Beryl

Failed to comply with delivery instructions or failed to ensure Yodel complied, leading to theft of goods delivered. Correctly arranged for re-imbursement of the price of the stolen goods, but continue to instruct the delivery company Yodel whose employees have evidentially proven untruthful by making false statements as to delivery.

Beware. This business is holding itself out as an agency of EE using the EE logo to attract customers. Once paid over, they do not credit the account despite holding out that the payment you make will be applied to top up a mobile phone with a specific number. It is a fraud under s.2 Fraud Act 2006 and also a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Aggrieved customers should report their cases to their bank preferably in writing and to action fraud. This business will not refund your money and will fob you off with a structured explanation designed to evade liability

The response of Michael Solomons to a decisive judgment against him following trial by a County Court indicates that this is a trader who should not be permitted to carry on business. In the course of his evidence Mr Solomons asserted that he was entitled to retain possession of his customer's equipment for periods of time amounting to years; also entitled to reject lawful requests for return of goods and termination of contract of retainer; to be entitled not to give an evaluation of condition on receipt; or to provide charging rates; time sheets or proper accounts of work carried out. He described reasonable requests for information from customer's whose equipment was held for over two years as "nagging". His evidence was entirely rejected by the trial judge. The account below was merely the latest of county court actions against him, but not the first in which he refused to be bound by the judgment or to acknowledge his liability arising from it. His response to the trading test case against him is seen below, alleging irresponsibly that it would have been cheaper to pay him the unlawfully demanded charges than bring the case in the County Court. This was not a financially driven claim, it was a consumer malfeasance claim against a rogue trader with a long history of misconduct to customers. Mr Solomons declines to provide particulars of purported supporting customers whilst concurrently claiming that aggrieved customers do not exist or are trade competitors attempting to discredit him.
Aggrieved customers should contact Harrow police in respect of any equipment he continues to retain following a demand for return; or if payment has been made under duress to obtain return of their equipment.
Action is in train to prevent further false on line trade representations by Michael Solomons.

Claims H00WD414 and J01YJ664 were jointly tried at Watford County Court on 31st May 2024. The cause of action included breach of statutory duty and damages in conversion, the unlawful retention of goods. The trial judge dismissed the Defence of Michael Solomons and gave judgment for the Claimants. In the course of his judgment he stated that he found the evidence of Solomons contradictory and inconsistent, hence unreliable. He held that, making allowanced for covid, the order of time to complete works on electronic equipment was in the order of weeks or months, not years as Solomons asserted. His judgment expressly stated that as he was in breach of statutory duty under s.52 Consumer Rights Act 2015, no sum of money was due from any customer in any case in which work was not completed within a statutory reasonable time. Hence no lien arose in favour of Solomons, and thus he had no entitlement to retain the goods. The retention (in fact for several years from 2018 in the longer case) was unlawful, hence damages were awarded. Solomons was ordered to deliver the goods to the consumers by 10th June 2024 and to pay costs by 21st June. He appears to have breached that order by returning Quad amplifiers in faulty condition (to be examined) and the judge held he intentionally breached an order for delivery up to experts for inspection and report to the Court. Transcripts of the judgment can be obtained via the Court.
Any customer whose goods have been retained by Solomons has an action in conversion against him, and following the clear statement of law which now binds him and of which he is clearly now aware, continuing retention of customer's equipment under a purported lien which cannot exist in these circumstances, and to do so may amount to a criminal offence under Theft Act 1968 and other statutes depending on the circumstances. Customers are recommended to bring any such conduct to the notice of police at Harrow.
The response from Solomons to the review filed by Mr Hedley below is discreditable, as plainly untrue to his knowledge. The trial sought a declaration that no sum was due and payable to Mr Solomons, and the trial judge held clearly that no sum was payable given his several common law and statutory breaches. Hence the Court held that Mr Hedley owned nothing to Mr Solomons and that Mr Solomons' claim for debt and lien was unlawful.
Interested parties should post a report on Trust Pilot with full particulars and inform Trust Pilot of their position. It is intended that further action shall be taken against Solomons in respect of his conduct in order to recover those other items of electronic equipment he continues to unlawfully withhold from customers.
Brian Hurst 15th June 2024

