Tweet
Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ
Getting there thanks [MENTION=104499]jaguarsuk[/MENTION]. How's this?
REPLY TO DEFENSE
1. The Claimant replies to the Defence filed by the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxx 2017.
2. Paragraph 1 of the Defence is denied.
a) The application instructions provided by the Defendant were followed by the Claimant. This is evidenced by the successful application of;
i) a previous order for transfers from the Defendant that I applied to another model following the instructions. A photograph of this model was subsequently displayed on the Defendant's Facebook page and serves as evidence the process was followed correctly.
ii) a replacement set of transfers received from the Defendant in response to a previous complaint were applied following the same process.
iii) The Defendant suggested an alternative method of applying the transfer which was tried by the Claimant, but which also failed. This shows the fault was due to the quality of the products supplied.
2: Paragraph 2 of the Defence is denied.
a) The claim is for reimbursement for the cost of 12 crest transfers that were faulty.
i)The original order was for ;
LIST THE ORDER
ii) The Defendant provided a quotation;
LIST THE QUOTE .
This shows the total cost for the order of which 12 crests was £80 and it is this amount that is being claimed.
iii) The quotation was accepted and the order placed and paid in full in August 2012.
iv) The additional £12 claimed is for costs incurred for the expense of two recorded delivery letters to try to bring about a resolution.
3. The Defendant has admitted there was an issue with the products supplied in an email received in October 2015.
4. The order was initially partially fulfilled in Jan 2015, general enquiries about progress were made over 5 months and the claims made in paragraph 4 of the Defence are therefore denied.
5. The defendants issue in paragraph 3 about his normal charge is irrelevant. A requirement was provided, a quote was received and the quotation accepted and paid for in full.
6. The original basis for the repeat order was that they would be of the same quality as the transfers the claimant had previously acquired and applied from the Defendant. For this reason alone, the claimant did not initially test the new order and at no time did the defendant make the claimant aware that different materials had been used during the production process.
7. The transfers were kept in their original delivery box, in their original sealed plastic bag and in a stable temperature out of any sunlight in line with the defendants storage instructions. For this reason, the defendants claims in his final paragraph are denied.
8. The claimant provided extensive evidence to the Defendant by email, and following discussion, returned the product to the Defendant for testing in 11th November 2015.
9. Partial replacements were received from the Defendant in June 2016.
10. It is the Claimants case that the defendant is in beach of the Consumers Rights Act 2015 and also the Sale of Goods Act as it is now three years since the order was placed and the goods provided are not of a satisfactory quality.
11. I respectfully request that the defence be struck out and judgment awarded to the Claimant.
12. I also respectfully request that costs of and occasioned in the dealing of this matter be awarded to me as the Claimant.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I, xxxxxxxxx believe that the facts stated in this reply to Defence are true
Signed .. Date
Getting there thanks [MENTION=104499]jaguarsuk[/MENTION]. How's this?
REPLY TO DEFENSE
1. The Claimant replies to the Defence filed by the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxx 2017.
2. Paragraph 1 of the Defence is denied.
a) The application instructions provided by the Defendant were followed by the Claimant. This is evidenced by the successful application of;
i) a previous order for transfers from the Defendant that I applied to another model following the instructions. A photograph of this model was subsequently displayed on the Defendant's Facebook page and serves as evidence the process was followed correctly.
ii) a replacement set of transfers received from the Defendant in response to a previous complaint were applied following the same process.
iii) The Defendant suggested an alternative method of applying the transfer which was tried by the Claimant, but which also failed. This shows the fault was due to the quality of the products supplied.
2: Paragraph 2 of the Defence is denied.
a) The claim is for reimbursement for the cost of 12 crest transfers that were faulty.
i)The original order was for ;
LIST THE ORDER
ii) The Defendant provided a quotation;
LIST THE QUOTE .
This shows the total cost for the order of which 12 crests was £80 and it is this amount that is being claimed.
iii) The quotation was accepted and the order placed and paid in full in August 2012.
iv) The additional £12 claimed is for costs incurred for the expense of two recorded delivery letters to try to bring about a resolution.
3. The Defendant has admitted there was an issue with the products supplied in an email received in October 2015.
4. The order was initially partially fulfilled in Jan 2015, general enquiries about progress were made over 5 months and the claims made in paragraph 4 of the Defence are therefore denied.
5. The defendants issue in paragraph 3 about his normal charge is irrelevant. A requirement was provided, a quote was received and the quotation accepted and paid for in full.
6. The original basis for the repeat order was that they would be of the same quality as the transfers the claimant had previously acquired and applied from the Defendant. For this reason alone, the claimant did not initially test the new order and at no time did the defendant make the claimant aware that different materials had been used during the production process.
7. The transfers were kept in their original delivery box, in their original sealed plastic bag and in a stable temperature out of any sunlight in line with the defendants storage instructions. For this reason, the defendants claims in his final paragraph are denied.
8. The claimant provided extensive evidence to the Defendant by email, and following discussion, returned the product to the Defendant for testing in 11th November 2015.
9. Partial replacements were received from the Defendant in June 2016.
10. It is the Claimants case that the defendant is in beach of the Consumers Rights Act 2015 and also the Sale of Goods Act as it is now three years since the order was placed and the goods provided are not of a satisfactory quality.
11. I respectfully request that the defence be struck out and judgment awarded to the Claimant.
12. I also respectfully request that costs of and occasioned in the dealing of this matter be awarded to me as the Claimant.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I, xxxxxxxxx believe that the facts stated in this reply to Defence are true
Signed .. Date
Comment