John Wood Audio, a tale of woe

[Eagle owl]

Before I tell my tale I would like to say that Marco has given his permission.

I contacted Mr John Wood on November 26th 2012 and he agreed to build me a valve integrated amplifier, with remote volume control for £1,300.00 inclusive of delivery to my home and said it would be ready in one month.

The amplifier was eventually delivered to me on February 22nd 2013, it should have been supplied with a remote control, an electrical mains cable, instructions on how to use it and a receipt but these items were not in the box. On contacting Mr Wood he told me he'd put them in a separate package attached to the box containing the amplifier which seemed strange to me as there was sufficient room in the amplifier box. Also, the delivery label on the box stated 'Item 1 of 1' which indicated to me there was no separate package.

I found a spare mains cable at home so was able to start using the amplifier, however it was faulty, in that it gave off a humming/buzzing sound which was not loud but could be heard during quiet passages of music or when listening at low volume. I contacted Mr Wood and told him and confirmed it should be silent. As the amplifier was faulty I asked him to arrange collection of the amplifier, repair it and return it to me at his expense but he refused and said I must foot the bill. At this time I asked him for a refund but he refused.

I took Mr Wood to court and the court found in my favour because he'd ignored the documents sent to him relating to the case. Mr Wood then applied for the judgement to be set aside, he was successful and a new hearing was scheduled for January 17th 2014 at Nottingham County Court. At this I applied for the hearing to be transferred to Eastbourne County Court and was successful, the hearing was then rescheduled for March 13th 2014 at Eastbourne County Court.

I attended the hearing but Mr Wood didn't show up. He did however submit a statement signed by a solicitor and included in that statement was the following.

The Defendant is aware of the Claiment in so much as he had previously requested me to provide him with a "previously owned" Valve Audio Amplifier which I did in December 2012.

It is the case that the amplifier was sold to Mr T***** on an "as seen" basis.


When I first placed the order for the amplifier with Mr Wood it was done over the phone and followed up with an email which said the following.

"Hello John, further to our telephone conversation this afternoon please build and supply one integrated valve amplifier with remote volume control and 75 watts rms per channel at the quoted price of £1,300.00 inclusive of the valves and delivery to my home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.



Luckily for me I'd kept this email on my computer together with his reply thanking me for the order and submitted a copy to the court thus proving Mr Wood to be substantially incorrect. His application for the original judgement to be set aside was dismissed and the court found in my favour again.

At this moment in time (September 12th 2014) Mr Wood owes me £1,480.00 which is the cost of the amplifier plus my expenses but he hasn't paid. I just want him to do the honourable thing by paying up and arranging for collection of the faulty amplifier.

The bailiff has visited Mr Wood's premises multiple times but has been unable to make contact.

[synsei]

Before I tell my tale I would like to say that Marco has given his permission.

I contacted Mr John Wood on November 26th 2012 and he agreed to build me a valve integrated amplifier, with remote volume control for £1,300.00 inclusive of delivery to my home and said it would be ready in one month.

The amplifier was eventually delivered to me on February 22nd 2013, it should have been supplied with a remote control, an electrical mains cable, instructions on how to use it and a receipt but these items were not in the box. On contacting Mr Wood he told me he'd put them in a separate package attached to the box containing the amplifier which seemed strange to me as there was sufficient room in the amplifier box. Also, the delivery label on the box stated 'Item 1 of 1' which indicated to me there was no separate package.

I found a spare mains cable at home so was able to start using the amplifier, however it was faulty, in that it gave off a humming/buzzing sound which was not loud but could be heard during quiet passages of music or when listening at low volume. I contacted Mr Wood and told him and confirmed it should be silent. As the amplifier was faulty I asked him to arrange collection of the amplifier, repair it and return it to me at his expense but he refused and said I must foot the bill. At this time I asked him for a refund but he refused.

I took Mr Wood to court and the court found in my favour because he'd ignored the documents sent to him relating to the case. Mr Wood then applied for the judgement to be set aside, he was successful and a new hearing was scheduled for January 17th 2014 at Nottingham County Court. At this I applied for the hearing to be transferred to Eastbourne County Court and was successful, the hearing was then rescheduled for March 13th 2014 at Eastbourne County Court.

