Small claims advice
Discussion
singlecoil said:
More details required.
Yes!How, why, what on earth!? What did two solicitors argue? What was there defence? What did the Judge say, come on...!
It's the rules here to pay back the nice people who helped you to at least give a full outcome. It also helps other PHers when they search.
So here is the story:
Purchased 3 matching items from said hardwood furniture retailer for about £1800.
2 items were fine, 3rd a chest of drawers was defective, it basically wasn’t put together properly and wobbled like a jelly.
I rejected it and it was replaced. The replacement had same problem so rejected that.
3rd time round they said they would put it through strict quality control. Guess what – same problem.
So they send someone round to try fix it, says it can’t be fixed.
They phone me to say will give me full refund. I said no I want it replaced as its part of matching set. They refused to supply me with another one. I said I’ll reject all 3 items then, they said no too late to reject all 3.
I said fine I’ll keep the chest of drawers but I value it at £100 due to its poor quality and limited life expectancy. So I asked for refund of just under £300. They refused and got to £200 refund eventually or £250 in store credit (not sure why I would want to spend more money with them). I said no and took them to small claims.
Their solicitors approach from the start I think was pretty poor, they basically started going on about how I was highly and expensively educated (I went to a grammar school and Southampton university?!) and I had a 1st class degree and was a Managing Director by time I was 30 etc etc and therefore I knew exactly what I was doing and basically trying it on.
They said they refuted my valuation of the chest of drawers claiming they would have resold it at a 30% discount, I asked whether they had resold the first 2 rejected and they said unlikely. They provided no evidence to the value it should be worth or any evidence they ever re-sell damaged stock.
They said I should have taken refund and then gone and bought the item online with someone else and there are 17 other retailers online selling exactly the same piece of furniture manufactured in the far east.
They said I had asked for compensation in an email and therefore was just after money after the second item was rejected. They were unable to provide a copy of this email as clearly one of their staff just made this up.
They said I hadn’t rejected all 3 items and asked them all to be replaced. I fortunately submitted as part of my evidence a letter I wrote to them well before the court claim confirming they refused to replace all 3 items.
They argued that my statement that I was buying from a retailer selling quality furniture was incorrect as they sell value furniture. I referred them to their current TV advert which starts by referring to quality…..
Judge concluded:
The chest of drawers was not fit for purpose and accepted that my valuation, whilst I hadn’t provided evidence to support the value the defendant hadn’t either.
That it was reasonable that I had the right to reject all 3 items as they were a matching set. And I also had the right to be provided with a chest of drawers which was fit for purpose.
That I wasn’t a hardwood furniture expert and it would be unreasonable to expect me to know that an item manufactured in the far east would be sold by 17 other retailers, and the defendant had not provided any evidence to support that this item can be bought elsewhere.
That whilst the difference between what they were offering and what I was after was not large, I had no option but to pursue the claim through the court.
He awarded the full claim plus court costs. I didn’t bother claiming any other costs, it was more about the principle of it to be honest for me.
Purchased 3 matching items from said hardwood furniture retailer for about £1800.
2 items were fine, 3rd a chest of drawers was defective, it basically wasn’t put together properly and wobbled like a jelly.
I rejected it and it was replaced. The replacement had same problem so rejected that.
3rd time round they said they would put it through strict quality control. Guess what – same problem.
So they send someone round to try fix it, says it can’t be fixed.
They phone me to say will give me full refund. I said no I want it replaced as its part of matching set. They refused to supply me with another one. I said I’ll reject all 3 items then, they said no too late to reject all 3.
I said fine I’ll keep the chest of drawers but I value it at £100 due to its poor quality and limited life expectancy. So I asked for refund of just under £300. They refused and got to £200 refund eventually or £250 in store credit (not sure why I would want to spend more money with them). I said no and took them to small claims.
Their solicitors approach from the start I think was pretty poor, they basically started going on about how I was highly and expensively educated (I went to a grammar school and Southampton university?!) and I had a 1st class degree and was a Managing Director by time I was 30 etc etc and therefore I knew exactly what I was doing and basically trying it on.
They said they refuted my valuation of the chest of drawers claiming they would have resold it at a 30% discount, I asked whether they had resold the first 2 rejected and they said unlikely. They provided no evidence to the value it should be worth or any evidence they ever re-sell damaged stock.
They said I should have taken refund and then gone and bought the item online with someone else and there are 17 other retailers online selling exactly the same piece of furniture manufactured in the far east.
They said I had asked for compensation in an email and therefore was just after money after the second item was rejected. They were unable to provide a copy of this email as clearly one of their staff just made this up.
They said I hadn’t rejected all 3 items and asked them all to be replaced. I fortunately submitted as part of my evidence a letter I wrote to them well before the court claim confirming they refused to replace all 3 items.
They argued that my statement that I was buying from a retailer selling quality furniture was incorrect as they sell value furniture. I referred them to their current TV advert which starts by referring to quality…..
Judge concluded:
The chest of drawers was not fit for purpose and accepted that my valuation, whilst I hadn’t provided evidence to support the value the defendant hadn’t either.
That it was reasonable that I had the right to reject all 3 items as they were a matching set. And I also had the right to be provided with a chest of drawers which was fit for purpose.
That I wasn’t a hardwood furniture expert and it would be unreasonable to expect me to know that an item manufactured in the far east would be sold by 17 other retailers, and the defendant had not provided any evidence to support that this item can be bought elsewhere.
That whilst the difference between what they were offering and what I was after was not large, I had no option but to pursue the claim through the court.
He awarded the full claim plus court costs. I didn’t bother claiming any other costs, it was more about the principle of it to be honest for me.
essayer said:
Good result. Wtf were they going on about your education for?? Can you complain to the SRA about that?
I think they were trying to claim I was playing the system to extract money from their client. I'm happy to leave it now as long as I get the money. Solicitors I'm sure will get stuck from their clientGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff