Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Help understanding Ebay refund policy please.


Fienderella
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2472 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

I had a bit of a battle as I think I narrowly missed being a victim of the 'refund spoof'

but because I fought hard and won my appeal against the buyer who initially opened and won a 'Returns Case',

 

 

I successfully got it reversed and they sent me the following message and I'm not sure how to interpret:

 

""We've reviewed your concerns and have reversed the outcome of the case.

You don't need to take any additional action to reimburse eBay for the refund paid to the buyer, and eBay will make no further attempts to seek reimbursement from you.

 

Because we decided in your favor, this case, any feedback left, and all detailed seller ratings left, will not affect your seller performance. In addition, any feedback left for this transaction will be removed.

 

If you have other questions, please contact us. You can reach us by going to the eBay website and clicking "Help & Contact" in the upper right corner and then selecting "Contact eBay."

 

Thanks,

 

eBay"""

 

Exactly what do they mean by their first line as they did actually return back to my account funds equal to the value of the sale

- and if they are not coming back to me for reimbursement,

who is going to pay the buyer who has since returned the item to the delivery company for insurance reasons but only AFTER ebay reversed it's decision against them?

 

 

And if ebay isn't going to come back to me to take the refund and I can't refund because the option has gone since they've closed the case,

 

 

How comes the buyer's out of pocket as this doesn't sit well with me either :( All really confusing. :(

 

Although to be fair to ebay and the buyer

- the buyer was acting rather 'oddily' as if they knew exactly how to play the Refund spoof and thankfully I followed the advice of others and checked with ebay at every aspect and I believe ebay did say they would be investigating the buyer further as they felt something was not right either.

 

If anyone could shed some light on how ebay works once a Returns Case has been reversed and what their first line actually means, I'd be less confused :) Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

simply means forget about it all

not your problem

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

but what if they've then decided to return the item now the case is closed..... ? I'm expecting them to take the funds again from me - hence my head scratch and I'm trying not to dip into it because I simply can't afford to find a bulk sum...

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not your problem.

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

Hi -

update:

I've just had the following message through from ebay:

 

I’m sorry to hear your transaction didn't go as smoothly as expected. After looking into your case, it appears that we granted your appeal.

 

Since the case was not closed, the seller is no longer accountable for the reported transaction. As such, once a case has been closed, it can't be reopened or appealed.

 

If you have not done so already, I strongly suggest you contact your seller to explain what’s happened and try to work things out with them, as often issues like this can be resolved quickly over the telephone. You can request the seller's telephone information by selecting Find contact information at the link below

 

xxxxxx

 

We'll send you an automatic email with the seller's contact details. At the same time, we'll also send the seller your contact details. We provide them with these details as we feel this maintains trust and fairness on eBay if members are aware that another member has requested their contact information.

 

In the event that you and the buyer agreed for a refund once you received the item, you can send their refund through send money tab in PayPal. Here's how to send money to anyone:

 

1. Log in to your account at paypal

2. Click the "Send Money" tab.

3. Choose " I'm paying for goods or services" or "I'm sending money to family or friends".

4. Enter the relevant information and click "Continue".

5. Review details including the "Source of Funds". If the payment that you're sending exceeds the amount of funds in your PayPal account, you can click "More Funding Options" to change the source of funds for the payment.

6. Click "Send payment" to complete the payment. To change any information, click "Edit".

 

Please note: If you edit your payment details, the funding source will return to the default method of payment.

 

The recipient will receive an email announcing the payment. The email contains a link. After clicking on the link, the recipient can log into PayPal or sign up for a new account. If the recipient doesn't have an account, they will need to open one to receive the payment.

 

I hope this is helpful and wish you all the best on eBay in the future.

 

Kind regards,

 

_________________

I'm confused now again as I'm the seller.

 

The buyer hasn't contacted me since he lost the case other than via ebay messaging service to tell me that I was a horrid person and the whole experience was horrid (because he lost and clearly had no intention to send the item back!) and that they were now sending the item to the courier and included a receipt showing that something was sent.

 

I've not had any contact with them since. But the item was at least sent back.

 

I raised the question with ebay about how to refund once case is closed at the same time as I posted in here (but before I got a response from in here) and the above response is what I received a few hours ago.

 

I am the seller, so why would I want my own details?

And considering their earlier email, should I wait until the buyer prompts ebay or should I continue to assume ebay has taken care of it all seeing as this is what was said in the first email from them and them knowingly creating confusion and openly said they messed up and so apologised afterwards that they would take care - which is how I got the first email....

 

I am starting to think let sleeping dogs lie.... but I also want to do the right thing and hope they are not out of pocket.

 

Confused. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

there would be no harm in your last few words.

gentlemanly thing to do?

 

 

maybe send an email offering such?

 

 

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...