John Wood Audio, a tale of woe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulStewart

Err 'a use me but Geoff has no need to accept a cost, Wood was found at fault by a crown court FFS, Geoff has a legal right to ditrain on his goods to the awarded figure. Legally he does not have to pay for shipping or even return the faulty, mis described goods at all. This was the decision of a highly qualified COUNTY COURT JUDGE, not a bunch of blokes on the internet. Wood has now got a CCJ against him so has ruined his credit rating and reputation. Pay the bailiffs and try and get the CCJ resolved, or you make yourself out to be a crook. It's called obeying the law, generally a good idea.

---

Paul, I don't think you get it. No matter what the law says, this is a civil case, not a criminal one, and so far that has got Geoff and John nowhere. John seems able to avoid the bailiffs and Geoff has to lay out more money to get private bailiffs involved. Good luck with that.

Furthermore do you really believe that County Court Judges are highly qualified and always make good decisions. A little naive I think.

A solution is required, not a procrastination of who is legally right or wrong.

Clive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Geoff,

I thought you were going to respond to John’s points one by one, and ‘correct’ them accordingly? That was why I posted them.

Marco.

---

Hi Marco,

sorry, I will attempt to do so.

1) what was asked for by email was later changed by phone so emails don't reflect the full story.

Not true, I never once telephoned Mr Wood to change my original order.


2) I don't and have never made remote volume power amps which was his first enquiry .

Not true, my original and only enquiry related to integrated amplifiers, Mr Wood quoted a price of £1,200.00, I asked whether he could build me one with a remote control, and he replied he could do one with remote volume control only for £1,300.00

3) Emails are very easy to alter I would never offer them as proof if it were me.

I certainly wouldn't know how to alter an email, I'm 68 years young and only know everyday easy stuff to do with computers.

4) I think it was his intention in the first place to get the money back no matter what, and keep the amp that's why he was saying one thing by email then making changes by phone he never sent any mail reflecting what was said in the phone calls

Not true, It was never my intention to do what Mr Wood is suggesting.

5) At first he was going to collect the amp from me and then insisted I send it, If he had collected it like every one else most of his points would not have been relevant ! and I think he was well aware of that.

Not true. At no time when I spoke on the telephone to Mr Wood did he state amplifiers he built had to be collected by the purchaser. The first time he mentioned it was on Monday 18th February 2013. At this stage I said if he didn't supply the amplifier I would like him to refund the money I'd paid. I really wish he'd done that now.

6) He never paid me for the shipping witch cost me £160.00 witch he ordered at the last minute.

It's true, i didn't pay Mr Wood for the shipping costs, the money I paid him was inclusive of delivery to my home, Marco has seen a copy of the email I sent to Mr Wood placing the order we'd earlier agreed on the telephone and his reply thanking me for the order.

7) An Invoice was sent with pictures as he requested which he approved and then paid .

Not True. To this day I've not received an invoice with pictures nor have I received a receipt for the money I paid.

8) I paid one trip for the amp he needs to step up and pay the other way.

I have no intention of paying Mr Wood more money. Mr Wood needs to answer his door to the bailiff and pay the £1,480.00 owing. When the money is in my bank account I shall for a period of 28 days make the amplifier available for collection by or on behalf of John Wood, as per the Judges ruling.

9) I offered to refund him on more-than one occasion.

Not True. I can't say any more than that, it's another of his untruths.

10) He wanted a refund without sending the goods back which will never happen

Not true. I requested a refund and for Mr Wood to arrange to have the faulty amplifier collected, he refused.

11) And now there is also a matter of the court case which in my opinion was somehow illegal I have a legal right as a defendant to have any case made against me heard in the city where I live and he changed this on 3 occasions having the case heard in my absence I have been making HiFi amps now for 50 years built my first when I was 5, yes I am 55 my work is all over the world with only one bad customer and you have him on your website.

Mr Wood ignored the letters/paperwork sent to him by the Nottingham County Court and the court found in my favour in his absence. He then applied for the Judgment to be set aside and it was scheduled for 17th January 2014. At this, I sent a letter to the Judge in Nottingham requesting on health grounds that the hearing be transferred to Eastbourne Count Court and it was granted. The new hearing took place on 13th March 2014 which I attended. Mr Wood did not attend and the evidence I submitted was accepted by the judge and the application to set aside judgment was dismissed.

Marco told me during our telephone conservation today that Mr Wood has now offered to pay for a courier to collect the amplifier from me and once he receives it back in the same condition as it left him, he has promised to refund me in full.

Quite frankly I don't trust Mr Wood to keep his promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by synsei

Geoff, let's tackle a couple of Mr Woods points...

Is it your intention to keep the amplifier regardless?

Assuming this is not the case (and why would it be?), are you willing to share the cost of return shipping to resolve this?

---

Dave, I don't want the amplifier at all, I wish to God I'd never heard about John Wood and his amplifiers. I've won a court case against Mr Wood, he should comply with the court's ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

That wouldn’t work. I like pain :D

Marco.

---

Me too, NOT. :lol:

Ok, I'm now officially bored with this thread... Not constructive I know, but just felt like sharing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

That wouldn’t work. I like pain :D

Marco.

---

Dirty boy :whippin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chivas

Ok, I'm now officially bored with this thread... Not constructive I know, but just felt like sharing...

---

Maybe because it's not your money?

I don't know if John Wood reads this thread, but speaking as a fellow sole trader, I have made one very important observation. This is backed up by your own hand.

In my opinion, you are incredibly unprofessional. Regardless of your technical ability, I find your business attitude absolutely laughable. I can assure you that I am one less future customer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulStewart

Err 'a use me but Geoff has no need to accept a cost, Wood was found at fault by a crown court FFS, Geoff has a legal right to ditrain on his goods to the awarded figure. Legally he does not have to pay for shipping or even return the faulty, mis described goods at all. This was the decision of a highly qualified COUNTY COURT JUDGE, not a bunch of blokes on the internet. Wood has now got a CCJ against him so has ruined his credit rating and reputation. Pay the bailiffs and try and get the CCJ resolved, or you make yourself out to be a crook. It's called obeying the law, generally a good idea.

---

Good post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick E

Maybe because it's not your money?

I don't know if John Wood reads this thread, but speaking as a fellow sole trader, I have made one very important observation. This is backed up by your own hand.

In my opinion, you are incredibly unprofessional. Regardless of your technical ability, I find your business attitude absolutely laughable. I can assure you that I am one less future customer.

---

Good post

Good post.

...not necessarily - I just felt like joining in! :D

Marco.