agreement was unregulated?

It may be that S75 is applicable - this holds the credit provider equally liable as the supplier. 
BUT, the credit provider has already indicated that they do not consider that S75 applies to the agreement.
Also, if S75 does apply, there needs to be a fault that warrants some remedy.  The OP has not shared the details of the fault in this thread.

The OP needs to maintain the credit payments for now.
Then verify and potentially resubmit their claim to the credit provider, in a structured way and draw attention to the fact they consider it to be a S75 claim.  This, of course, depends on establishing that the finance is within scope of S75.
If the finance company refuse to accept that S75 may apply (not just that there is no grounds for remedy), then a complaint to the ombudsman may be required - that would need to be after all the credit suppliers complaint process has been exhausted.

Just to add if the agreement was unregulated then this wouldn't be an eligible complaint for the ombudsman. Unless the OP can show that the firm carried out a regulated activity with authorisation.

Grumpy_chap

screech_78 said:

Duologi do state that only credit agreements 12 months + are regulated. Anything less is unregulated so I’m guessing this applies to the OP and therefore probably won’t have any luck going down that route.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other options really. 

PHK said:

Just to add if the agreement was unregulated then this wouldn't be an eligible complaint for the ombudsman. Unless the OP can show that the firm carried out a regulated activity with authorisation.

According to the article linked below, interest free credit repayable in less than 12 months (buy-now-pay-later) is unregulated:
https://www.dekopay.com/industry-insights/difference-between-regulated-and-unregulated-loans

It looks like the rules will change (possibly) but not yet and, if the rules do change then S75 will apply:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/02/buy-now-pay-later-laws-consultation/

screech_78

Grumpy_chap said:

screech_78 said:

Duologi do state that only credit agreements 12 months + are regulated. Anything less is unregulated so I’m guessing this applies to the OP and therefore probably won’t have any luck going down that route.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other options really. 

PHK said:

Just to add if the agreement was unregulated then this wouldn't be an eligible complaint for the ombudsman. Unless the OP can show that the firm carried out a regulated activity with authorisation.

According to the article linked below, interest free credit repayable in less than 12 months (buy-now-pay-later) is unregulated:
https://www.dekopay.com/industry-insights/difference-between-regulated-and-unregulated-loans

It looks like the rules will change (possibly) but not yet and, if the rules do change then S75 will apply:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/02/buy-now-pay-later-laws-consultation/

Even then though, I imagine it will only be for agreements made after the change in legislation. 

Grumpy_chap

screech_78 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

screech_78 said:

Duologi do state that only credit agreements 12 months + are regulated. Anything less is unregulated so I’m guessing this applies to the OP and therefore probably won’t have any luck going down that route.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other options really. 

PHK said:

Just to add if the agreement was unregulated then this wouldn't be an eligible complaint for the ombudsman. Unless the OP can show that the firm carried out a regulated activity with authorisation.

According to the article linked below, interest free credit repayable in less than 12 months (buy-now-pay-later) is unregulated:
https://www.dekopay.com/industry-insights/difference-between-regulated-and-unregulated-loans

It looks like the rules will change (possibly) but not yet and, if the rules do change then S75 will apply:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/02/buy-now-pay-later-laws-consultation/

Even then though, I imagine it will only be for agreements made after the change in legislation. 

Yes, I agree.
I did not mean to imply that a proposed rule change would be retrospective as I doubt it would

BigT369

Hi all, siryy to jump on some else's thread, I too am now having issues but like above the company state they have gone into liquidation. 

I'm sure this is fine as they wouldn't have done it but they have reopened by using the same branding, same items and adding an extra word to their company name while wiping out any warranty people had before this change. 

Do I have a leg to stand on or I'm guessing this is quite a common thing in business. 

We tried to send the bed back but we're told to use it a bit more to settle, tried to send it again and nope they have gone and brook & wilde sleep has taken over with the exact same terms as before. Just seems wrong. 

Thanks all

RefluentBeans

Different company name, number and company officers. Plus seems like the company address has moved. It could be a buy out, or someone using s similar name. 

If this was a buy out, the new owners are likely wanting to capitalise on the name still. But the company may just buy assets (name, domain, brand, and stock) and leave the other stuff behind them. But if it’s been a buy out then they haven’t got to take on the warranties.

I’m not entirely sure how it would affect your legal consumer rights - the entity you purchased it from  no longer exists, and the new entity looks to be entirely different from the other company. 

Unfortunately it happens when a company goes bust. Someone has to pay for the new mattress you want swapped, but if the companies gone bust then they can’t pay for it. And I would imagine any claims against the old business would be bottom of the list of debtors.