Barrack room lawyers:

As Harold Wilson once said a week is a long time in politics so just a quick update.Thank you to all who have pm'd and it's good to know that solidarity is alive and kicking on the Moon.Our case has now moved on to mediation which has been scheduled at months end.So why mediation when we were heading toward the final hearing stage? A good question and that's because the courts can frown if you do not explore all avenues to attempt an amicable resolution.If we proceeded to the hearing like excitable Judge Rinderesque mad men complete with silk and wigs they could have imposed costs for wasting courts time.However if we play nice and stay focused we may achieve a result via mediation alone.There is a distinct possibility our electrical chums down at Currys HQ may be using the exercise to offer peanuts .Well the wife may like nuts but I certainly don't and will fight our corner to final fruition until a reasonable outcome is achieved.And as mentioned if we should fall they will have won a battle and not the war and shall regroup and take the campaign further by a full frontal assault on Watchdog and The Good Morning Britain studios with our dashing hero Piers Morgan. If this fails we will stand outside store Father Ted style with our own logos banners and placards.

They have compiled a grande litigious defence which looks rather daunting at first sight but looking into it further was just a massive cut and paste exercise clearly using a one size template that fits all ..I can only assume they are busy with other victims..I will upload their resume nearer the time and of course our riposte.They still insist on quoting the user manual that states do not watch static images for a long period of time but we did not because the effect as it's now known remains cumulative .We did not watch Good Morning Britain for 225 hours constantly but watched 45 mins a day at around 4 hours a week totalling 225 hours for 18 months.You cannot escape this cumulative effect or escape logos and banners that encapsulate the majority of all TV viewings.

And so the above named parties have all filed a Directions Questionnaire (N180) and have all requested mediation.A one-hour appointment on xx/xx/xx between xx and xx has been offered. This is only an offer at this stage because we need to speak to all the parties to the claim before we can confirm that the appointment will go ahead. Please can you phone us on xyz before the xxxxx between the times of xx xx xx .

Mediation Requirements:Please read the following statements:

1) For mediation to be successful there needs to be some flexibility from all parties and a willingness to listen and consider each other’s positions. Can you agree to this?

2) I can confirm that I have enough information about the claim to allow me to enter into negotiations and that I do not require any further evidence from the other party before the appointment. For legal representatives/solicitors only: Have you got full instructions and authority from your client to continue and are able to fully take part in mediation?

3) I can confirm that I am available for the entire time slot on the date stated above. (Mediation appointments are limited and can only be re-arranged under exceptional circumstances).

Mediation is only available to you if you can answer YES to all 3 statements above. If you answer NO to any of the statements, mediation is not suitable for your case and you should contact the Mediation Team to inform them (email is preferable).

How is Mediation Carried Out?

You will be contacted by a Court mediator who is trained to help people settle their disputes. The mediator acts as a ‘go between’ to help both parties try to find a resolution. They do not make decisions, offer legal advice or adjudicate the dispute. The mediator’s therefore do not need to see any supporting evidence prior to mediation.

Mediation is done via telephone but it is not a conference call. The mediator will speak to one party, discuss the case and how they are willing to resolve the matter, then hang up, call the other party and do the same. The mediator will continue to go back & forth between the parties for the hour-long session.

If you and the other party come to an agreement, the mediator will draw up a Settlement Agreement confirming what is agreed. The mediator will read the Settlement Agreement to you and it becomes legally binding from the moment you verbally agree to it. Copies of the Settlement Agreement will then be sent to all parties and the Court, this concludes the case. Should the other party breach the terms of the agreement, you can apply to the court to enforce the order.

If no agreement is made after 1 hour, the mediator will end the session and the case will proceed to a hearing to be resolved by a District Judge. Anything mentioned at mediation is confidential and cannot be referred to at a court hearing.



If any of you are thinking of fighting your corner then crack on as it certainly is not cost prohibitive.We could have used the European court to assist as all electrical appliances carry 2 years warranty as standard regardless of what the manufacturer or retailer says.The 2015 act and the European jobbie supersede any warranty they offer and take precedent.Thanks for listening.
 
Last edited:
Curry's had until the 20th February to agree to the above mediation session and the hearing was scheduled for the 28th February. They sadly ignored the courts and failed to respond so the mediation session never took place. Effectively they have now eaten into another six weeks of our time and spring is in the air so a very big well done to Curry's for a quite brilliant flanking maneuver but I guess we can now make that final march to county court free of any more encumbrance or restraint.Shame eternal shame on you Curry's and your beyond dismal Trust-Pilot reviews appear to be correct.


