How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

Further question to Alex (Order ID:16169972-877).,Hanse

This answer was rated:

Further question to Alex (Order ID:16169972-877).
Hanse **** has today (13 April) responded to my Claim letter of 14 March (which had required a response within 14 days). Meanwhile, I lodged my Court Claim on Monday 4 April (but it is not yet 'processed/paid for'). Can you give a view on the validity of their response (see full text of their e-mail below) in respect of the following points:-
1. Is it relevant they have not responded in a timely fashion, nor have they made specific reference to my Claim letter of 14 March, (although on 7 April they acknowledged its receipt and said they would respond within a further 2 weeks)?
2. Does Hanse **** belief that the servicing of Wolf heating systems was available for me (and them?) 'in perpetuity' realistic, and does that mean they now have no responsibilty (If they believed that, should they not have had an appropriate long-term contract with their chosen sub-contractor GWI to install and service the Wolf system)?
3. As a registered Wolf system owner I was informed by a new company Ubbink (UK) on 15 August 2011 that they had taken over Wolf distribution and supply of parts in UK, and that Wolf's out-of-warranty servicing was available via their contact Jerry, who has already confirmed this service is 'not available' in the London area. Should not Hanse Haus claim against GWI for a maintenance service that is not 'fit for purpose'?
4. Hanse Haus already has Darren's £720 quote for the additional travel costs (only) each time he visits, which could easily amount to £10K over 10 years - as set out in my Claim letter). Their suggestion I now do a 'deal' with him is 'unreasonable'?
5. My Claim letter does not refer to cost-sharing as a solution . However, I had originally suggested I might be willing to pay a 'fair and reasonable' share of the cost. However, this is not now relevant, as I am claiming additional costs/compensation (up to £2K value) to add to the £8K cover quote from Darren to provide (and, preferably, for Hanse **** to pay) an equivalent, serviceable system?
Regards, Gordon,
Enc. Hanse **** e-mail of 13 April:-
'Dear Gordon,
We come back to your letter and the previously conducted correspondence relating the heating services in your home.
First we would like to point out that WOLF heating systems was represented at the time of delivery of your house in the UK market to the extent, so that we had to assume, that a service or the supply of spare parts is guaranteed in perpetuity.
We are sorry that WOLF heating systems has retreated from the UK market in that way in the recent years. We didn’t know this at the time of delivery and had no influence in this case.
Regardless that the warranty has already expired on 19.01.2013, we’ve always tried to support you and to assist you in the search for a suitable installer.
As with any other heating systems, maintenances are required to ensure proper operation (We recommend annual maintenance.). Possibly Darren Farley is able to offer a cost-effective framework contract , if you instruct him for regular maintenance in the future?
For the reasons mentioned above, we unfortunately can’t agree to a cost-sharing in the exchange of the heating system.
For and on Behalf of HANSE **** GmbH & Co. KG
Peter ******
Customer After Sales Department'
Hello and thanks for asking for me.What is it you would like to know about this please?Alex
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Hi, Alex.
My enquiry yesterday asks your view on the validity of 5 points raised by Hanse Haus response to my Claim letter of 14 March (submitted previously). Can you help with this please?
Also, a new point is that CCMCC has today returned my documents received 5 April because I did NOT include a completed N510 form (you may recall your response to my earlier request for your advice on which of the many options was relevant in my case)
1. They have 14 days to reply or 28 days if they file an acknowledgment of service2. I cant see how they can absolve ALL responsibility!3. Yes they can claim against GWI4. You simply say to the Judge that £720 for additional travel is wholly unreasonable.5. Dont worry about this then if you are no longer pursing it.Can I clarify anything for you Gordon?Alex
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Thank you, Alex.
Two point to clarify:-
a). Darren has quoted what I the trade appears to consider a reasonable quote for the additional travel costs, for such a specialised service, which detailed as follows:- £400 for 10hrs travel @ £40/hr for return van journey between nr Teignmouth and Godstone, £200 for car use (i.e. he is charging 52p/mile for the 384 mile total distance) + VAT = £720( 400 + 200 + 120). What is seems 'unreasonable' to me is that neither Hanse Haus, nor Wolf (still 'selling' at a recent London exhibition) can give me the name of a specialist engineer for the Wolf system in the London area.
b). Please advise on the additional point about which Part 2 option is relevant in Form N510
a) Indeed.b) Part 2 first box Does that help?Alex
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
It does help, thank you.
A further point: please can you amplify your response to point 2 above, e.g. how might I challenge Hanse Haus on their belief they have no responsibility?
2) Because the system just isnt suitable. How can a system be sold that isnt fit for purpose or suitable!Does that clarify?Alex
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
- with thanks