I attended the hearing but Mr Wood didn't show up. He did however submit a statement signed by a solicitor and included in that statement was the following.

The Defendant is aware of the Claiment in so much as he had previously requested me to provide him with a "previously owned" Valve Audio Amplifier which I did in December 2012.

It is the case that the amplifier was sold to Mr T***** on an "as seen" basis.


When I first placed the order for the amplifier with Mr Wood it was done over the phone and followed up with an email which said the following.

"Hello John, further to our telephone conversation this afternoon please build and supply one integrated valve amplifier with remote volume control and 75 watts rms per channel at the quoted price of £1,300.00 inclusive of the valves and delivery to my home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.



Luckily for me I'd kept this email on my computer together with his reply thanking me for the order and submitted a copy to the court thus proving Mr Wood to be substantially incorrect. His application for the original judgement to be set aside was dismissed and the court found in my favour again.

At this moment in time (September 12th 2014) Mr Wood owes me £1,480.00 which is the cost of the amplifier plus my expenses but he hasn't paid. I just want him to do the honourable thing by paying up and arranging for collection of the faulty amplifier.

The bailiff has visited Mr Wood's premises multiple times but has been unable to make contact.

Then the man is an idiot because a substantial charge for every visit by a bailiff will be added to what he owes via the judgement...

I hope this is resolved soon Goff...

[Puffin]

If the bailiff has made "several attempts" to see this chap without success, then this is nothing unusual. Bailiffs are salaried by the court service and there is not a lot of incentive for them to get results. Contrast the Sheriffs Officer who gets paid on results. As far as I know you can only instruct the Sheriff if the judgment is a high court judgment, a ccj can be transferred to the high court for enforcement purposes (has to be over £600)

What a bailiff should do if he finally gets to see the debtor is take walking possession of goods to the value of the debt to give the debtor time to pay. If he does not pay then the goods will be removed to auction and sold. Problem 1. The bailiff is likely to be fobbed off with the debtor saying all the stuff in here is owned by my partner/wife/son/daughter/dog/cat etc. He may also say that it is on HP or some other terms that means he does not own it until it all paid for. He should produce documents to confirm this, but some bailiffs give far too much rope).

Problem 2. The bailiff has to assess whether or not the goods that "may" be the subject of walking possession are sufficient to satisfy the debt after the costs of removal and sale. If in the bailiffs opinion the costs of removal and sale would be minimal, then he will return the warrant endorsed "N/E" No Effects on Which to Levy". End of warrant and your court fee down the drain.

Problem 3. If goods are taken to auction it is a lottery as to who is there and how much they bid. There will be no reserve. Goods estimated to make £500 may only make £50, so £50 off your debt and you are left to whistle for the rest - or take some other form of enforcement. If he owns his own house, you could apply for a charging order securing your debt against his house. Unless you tried to force a sale through the court earlier (not straightforward), you would not see your money until the property is sold.

There are other things you can do and you may already be aware of all I have written above and more. Google is your friend. I was a lawyer for 30 years and worked in the court service for 12 years before that, so I speak from experience.

[killie99]

Whilst Rob has pointed out the pitfalls to Geoff even though he has won the case, the damage to Mr Wood's business, I suspect, will be pretty substantial as this isn't the only place this has been posted. A disagreement with a customer over a fairly minor amount of money can have substantial consequences and if Mr Woods is folly enough to see it through court, lose and still not pay up, then frankly he deserves all he gets. Unfortunately for Geoff it's his loss that will stop others ending up with the same fate.

[Marco]

I’ve also invited Mr Wood to comment and put his side of the story and/or refute any claims made by Geoff. We shall see if he takes up my offer….

Marco.

