Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Full Refund from Privacyguard


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5419 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just thought I would pass on information that led to a full refund from Privacyguard.

Following the theft of my wallet whilst on vacation last year, I was asked to try out Privacyguard via LloydsTSB during a phone call to discuss the fraudelent charges made on my credit card. I agreed to undergo a trial of the Privacyguard service for £1.00.

Nothing ever arrived from Privacyguard, so a trial was never undertaken. Despite this, Privacyguard carried on regardless and took £6.99 each month from my Credit Card.

LloydsTSB said it is nothing to do with them, they are only introducing agents. Not sure I totally agree with this stance - I think some joint liability exists along the lines. But not too concerned.

One probing phone call to Privacyguard, to determine what info they have on record. A quite accommodating Customer Service Rep, who advised that they have nothing on record except that they had sent a trial pack. I avoided their get around that if I register now, they will set everything up and will cover (insurance wise) anything detected on my credit report since the date the trial should have begun. Key point to note is that they were not offering to let me undergo a trial, but to continue with their standard service. Obviously, I refused and instructed they take no further money in relation to this account. I finished the call by obtaining a complaints address.

Wrote a letter to Privacyguard, sent recorded delivery and without my standard signature as a precaution.

Privacyguard

Operation Centre

Sentinal House

Airspeed Road

Portsmouth

PO3 5RF

Dear Sir / Madam,

Account in relation to LloydsTSB Mastercard (xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx)

I enquired on xx-xxx-xx about a recurring charge of £6.99, referenced as Privacyguard, being made to my credit card which I identified following a recent review following non-related problems.

As discussed with your representative, ‘xxxxxxxxxxxx' recall agreeing to receive a trial of your service for £1.00. This was following a telephone call regarding my credit card being stolen, hence such protection was a concern for me at that point.

As advised to xxxxxxxxxxxx, I have never received any documentation in relation to the Privacyguard services. xxxxxxxxxxxx advised that your records show dispatch of a ‘trial pack’, but no further information regards any other correspondence or registration.

On query of the way forward, your representative requested to resend the ‘trial package’ such that I could register my details with Experian and commence monitoring, assuring me that any backdated issues or concerns with my credit report, since the date of original agreement to receive the trial pack, would be honoured and dealt with.

Up until that point in the conversation, I would have been happy to agree with receiving the trial package and commencing the trial. However, xxxxxxxxxxxx advised that any monies paid to date would not be refunded.

It is clear from the conversation, that to date no service has or could have been provided by Privacyguard, as no registration details have ever been processed. Furthermore, your offer to backdate cover, whilst seemingly generous, is unspecified in terms and negates recognition that a monitoring service has not been provided for the period since inception. Nor does it recognise that I have not been given a trial of the service with an option to cease.

The agreed terms between LloydsTSB, acting as authorised agent to Privacyguard and myself were the provision of a 30 day trial of Privacyguard for the obligation of £1.00, with an ongoing commitment of £6.99 per month if cancellation was not made prior to the end of the trial period.

As no trial period has been allowed the present situation is that Privacyguard have failed to conform the agreement for my consideration of your product, whilst my obligation £1.00 has been paid.

Without prejudice, I observe Privacyguard in breach of The Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 (as amended), Part II, Section 14, Clause 1. I consider the passing of 7 calendar months to be a fact of reasonable period. Due to this failure I exercise my right to rescind the contract and require Privacyguard to return all funds taken to date in recognition of the breach.

Provided all funds are returned in a timely manner, 4 weeks for the purpose of clarity, I shall consider the matter closed and final.

I trust you have no dispute with the above observation and wait your positive reply in recognition and advising return of all funds within the stipulated timeframe

.

Yours sincerely,

As can be seen, the letter outlined my recinding of the contract on the basis that a breach was made by Privacyguard in their failure to provide a trial of the service. That I had upheld my side of the agreement (by paying £1.00) and Privacyguard had failed to provide the paid for service (a trial).

I further highlighted that it was impossible for Privacyguard to have provided any service at all as no details were known or registered, as advised by their own Customer Service Rep.

I received two letters back from Privacyguard within 2 weeks. First was acknowledgment of cancellation. The second was agreeing to a full refund following review of the account particulars.

It was a worrying moment between the two letters whilst I thought that I would only receive the cancellation letter in ignorance of my recorded delivery letter, but I resisted temptation to complain and remembering I had allowed a generous 4 week period for them to resolve.

The second letter did not admit any liability, nor did I expect it to. But it state that Privacyguard recgonised that I had not been given a trial period and therefore could not establish if I would like to maintain the policy.

All funds are now returned back in my account.

Just thought the above may help someone out if they are in a similar situation.

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...