This is a somewhat complex story, so I'll try to keep it brief. On 6th September, I was the victim of a very sophisticated hack. I have no idea how it was done, and because of this it really does bother me about online security. I have accounts at several online key retailers. These keys can be bought (in the form of a code) to enter into online platforms such as Steam, Xbox, PSN etc. On 6th September I briefly saw an email from PayPal whilst I had my browser open. It was a receipt for some game keys. I did not recognise the amount (£43.99). I logged into PayPal immediately (not following the email link) and saw three transactions. Two transaction from vendor 'A' for £43.99 and £109, and one more from vendor 'B' on the same day for £105. I logged into the respective websites and quite clearly for vendor A, my account showed two purchases that day for those amounts. I then logged into vendor B, and saw the single transaction for £105, but this was subject to an identification security check, so had not been processed. This vendor B transaction was fairly quickly refunded to PayPal as I had contacted the vendor and alerted them to the dispute, along with the fact that the goods had not been released. I went back to PayPal and marked the transactions as disputed. Within a couple of hours, they replied saying that my claims were denied, and that there was no evidence of unauthorised use of my account. I appealed the decision and again, they denied the claim with the same line, that they did not see any unauthorised access to my account. I pointed out that under the User Agreement, I would not be held responsible for transactions that I didn't make, but they ignored that. I have a PayPal credit account with about £280 outstanding. I was due to make the £100 monthly payment within a week (via direct debit), and guessed that they might try to tag these (now two outstanding) fraudulent transactions onto the DD, and straight out of my bank account. I phoned the bank and cancelled the direct debit (this was on the 6th September evening). I was not able to remove the bank account from the PayPal account as there were transactions which where pending (the direct debit I guess). I also removed my credit card from the account on the 8th September. I have been in dispute with PayPal all of this week. The first few replies, they suggested that it would be more convenient to call them, but I said that I wanted to use the messaging (email) system so that I'd have a copy of the dispute details. They now won't reply to my emails AT ALL. I have told them that I no longer have access to a bank account, but I can make a bank transfer (from someone else) to cover the PayPal credit payment. Forward to Friday (13th Sep), I see the two fraudulent transactions totalling just over £150 appear on my credit card statement, even though I had removed it as a payment method (and they let me) 6 days earlier. I have called the credit card company, briefly explained that I removed the card from the PayPal account due to a dispute, and that they had made fraudulent debits to my credit card account several days later. The CC company blocked the card and said they would reverse the transactions. The main problem (assuming the fraud on the CC gets sorted) is that I need to pay the PayPal credit statement shortly. I was quite prepared to turn my back on them completely. However, I just looked on my credit score thing online, and PayPal credit have been showing the monthly payments (all green) for the last 18 months. If I don't pay this, it's going to damage my credit rating, and most importantly, is unjust. I see there was some advice about ignoring PayPal debt which I was prepared to do, but it appears that in the case of PP credit, it shows on your file. If there's an opinion that a single bad debt won't do much to my credit score, I only monitor it now because a mobile phone billing mistake trashed my score a couple of years ago and I din't know about it until I needed to borrow money. (In that case I contacted EE and they wiped that history and my score shot straight back up). PayPal are quite slippery. I've asked them for an address for UK legal correspondence and they ignored me. I asked repeatedly for a way to pay them without giving them access to my bank account and they're now ignoring me. I've reported it to Action Fraud and sent the crime number to them and they've only replied with 'call us'. Advice?

I think the same. We are now in a situation where if I am awarded greater than I have offered to settle for, the judge would be able to say that the defendant could have saved us all time and money by accepting my offer.

Why is it a problem that it can be disclosed before judgement? It shows that I'm the only party attempting to avoid the increased costs of a hearing. In contrast, the defendant has been very unreasonable in a number of ways in which they have behaved, which I intend to show in the chronology of my witness statement in terms of action they have / have not taken leading up to the claim.

Thank you for the swift reply BankFodder. The real question is whether I had committed a legal blunder by not formatting the letter correctly, or not including certain terms. The claim is about the clutch and associated fault. Because the garage have refused to fix the issue and it's dragged on so long, I found it unbearable to live with the vehicle and so have traded it in. The idea (upon a successful claim) was to have the work done elsewhere and return the faulty parts to the garage. Now I have got rid of the vehicle, I won't be doing this, but can I demonstrate a loss to the court? I intended to sell it privately as it's had a lot of expensive work done and parts replaced. This would be a good selling point for a private sale and got me more money for it (but made NO difference to the trade-in price I got), but I couldn't sell it privately with a clear conscience knowing it potentially had that fault. This issue became the sole reason I sold the vehicle. I even spent £1500 on it back in April this year replacing something that wasn't broken or faulty to futureproof a weak point as I intended to keep it. Life is busy, it's not something I've got time to pursue (now I don't have to). I didn't put a time limit on the offer, but I did ask for a response within seven days, and this was nearly two weeks ago. I've heard nothing.