Curry's defence to claim

1. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has issued proceeding against an incorrect entity. The Defendant contends that the Claimant’s purchase subject to this claim was made from Currys PC World which although not a legal entity but is the trading name of, and are operated and controlled by DSG Retail Limited who is the correct Defendant and is referred to as such below. This fact is clearly stated on its websites, receipts, letter headed stationery and on in store notices. Dixons Carphone PLC is the parent company of DSG Retail Limited and does not enter into any consumer contracts.

2. The Defendant admits supplying the Claimant with an LG OLED 65E6V Television (referred to below as 'the TV') under a contract of sale dated XX November 2018. The purchase price was £3250.00. 2.3. 3. The TV was provided with a 12 month guarantee covering parts and labour but which excludes damage caused by accident, misuse, neglect or fair wear and tear. Claim number:XXXX

4. The Defendant contends that on the 29th October 2018 the Claimant contacted the Defendant’s Technical Services Department (referred to below as ‘Technical Services’) and informed that there appeared to be a line across the TV screen. Accordingly the TV was booked for an inspection and or repair. 2.5.

5. On the 3rd November 2018 the Defendant’s engineer inspected the TV and found that there was screen damage to the TV and therefore as this was not covered under the manufacturer’s warranty it was returned unrepaired to the Claimant. 2.6.

6. The engineer produced a report as per his findings which noted that there appeared to be a ‘Good Morning Britain” TV programme logo, clock and associated ticker at the bottom of the TV screen which had been burnt. 2.7.

7. On the 5th November 2018 the Claimant contacted Technical Services again stating that there was no report returned with the TV. 2.8.

8.On the 8th November 2018 an employee for the Technical Services team mistakenly assumed that the issue with the TV would be covered by the manufacturers warranty and therefore booked the TV again for a repair on the 21st November 2018.

9. On the 24th November 2018 the TV was sent to a specialist engineer to consider whether or not the symptoms of the TV were covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. The specialist engineer also confirmed that the TV would not be covered under the manufacturers warranty and therefore was returned unrepaired. 2.10.

10. The Defendant contends that there was email exchange between the Claimant and Defendant’s Customer Services Department (referred to below as ‘Customer Services’) during which the Claimant stated her dissatisfaction with the TV. Customer Services on the 1st December 2018 contacted the Claimant and explained that there was screen burn present on the TV and that there are factors which could cause this such as watching the same programme for long periods with bright vibrant colours being displayed like a banner or logo showing. It was informed that LG would not deem this as normal viewing conditions. Further the Claimant was referred to the User manual which was provided to the Claimant with the TV and which advised that ‘displaying a still image for a prolonged period of time may cause image sticking this is also referred to as image retention and screen burn. Customer Services reiterated that the screen burn issue would not be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.

11. Further email exchange ensued between the Claimant and Defendant and on the 10th December the Claimant commenced legal proceedings. Claim number: XXXX

12. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that the TV failed due to an inherent manufacturing defect which was present at the time of sale. 2.13.

13. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to use the TV as per the user manual guidelines which clearly state that “displaying a still image for a prolonged period of time may cause image sticking. Avoid displaying a fixed image on the TV screen for a long period of time”. 2.14.

14. The Defendant contends that the TV inhibits features and settings which would prevent image retention or screen burn. The TV had a Screen Saver feature that would turn on automatically if the TV detects that a static image is displayed on screen after approximately two minutes. The Clear Panel Noise feature that preserves the quality of the image on the display panel by resetting the TV so that it clears the pixels. There is also a Screen Shift feature which, moves the screen slightly at regular intervals to preserve image quality. The Defendant contends the Claimant could have taken such preventative measures to halt the screen burn damage. 2.15.

15. The Defendant contends that the TV was of satisfactory quality at the time of sale, in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (referred to below as the ‘2015 Act’). 2.16.

16. The Defendant also contends that the TV was fit for its purpose at the time of sale, in accordance with section 10 of the 2015 Act. 2.17.

17. Alternatively, the Defendant contends that section 19(3), of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, provides consumers with additional rights, in the event that the TV did not conform to either sections 9 and 10 at the time of sale which the Defendant maintains it did. 2.18.

