What ever happened to the ICE Fitter?

marleyboy

mdbarber wrote: »

So after reading only a tiny proportion of my posts and not even the original thread you are telling me i have a bad attitude and am arrogant

It would appear so, at least in the few pages I have read yes, (think the clue to me only reading 6 pages was in my original post, with the words "have i read 6 pages") but need i really go fru 3 more threads about it to be proved wrong, or shall i just go off the original reply you sent to me on this very thread, which on the face of it I found arrogant, considering i dont know much of the case in hand. I therefore think ill go for the latter, unless there is something in SOGA that states I shouldnt.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

Just noticed this and am amazed at another misquote from you, that is not what i said at all!
I said I find it hard to believe a judge "ignored" statute on the basis he found it morally wrong. you later confirmed this was not the case and the case result was because of a technicality..
Twice now!,makes it sound like someone has a little difficulty with honesty here!

I'm just amazed how you cannot see how anything you post could possibly be wrong.

Freddie_Snowbits

Perhaps grayme-m, you need a pot of this to paint your ...

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

I'm just amazed how you cannot see how anything you post could possibly be wrong.

Well come on then tell me what i said that appeared to be dishonest instead of trite cliche's,
As i said many posts ago, no credibility, and silly pictures won't make nay difference there

Post one tells us one thing!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=11879441#post11879441

post 2 tells us another???
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=11888661#post11888661

so which is it?,, or are they both a load of fantasy?

grayme-m

mdbarber_ wrote: »

Well come on then tell me what i said that appeared to be dishonest instead of trite cliche's,
As i said many posts ago, no credibility, and silly pictures won't make nay difference there

I've no credibility?

You just ooze it.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

Post one tells us one thing!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=11879441#post11879441

post 2 tells us another???
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=11888661#post11888661

so which is it?,, or are they both a load of fantasy?

Sorry, I complicated matters for you by using words to write what happened.

I'll try to keep it simple.

A selfish greedy keyboard warrior was 'giving it large' from his keyboard, quoting all sorts of legal Acts that he claimed meant he could have his 'cake and eat it'.

It went to court, where he was very much less vocal in person.

First stage was a Case Management Conference, to determine how the case should proceed in court.

At this stage the judge warned him that he was very unlikely to win, and that even if he did win he wouldn't get any money back, he was sure he would win so chose to proceed.

All parties agreed to use the Small Claims Track (his claim was much larger than yours so could have gone down another), the next stage was to determine if there was any money outstanding (i.e. had he accepted that we had paid him what he was entitled to).

It was that stage that we thought the case would continue, we didn't think he had.

The judge thought in fact he had, so the case ended there.

Our opinion is still that he would have lost in the end anyway, the judge just got sick of his arrogant attitude in trying to act all legal eagle from afar (he sent loads of paperwork to the court to 'prove' his case), and having no substance in person (and more importantly no case).

You'll pick holes in that, but that is what happened, nobody else seems to have a problem with what I wrote.

Seeing as we are all being open and honest at the moment, for the record, I don't believe you and never have; with the way you have conducted yourself throughout, I think it is more likely that you broke the stereo and made up a story to try to get it fixed for free. Hence, you don't want to return it because it is clear what did happen and you'll get it sent straight back. I doubt I am alone in this view?

stugib

grayme-m wrote: »

I think it is more likely that you broke the stereo and made up a story to try to get it fixed for free. Hence, you don't want to return it because it is clear what did happen and you'll get it sent straight back.

Ooooh, you're SO added to his sue list now

mdbarber

@graym-me
Its easy to make up yet another story!! the first postings quite clearly contradicted each other so why add yet another.
You can say all you like about what you believe, but lets face it you have not a single shred of evidence of anything to back that up and in reality that is probably what incarexpress would of said had i returned the item.
But this way they are going to have to prove it! not just say it.

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

@graym-me
Its easy to make up yet another story!! the first postings quite clearly contradicted each other so why add yet another.

Sorry I knew that using words would confuse you, you can't even get my name right (again). :wall:

I've made nothing up... Your idea of contradictions can be flawed as you have proved in this thread.

mdbarber wrote: »

You can say all you like about what you believe, but lets face it you have not a single shred of evidence of anything to back that up and in reality that is probably what incarexpress would of said had i returned the item.
But this way they are going to have to prove it! not just say it.

I think I speak for many on here, that we hope that you will be the one that has to prove its faulty; how can ICE prove it isn't if you still have the item?

Alas, I have now beat my head against the wall and will move on.

Freddie_Snowbits

grayme-m wrote: »

I am alone in this view?

Nope

Perhaps if the ICE Fitter had done as I said earlier.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I am sure that a 30 minute interview with proper professional advice would had alleviated the need to go it ‘alone’.

The ICE Fitter may have got his money back had they taken my early advice. But, alas, one doubts they wish to not only have their cake, but eat it. Again I shall repeat my simple question as above.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Have you got your money back yet?

It only requires a Yes or No.

Alas one doubts whether the ICE Fitter has actually still got the 8 Track Stereogram, or was it sold on?