The dreadful service reviews are the more accurate. I am a trustee of a property portfolio. Over several years PB harassed over properties sold or let years before, ignoring notice to remove the references on file. PB appear to use sales canvassers with out of date information and glib sales techniques. Valuation appointments were regularly missed without notification; valuations were not provided following visits; false accounts were provided to justify missed appointments. Director Jessica Fox now states PB are not able to value for distant property owners unable to attend in person; ruling out portfolio trustees and remote holders. Working to a formula of badly constructed sales pitches and unable to justify claimed skills and standards; this firm should be avoided.

Do not use.
Inept in dealing with transfers. 29/01/2022 I tried to tr£ansfer £5K to currency for a listed recipient. Xe reported they could not do it, so I retried. Same response. On the third attempt next day, told my bank had refused. After an hour or more on the phone to both, it turns out Xe have deducted £10K on instruction. Today Ryan of Xe told me Xe would not instruct the bank the transaction would not go through. Hence Xe has deducted £10K from my account but wont re-transfer or inform the bank the transaction failed. Result: I cant use my Lloyds account to pay anybody.
Ryan was quite indifferent to threat of legal proceedings. Go ahead if you want he said.

This did not happen with HiFX. Use at your peril.

Good job; turned up on time; cleaned the carpets in a 3 B/R modern house in a couple of hours; left clean and tidy. Price Ok for London. Did what it said on the tin.
They want paying immediately after the job, which is a bit tricky if you are not near the computer or deal with your bill payments twice a week! Overall, as good a carpet cleaning firm in London as any. I would use them again as first choice.

Fairly easy to use and clearly effective.

Not to be used if at all possible. Linked to Booking.com but the concealed relationship leaves doubt about legal responsibility for fault and error. LM Dot com discreditably fobbed off a booking change agreed by my skiing hotel in Borovets Bulgaria, effectively frustrating the variation and costing me money. Customer services skilfully avoided the issue leaving no effective redress. Complaints failed to respond. This is shoddy stuff from a leading booking agent. Refused to disclose contact details of legal department to take the matter further in court. Hence this firm should be avoided if at all possible. Booking.com should take note. Expedia does not act as you do.

Usually does what it says on the tin.
Has mixed up addresses in the past.

Following notice on trust pilot of the issue of a further claim in the County Court against Michael Solomons trading as London Sound, he falsely reported to Trust Pilot that the complaint was not genuine and that he had grounds to believe that the reporting consumer was not a genuine customer. This was a false report to Trust Pilot and appears to indicate that complaints by customers are habitually met by counter assertion of falsification by customer or competitor.
Civil claims are public issues. Particulars of Claim in claims H00WD414 (Watford County Court) and J01YJ664 (County Court Money Claims Centre, issued 14th January 2022) may be obtained from the county court. Personal requests for copies of the Particulars of Claim may also be made to the address below which will be considered in each case.

Left Amplifier for examination February 2020. Never reported on condition, failed to give account of necessary repairs and refused to return the amplifier. Purported to claim a false lien on the goods despite breach of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Reported to consumer services. The internet services reports are littered with reports of similar conduct. Solomons is making false representations about service and quality and has a long history of consumer standards breaches and contractual contravention. Suggest all aggrieved customers report their case to Trading Standards Harrow. Civil Action to recover the amplifier and damages to commence June 2021. Similarly aggrieved customers should contact Barristers Chambers 39 Park Square Leeds using reference Solomons London Sound.

Experienced Hifi Buff over 45 years.
I wish to endorse good service of Anthony and Hifi Confidential Woolwich. I bought a 2020 Marantz CD Player which proved faulty. It was apparently a faulty batch. Antony dealt with the issue immediately, without fuss or conditions, returned the item to Marantz and dealt with the manufacturer properly. I eventually substituted the faulty unit with its successor, provided by Anthony, which works superbly. I would use him again without hesitation. What matters is when it goes wrong, not when it goes right. Friendly and helpful. I have no connection with him.
Brian H 15th March 2021

Did as it said on the tin, except the class of car was inferior to the one I hired.