Don't forget the insurance. I had to post back a faulty Vincent amp (about 30kg) and with insurance it cost about £50. Still not £160 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by chelsea
Printable View
Don't forget the insurance. I had to post back a faulty Vincent amp (about 30kg) and with insurance it cost about £50. Still not £160 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by chelsea
Think we pay £10 extra for a grands insurance.
So do we, the guy is in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks £160 is the right cost unless he has shipping crates made, which we know he did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by chelsea
In my opinion, the OP should now seek a bankruptcy order against the plaintiff, that and the court freezing his bank accounts generally focuses the attention. However, I have also sent the OP the names of two firms of bailiffs I have used to get payment in the past, who have proved very effective.
Best of luck
I have stayed out of this thus far and read all comments with interest.
In conclusion I would say if it were myself at the John Wood end of things I would simply have offered a no quibble refund of the entire amount on reciept of the faulty unit.
This is a policy I adopt on all transactions within my company - I would rather have satisfied customers than disgruntled ones - my only requirement would be reciept of the offending item upon which I would issue a full refund inclusive of shipping.
I hasten to add that I would not release ANY funds until such receipt.
Unfortunately the OP's experience so far doesn't encourage him to pay for returning the amp BEFORE receiving a refund. John Wood has ignored a court ruling, so would YOU trust him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodgesound
:exactly:Quote:
Originally Posted by awkwardbydesign
I have to admit that although testamonially uncharacteristic that the evidence thus far would lead me to distrust him regrettably yes.
So maybe then Mr. Wood should advance things by say offering a 45% advance against the return of the goods.....the balance to be paid upon receipt.
Alternatively can the OP not actually take the amplifier to Mr. Wood personally and arrange for a cash payment upon arrival?
Sorry chaps but something just does not sit right here - am I the only one who feels this?
Seriously with the sum of money concerned I would have paid a personal visit by mutual agreement way before this regardless of distance.
Maybe such a visit could lead to the amp being fixed fairly quickly by the designer and manufacturer - after all it was wanted by the OP in the first place was it not?
Before anybody bites by the way...I am not siding here - I just find parts of the saga a little odd.
I think from what he has said previously this is not an option for Geoff. Both parties have stated they do not trust the other so neither will make the first move either re-paying or returning the amp, so as I see it the only way for a resolution without resorting to the High Court would be for a third party, trusted by both of the principles, to both receive the amplifier and the money and distribute them accordingly. Then report the matter as settled to the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodgesound
If it would help bring an end to this matter, I would happily accept that role.
Marco.