A word of warning, was:- ER40 Backplate mounted chuck

..and for all we know you could be the Pope's favourite acolyte.

Regards, Tony

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:58:48 +0000, Rich scribed thus...:

Well, here's one who most definitely has done exactly that!

Snowball and Hell probably sum up the likelihood of me ever trusting them with a single-penny piece of mine.

If the guy from 'Chester' is still reading then all I can do is paraphrase one Homer Simpson.... "Way t'go I-d-a-ho!" An excellent example of customer care and professionalism. Do you think he's got it yet that offering a Credit Note to a disgruntled customer is about the worst damned thing you can do? Or do we actually even believe that he gives a toss what we think?

Ian

Amazing how quickly folks get off the track and start slagging each other!

Track records are what make posters legit or not, and as anyone can check on Google, it is soon apparent who are the 'regulars' and who are the very occasional posters.

I personally don't believe in using an alias, and easynet operate a very efficient spam filter, (as does Gmail) so all my posts, from the office or from home are posted using the full and correct email and name.

Peter

-- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk

That is their choice, my choice is different but no less acceptable.

I don't know aht you mean by avatar ? Boo is a pen name / pseudonym and there is nothing dishonest about posting under such names which have a long and honourable tradition in, eg, literature . I don't know what evidence you have to support the statement that I am dishonest ? I post throughout usenet and many forums under this name and I think my posts are pertinent and reasonable.

If it unsettles anyone that they have to judge my opinions on their face value without the crutch of knowing whether I am a "good old boy" or "one of us" then that's their problem. I have no intention of publishing my personal details on the web or in public forums where any passing thief can get a list of what machines I own, how much I'm generally worth, how often I'm out of the house etc etc. Info posted here cannot readily be deleted once it makes googles' and others' databases.

Finally : Privacy is a right.

Cordially,

Bless you my son.

Regards,

John Stevenson L Stevenson [ Engineers ]

I am no-one's dog but my own and bark only on my own account. In particular I have no relationship with Warco (or any other model/engineering supplier) except as a customer who pays for all my toys of my own pocket.

As an aside, I am interested to know if you are aware that *your* email address is hidden when you post to usenet through rcgroups ? And would you please append your passport number to your posts so we can determine whether P Riedie is your real name and not just one you use on usenet ? No ? Thought not...

You can also go don't to your local pub during a working day and get the same information for free. Most of them know all the answers to all the unasked questions.

One of their employment stamps is worth more than a penny black.

No one can tell me how to get the £96.38 that I have been owed for nearly 4 years even after winning a CCJ against the firm and two bailiff visits.

Plenty of advise but as my old Grannie used to say, don't tell me, show me.

First question, do they have the money?

*My* advice, for what it's worth (I used to be a credit controller in some of the rougher parts of Glasgow, if that counts), if you want the money rather than the satisfaction or reputation of causing hassle, is:

Go for the money, go directly for someone who has lots of money, and do not go for anything which isn't lots of money.

Go after lots more money than you are owed too, to account for extra costs. And don't go unless you have a good chance of getting the money.

In practice bailiffs are mostly a scare tactic, and often don't work against recalcitrant payers. Bailiffs don't have a lot of powers, the ones they do have are strictly limited (nowadays, in the old days they'd take the sheets off a pregnant mother's bed), and it can take a long time, and many visits, before they actually do anything.

They are also expensive, and like all other remedies, you don't get the fees back unless the debtor eventually pays them. You won't get much from some old furniture (or used sheets!) sold by the bailiffs at a cheap auction, especially after costs.

And now to show you how: To go after the money you will have to find lots of money somewhere, of course - and after your credit card company (not applicable here) the best type of money to find is someone who owes (and is likely to pay) them lots of money.

For a firm, start with their customers, especially those with credit arrangements, most likely other and bigger firms. If they do have bigger firms as customers, the bigger firms will not take kindly to the hassle of complying with a "garnishee" order, and may even stop trading with them - bonus!

Ignore their bank, most firms, even respectable ones, are in debt to their banks overall, in some way or another.

You can also ask that the firm be questioned under oath about their ability to pay, costs £45 iirc, and maybe get details of any money they have, or more likely anyone who owes them money, that way.

'nother question, is the firm a Company or a sole trader? There are a few differences, especially in this part.

Then ask the Court (the same one which issued the CCJ) for a third party debt ("garnishee") order against the firm which owes them money, but note that whether this will work depends on the circumstances, and whether you can find anyone in a suitable position, ie someone who owes them money *on the day the order is served*.

Costs £55 to apply, which you can claim back from the debtor. Forms are free from the CC, but it's a good idea to 'phone the Court first and ask for advice.

There are many other methods, but *if* you can find someone who owes them lots of money this one usually works best against a recalcitrant debtor Company - it's not quite so effective against sole traders though.

The Lord Chancellor is looking at debt recovery, with an eye to making it easier and more effective, but it isn't going to happen overnight.

In practice of course, the other question you must ask, after "Am I likely to get any money?" and "Am I throwing good money after bad in costs I won't be able to recover?", is "Is it worth the hassle?".

-- Peter Fairbrother

Generally, when I buy things _they_ reject _me_ as a result of Murphy's Law.

regards Mark Rand RTFM

I'm pleased to report that Antony has now promised that Chesters will make a full *refund* of the disputed amount. I hope that this thread has opened their eyes a bit, and that company policy on such matters will be altered or, at least, applied more flexibly in future. I didn't press that point with him, though, as it seems that it may not be his decision to make. I'm sure there are times, as Ketan has intimated, when customers will 'try it on'. A balance has to be struck between resisting throwing money away with them, and upsetting genuine customers. It seems to me that Chesters have yet to find that balance but hopefully they will in time, for their sake as well as their customers'.

Tim

As indeed they should do.

Possibly not but if anyone senior from his company read what he posted on here they would hopefully appreciate that his words, albeit perhaps well meant, were actually inflaming the situation more than resolving it. Offering once again to give a credit note or a refund less a restocking fee wasn't exactly the most tactful approach to group full of experienced engineers who know quite well whose word they believe about what had transpired.

Speaking as someone in the retail game and having dealt with the public over many years, albeit in a completely different field, in general most people are incredibly honest and to cast any form of doubt on their integrity rarely, if ever, pays for a retailer. A simple acceptance of a problem may grate a bit for the retailer, but the goodwill generated travels a long way. The adverse publicity from a 'bad' event travels so far that it simply isn't worth it, as this thread shows. I hope they learn. A lot of their competitors have.

Francis

Thought I'd explain the sheets bit some more, though it's well off-topic. The bailiffs couldn't take beds in use, as they were considered essential, but they could take the sheets as they were considered non-essential.

Sometime later, I think it was around 1960, a Doctor gave evidence that sheets were essential for the hygene of babies, so they stopped doing that for new mothers and pregnant women.

This was in Scotland BTW, it may have been different in England.

-- Peter Fairbrother