Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Pathfinder

Again, no compensation awarded in Small Claims and only minimal costs can be requested (eg. a nominal amount for loss of pay for attending), and granted only at the Judge's discretion.

 

Sounds harsh but means big corps can't scare consumers out of taking action with the threat of having to pay their large legal bills if they lose.

 

But you are right in saying that they don't want this going to court and them losing. They'll try everything in their power to dissuade customers from getting that far.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Moily wrote:

Again, no compensation awarded in Small Claims and only minimal costs can be requested (eg. a nominal amount for loss of pay for attending), and granted only at the Judge's discretion.

 

Sounds harsh but means big corps can't scare consumers out of taking action with the threat of having to pay their large legal bills if they lose.

 

But you are right in saying that they don't want this going to court and them losing. They'll try everything in their power to dissuade customers from getting that far.

 

@Tell posted a few pages back the costs you can claim and they covered all your work preparing and telephone call time as long as you document it all. This includes preparing correspondence with the retailers and interest on the outstanding amount owned. 

Paul 


Highlighted
Explorer

Hi @mrtickle,

 

Thanks for the help! I'm still maybe a bit unsure though about the part you quoted from section 19. The sentence you reference starts "Where the contract is a mixed contract with a goods element", which I'm not sure is the case here?

 

Also, looking at the summary table in paragraph 101, it says the remedies available when goods are not as described are in sections 20-24 (and section 24 is the section that covers the final right to reject).

 

Goods to be as described (section 11), including conforming to information re material characteristics under the CRD
  • The short-term right to reject (sections 20-22)

  • The right to repair or replacement (section 23)

  • The right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (section 24)

 

Thoughts on this? I'm wondering if i'm missing something or, if in fact, the ADR resloution was more generous to the consumers than it needed to be.

Highlighted
Voyager

@Moily wrote:

Again, no compensation awarded in Small Claims and only minimal costs can be requested (eg. a nominal amount for loss of pay for attending), and granted only at the Judge's discretion.


Costs are limited under the new Simple Procedure for small claims to:

  • Claim between £200 - £1500, maximum is £150 costs
  • Claim between £1500 - £3000, maximum is 10%.
  • Claim between £3000 - £5000, no limit.

Given the court cost itself is £102, that uses up most of the limit anyway.  Explained at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure/simple-procedure---what-happens-in-a-dis...

Highlighted
Pathfinder


@paul1277 wrote:

 @Tell posted a few pages back the costs you can claim and they covered all your work preparing and telephone call time as long as you document it all. This includes preparing correspondence with the retailers and interest on the outstanding amount owned. 

Paul 


To a certain extent, yes, but only if you are genuinely out of pocket and the losing side has been unreasonable. You don't automatically get paid your costs if you win.

Even if the Judge does award costs for your time, say you earn £100 an hour in your real job and you spend a total of 4 hours of your chasing up the retailer you won't get £400 costs., just a nominal equivalent (think it used to be £40 per day, pro rata).

As said it's entirely at the Judge's discretion. Unless there's a good reason to get the costs incurred prior to launching the claim the Judge will be unlikely to award you anything.  But this works in your favour more so than the big corps.

 

@tarbat It's different for England & Wales, but that is useful info for anyone launching a claim in Scotland.

Voyager

@alex_92812 wrote:  Thoughts on this? I'm wondering if i'm missing something or, if in fact, the ADR resloution was more generous to the consumers than it needed to be.

Rely on subsection 11(b) and 11(c) and argue that the 6 months will only start when the retailer supplies the USB Extend Adapter. It will be interesting to see how a sheriff interprets this situation.

Highlighted
Pathfinder

@paul1277 wrote:

@Moily wrote:

Again, no compensation awarded in Small Claims and only minimal costs can be requested (eg. a nominal amount for loss of pay for attending), and granted only at the Judge's discretion.

 

Sounds harsh but means big corps can't scare consumers out of taking action with the threat of having to pay their large legal bills if they lose.

 

But you are right in saying that they don't want this going to court and them losing. They'll try everything in their power to dissuade customers from getting that far.

 

@Tell posted a few pages back the costs you can claim and they covered all your work preparing and telephone call time as long as you document it all. This includes preparing correspondence with the retailers and interest on the outstanding amount owned. 

Paul 

To a certain extent, yes, but only if you are genuinely out of pocket and the losing side has been unreasonable. You don't automatically get paid your costs if you win. 

 

Even if the Judge does award costs for your time, say you earn £100 an hour in your real job and you spend a total of 4 hours of your chasing up the retailer you won't get £400 costs, just a nominal equivalent (think it used to be £40 per day, pro rata).

 

As said it's entirely at the Judge's discretion. Unless there's a good reason to get the costs incurred prior to launching the claim the Judge will be unlikely to award you anything. But this works in your favour more so than the big corps.

@tarbat It's different for England & Wales, but that is useful info for anyone launching a claim in Scotland.

Highlighted
Black Belt 
In all the correspondence I have seen all the retailers keep saying its about faulty goods and keep ignoring the misrepresentation bit.
As per the ADR being too generous I find that highly unlikely, because they would lose all credibility if they got things wrong, and I know the ruling said there would be no appeal, but I bet if Richer Sounds did disagree they would have challenged this ruling, which is quite clear about a full refund.
As per expenses at the end of the day we just want the retailers and Samsung to do the right thing and not to make money out of it, but just cover costs, as @Tell explained.
Paul
Highlighted
Helping Hand

@alex_92812 yes that's why I started my post with "I am not a lawyer" and ended it when I did, as I was waste-deep in all the documents with windows open and didn't want to lose the long post I'd typed up to there.

 

The bit I did type uses "goods which come with a service" as an example, mobile phone, but remember the Samsung TV also comes with a service - the so-called "Smart" hub software with the voice recognition and searching stuff. They all have service agreements you have to tick boxes in, in the TV. So if anyone tries to argue that the "full refund for mobile phone" example doesn't apply because there's no service, well, there is a service.

 

It would take me many hours to pick it all apart. My advice is the same as yesterday: please read all of the Explanatory notes from top to bottom to gain a thorough understanding. It will take you a lot of time to do that, but if you get your refund it'll be worth it? As I said I was lucky to be an RS customer, so didn't need to do that.

Highlighted
Explorer

@mrtickle Thanks, and I hope I didn't come across as ungrateful - I'm not, your response was very much appreciated. I'm just trying to wade through the information (and potentially misinformation) on this thread in order to come to a conclusion as to what the best course of action is.

 

The one thing I know for sure so far is... #CurrysNeverAgain

Top Liked Authors