18. If the TV is deemed not to have conformed to the contract of sale, the Claimant had a short term right to reject the TV within 30 days from when the TV was supplied, under section 22(3) of the 2015 Act. However they Claimant has lost his short term right to reject, as the time period for doing so passed. 2.19.

19. A Claimant, who has lost the short term right to reject, must accept either one repair or one replacement before seeking a price reduction or final right to reject, in accordance with section 24(5)(a) of the 2015 Act. However section 23 (3) of the 2015 Act states that the consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy was (a) impossible or b) disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies. However the Defendant contends that the burden rests with the Claimant to prove a manufacturing fault with the TV but todate the Claimant has failed to provide any such proof. Claim number: xxx xxxx

20. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that they made an untrue statement of fact that induced the Claimant to enter into the contract and therefore would be entitled to rescind the contract by virtue of section 1 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 as alleged or at all. Further, the Defendant contends that a false statement of law, opinion or intention does not constitute a misrepresentation and neither does a statement of fact which is known by the Claimant to be untrue

21. If, which is not admitted, there has been a misrepresentation under section 2(2) of the 1967 Act the Defendant contends that the contract should be held to be subsisting and damages in lieu of rescission be awarded as it is impossible to restore the parties substantially to their original position, as the Claimant has had use of the TV for almost two years. 2.22.

22. Accordingly, the Defendant denies being indebted to the Claimant in the sum claimed as alleged or at all. 2.23.

23. Save as is herein before specifically admitted or not admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Statement of Claim as though the same were herein set forth and traversed seriatim. Defendant’s evidence Other Engineers report 3. Statement of truth I believe the facts stated in this response are true. Company: Name: XXX..XXXXX Role: Legal Officer January 2019
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your pm's and although I cannot elaborate on our reply to their litigious stance I can embellish further re section one and their insinuation of an incorrectly served entity.

I named Dixon's Carphone as the defendant for the following reasons.
I escalated my concern to the CEO of Curry's namely Alexander Baldock because of a lack of response poor treatment and apathy from the DSG Retail group. Dixon's Carphone PLC is Europe's leading specialist electrical retailer telecommunication and services company being the owner and parent company of DSG. Dixon's Carphone and DSG use the same postal address of 1 Portal Way London W3 6RS. I emailed the CEO directly and he authorized Connor to deal with the situation on his behalf. In this email Connor introduced himself as "a member of the CEO's support team" and not a representative of DSG. If the CEO had mentioned that he had no jurisdiction in the affairs of DSG or the trading name Curry's then all that was necessary was to redirect me to the correct entity.

DSG fully answered the court papers served to Dixon's Carphone PLC by first saying we had the wrong defendant then proceeded to answer the other 20 plus points as if they were Dixon's Carphone plc. All they had to do was answer point one and refute the claim on that basis but instead they answered the court papers in there entirety as if they were acting in the capacity of Dixon's Carphone plc. They then made a request for mediation which I accepted but sadly they thought fit not to respond to the courts deadline on the 28/02/2019. If I have issued to the wrong section of this company I will immediately re-serve again to DSG. Nowhere on their letter heads and stationary does it state that DSG should be the entity to serve proceedings against and their CEO took up the case by appointing his own team member to deal with the issue.

I will of course post all details as they transpire on a win or lose basis for the sole purpose of a universal understanding of the mechanics of how county court hearings are dealt with within the UK. We Work Hard and Play Hard and it's the only thing we know how to do so lets break out the shoes and dance the dance.

 
Last edited:
Sadly Curry's have not replied to the court or their associated form N180 and were given due recourse they had to reply within 7 days or face having their defense struck off. This regrettably did not transpire and we have moved to a position of all out warfare although we sincerely hoped we could have brought this to an amicable assemblance of common decency but there really comes a time when all a man can do is face up to his demons and stand square on in the face of oppression .. Are we afraid .. Mais Oui but we will do our duty and may god bless the 54th. As TV aficionados we are all in this together regardless of race colour or creed and only the banners of law stand between us fort Wagner and eventual justice.. If we should fall....remember what you see here this day .

 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Threads like this confuse me, as there's some truth to its sentiment

Great to see racists made to look petty and small. Amazing, what he's come through. Incredible story of sporting redemption.
Click to expand...

Your always confused Gordon ..Its what you do best and no horses where harmed during this production. I actually left mine on the beach.
 
Last edited:
I shall fast forward a scene in order to provide you with peaceful slumber even though we have not yet arrived at that beach head

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.