I believe this deserves its own thread as it's a discrete legal topic, although is related to another thread I have. Short version: I started action against a garage over a car repair. The garage filed a defence. We had a mediation meeting where they offered ~25% of the claim to settle. I rejected that offer and decided to end the mediation as it was clear our positions were (financially speaking) too far apart. Obviously the content of the mediation is confidential so I cannot refer to it at the hearing. Their offer was made 'without prejudice' but did not mention Part 36. Due to a change in circumstance I have decided to accept their offer. I wrote to them and said I will settle for £xxx (which is the same as their mediation offer) plus my £60 cost of the action, though I did not mention in the letter the fact that they had offered this amount in mediation. The letter I sent was NOT marked 'without prejudice' simply because I want to be able to show this at the hearing that I have offered to settle for significantly less than the claim (though I can't mention that they had already offered this?). The rough outline of the letter was that after further consideration I am prepared to settle for £xx. This settlement offer does not imply a strength or weakness in either parties' case. This settlement will be full and final, and neither party will be able to pursue the other for costs etc etc. I'm aware of the overriding preference to settle before a hearing if possible and as they've already offered this amount, I see this as reasonable. It's a little too late because it's done, but can anyone see a problem with this (letter)?

Because it was mediation, I didn't speak to them. The mediator went between parties on the telephone. I am quite sure that Part 36 was not mentioned at all. I do recall that 'without prejudice' was mentioned though.

A month ago I had a mediation appointment, where the defendant made me an offer of 20% of the claim value, which I refused. As of now, there has been a change in circumstance where it is no longer necessary for me to pursue the claim. (The claim was for a poor car repair, but I have sold the car without having the work re-done). This leads me to consider that there isn't any 'loss', i.e. I am not out of pocket because I did not have the work done elsewhere. The only consideration is the time and grief involved. I understand that anything discussed / offered during mediation is confidential, but, I would like to write to the defendant and accept this offer. The amount is very low and was the first offer made before I terminated the mediation, so I doubt that there will be any refusal on the defendant's part. But, should the defendant refuse, I want to be able to show that I have offered to settle for a low amount, but that amount was discussed in mediation which I cannot mention. I have also read that part 36 offers do not apply to small claims in this document under 'Timing of Part 36 Offers': http://www.stevens-bolton.com/files/8314/5286/2519/part-36-client-guide--april-2013.pdf Have searched here but not found anything relevant. Thanks

So finally they've had the car to look at and although acknowledge each fault that I have reported, have blamed every one on something else, where even those with a rudimentary knowledge in mechanics can see is BS. Although most of the problems are easy to fix, they have not offered to do so. For example, the rattling noise has been blamed on a slightly leaky exhaust (a gas leak that is). The problem with this is that the leak has only been there since I fitted a new part (the joint is a bit loose) a couple of months ago, the rattle was going on months before that. When I went to collect it, they basically handed me a letter saying that each fault was to do with this or that (even when I know it's not and mechanically makes no sense even to a layperson). The bottom of the letter went on to say that an inspection had been done in "association" with an independent transmission specialist. I asked to see the report and they floundered saying that they didn't have it yet, and they might not get it in writing. They also wouldn't say who performed this inspection. They didn't answer when I asked when I would get a copy of the report. The first question was "can I have a copy of this report?" and the answer was a simple "no". What they did do was put 50 miles on the car and used the fuel to go with it. I had taken pictures of the odometer when I dropped it off and immediately on collection. Right now, I feel there's nothing left to do but make a claim, but I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed with this: 1. I feel it would be a very worthwhile exercise to formally involve the 'independent' specialist in the claim. Not as liable in any way, but to force the defending garage to produce the report. I suspect that there is no such independent company, or it's someone they know. I would bet that this other company if they exist, would not want to get involved. 2. I still do not have an invoice describing the branding etc of the items which they replaced. They have ignored all requests to provide one. Is this worth a very brief mention in the PoC? 3.Where do I stand in terms of the mileage added to the car? When I provided the garage with the vehicle there was no agreement, suggestion or mention of involving a third-party, or taking it elsewhere. I have no idea where it's been or who has driven it. They had it for a day and a half. I'm sure they'll be more questions as I form the PoC details. I suspect that when I submit they claim they will likely fold, so the most appropriately worded and detailed PoC might save me some long term effort. Thanks

And just to add - thanks for all the help!

Just an update to say that I had a response from Civil Enforcement today, notifying me of cancellation of the charge. I had used the PoFA argument where I wouldn't name the driver and the NTK was outside 14 days

May be irrelevant, but looking at the notice it does not say what you are supposed to have done, unless it is explicitly stated in the redacted parts. It says in the blurb below that you have either not displayed a ticket or remaining in the car park longer than permitted, so which is it that they're claiming?

And it's nice that you came back to report the outcome

I'd be of the opinion that we should let them continue as is. There are few greater pleasures in life than seeing a waste their money to end up snookered, legally speaking. I suppose the argument to that is how many people will be through ignorance, though just because someone may be ignorant is not a reason to take advantage of them. Edited to reword.

I'm just curious as to how this works. Presumably you enter the car park which ANPR records and then purchase a ticket. Is this related to entering the number plate or something? How are ANPR cameras used to determine that you don't have a ticket displayed?

I sent them a letter in May requesting a satisfactory invoice and their plan of action to rectify the faults. I asked for a reply within two weeks - quite reasonable; not for them to fix it, just a reply. It said that if it was not satisfactory then I would be looking to take formal action. I heard nothing, and so sent them an LBA after six weeks. I fully intend(ed) to proceed with a claim and had to send them an LBA because it is part of the required pre-action conduct. They replied after about ten days offering to investigate the faults, but not sending the invoice I requested. I would much rather proceed with the claim and get the faults rectified elsewhere by a garage which I trust. BUT, if this was to ever get to a hearing, I don't believe it would look as if I had acted reasonably in light of them offering to investigate, and although they have not provided the invoice as requested, the lack of an invoice is not cause in itself for action. And based upon the value of the claim, I would be about £75 worse off due to the fees.