[Eagle owl]

If the bailiff has made "several attempts" to see this chap without success, then this is nothing unusual. Bailiffs are salaried by the court service and there is not a lot of incentive for them to get results. Contrast the Sheriffs Officer who gets paid on results. As far as I know you can only instruct the Sheriff if the judgment is a high court judgment, a ccj can be transferred to the high court for enforcement purposes (has to be over £600)

What a bailiff should do if he finally gets to see the debtor is take walking possession of goods to the value of the debt to give the debtor time to pay. If he does not pay then the goods will be removed to auction and sold. Problem 1. The bailiff is likely to be fobbed off with the debtor saying all the stuff in here is owned by my partner/wife/son/daughter/dog/cat etc. He may also say that it is on HP or some other terms that means he does not own it until it all paid for. He should produce documents to confirm this, but some bailiffs give far too much rope).

Problem 2. The bailiff has to assess whether or not the goods that "may" be the subject of walking possession are sufficient to satisfy the debt after the costs of removal and sale. If in the bailiffs opinion the costs of removal and sale would be minimal, then he will return the warrant endorsed "N/E" No Effects on Which to Levy". End of warrant and your court fee down the drain.

Problem 3. If goods are taken to auction it is a lottery as to who is there and how much they bid. There will be no reserve. Goods estimated to make £500 may only make £50, so £50 off your debt and you are left to whistle for the rest - or take some other form of enforcement. If he owns his own house, you could apply for a charging order securing your debt against his house. Unless you tried to force a sale through the court earlier (not straightforward), you would not see your money until the property is sold.

There are other things you can do and you may already be aware of all I have written above and more. Google is your friend. I was a lawyer for 30 years and worked in the court service for 12 years before that, so I speak from experience.

Many thanks Rob.

[Eagle owl]

May I say that I really didn't want to name and shame Mr Wood but he left me no choice at all. The courts judgment was in March of this year, we are now in September and he's made no attempt to pay what is owed and appears to either have moved home or is still at the same address but refusing to answer the door when the bailiff calls.

[StanleyB]

Whilst Rob has pointed out the pitfalls to Geoff even though he has won the case, the damage to Mr Wood's business, I suspect, will be pretty substantial as this isn't the only place this has been posted.

I wasn't aware that this thread can also be found on other forums. So what exactly is the agenda of the OP by doing so?

Separate from that is the issue of asking someone to build you a bespoke piece of audio kit. I have long learnt that it is always best to turn down such requests. If things go wrong, or the customer is not entirely satisfied, the effort and money spent on building the item is all a waste of time. In this day and age of high expectation and quick dissatisfaction, I am surprised that there are still people about who are willing to take on such projects.

[BTH K10A]

I wasn't aware that this thread can also be found on other forums. So what exactly is the agenda of the OP by doing so?

Separate from that is the issue of asking someone to build you a bespoke piece of audio kit. I have long learnt that it is always best to turn down such requests. If things go wrong, or the customer is not entirely satisfied, the effort and money spent on building the item is all a waste of time. In this day and age of high expectation and quick dissatisfaction, I am surprised that there are still people about who are willing to take on such projects.

Very clear to me, It's a heads up to others who may place orders, supported by the underlying story and may assist in recovery of losses incurred

Rather than a bespoke bit of kit, it seems this person build amps to order rather than hold a stock

http://jwoodaudio.com/

[Eagle owl]

I wasn't aware that this thread can also be found on other forums. So what exactly is the agenda of the OP by doing so?

Separate from that is the issue of asking someone to build you a bespoke piece of audio kit. I have long learnt that it is always best to turn down such requests. If things go wrong, or the customer is not entirely satisfied, the effort and money spent on building the item is all a waste of time. In this day and age of high expectation and quick dissatisfaction, I am surprised that there are still people about who are willing to take on such projects.

Stanley, I requested Mr Wood to build me an amplifier, the following is copied and pasted from my original email to him sent on November 26th 2012.

Hello John, further to our telephone conversation this afternoon, please build and supply one integrated valve amplifier with remote volume control and 75 watts rms per channel at the quoted price of £1,300.00 inclusive of the valves and delivery to my home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.

He said I would receive the amplifier in one months time, I didn't receive the amplifier until February 22nd 2013 and it wasn't what I'd paid for.

The amplifier he eventually sent me was not a new amplifier built for me, it was previously owned (As shown in Mr Wood's statement submitted to the court) and faulty.