Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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 and advice to get refund from Buongiorno games


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2473 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

Hello there, desperately needing some consoling and a way forward re claiming my refund of £195.43p. from Buongiorno Games who stated l subscribed to a games website on my mobile last August 2016. . Will be so happy to share my dilemma with anyone who can advise me and been there.

 

Have had contact with this company who are putting all the blame on me and blinding me with technicalities.

I am 65 yrs old and never play games on my mobile phone.

Thank you .

Edited by harroljack
Link to post
Share on other sites

how are they getting this money from you?

you gave them a card number?

 

moved to the mobile phone forum

seems this is an app .that bills your mobile,

 

read here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5482231#topofpage

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

It appears that my mobile number was chosen at random like many others.

Its a premium rate service which l never willingly signed up to.

 

I would have ignored these alerts.

By ignoring them was an indication to the Buongiorno company to continue this taptofun game which they billed me for 10 month at 4.50 per wk.

It was not until l checked my new SIM Plan on the 1/6/17 contract that l noticed a more than large bill.

My previous bills from EE had been the usual mobile phone plan costs, though large , seemed plausible.

 

I immediately alerted EE who blocked the service and denied any responsibility even though they are a third party to this.

A number was offered to me and l have been trying to pursue a refund from Buongiorno over 7 weeks through telephone calls and emails.

 

Their most recent email is very long winded,

they attached eveidence of copies of the times they had alerted me,

a Welcome message to the game site and dates l was billed from their records.

 

Alot of jargon and waffle exceeding two pages in the email as well as there t&c and psauthority to contact.

They are of no help.

Edited by harroljack
Link to post
Share on other sites

did you read that thread on martin's site?

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

Oh yes, thankyou,

did my homework and have even used some of the suggested approaches and templates.

l have not been idle dx100uk.

 

 

Furthermore many of the threads on MSE forum go back to 2015, nothing current.

 

Wondering if Buongiorno have sharpened up their act and are not refunding illegal costs or using jargon to get around taking responsibility.

 

 

The above thread from me outlines the number of times l have contacted them,

just wondered if l now issue them with a Small claims court order?

Link to post
Share on other sites

unlawful costs its not a criminal matter..

doesn't matter what jargon they use

they need to prove you signed up to it

and i'm with you.

a 65yrs old pensioner wold not be using such things.

total spoof to rob you of money

if you'd like to post up their jargon

i'm sure we can get the buster out and pull them apart.

 

 

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

Have copied their long winded reply. Do l have any recourse?

 

 

Dear .........

We would like to thank you for your patience in this matter and for allowing us the time to thoroughly investigate your complaint.

We understand that this situation may have been frustrating for you.

 

Below, we have provided a full breakdown of your case which includes:

a summary of your complaint;

the actions taken by Buongiorno;

the findings of our investigation; and

our final conclusions.

 

In addition, to ensure complete transparency in this matter, we have also attached a copy of the information that we requested as part of our investigation to ensure a thorough assessment could be conducted. We have also included a copy of our complaints procedure for your perusal.

 

Attached you will find the following:

a snap shot of your usage confirming the date your handset accessed the service;

the complete consumer journey including the banner advertisement and joining page;

a copy of all the messages sent to you handset throughout your subscription;

a copy of the full Terms and Conditions for the TapToFun service; and

a copy of our complaints procedure.

 

Summary of Complaint

 

It is our understanding that you dispute signing up to the TapToFun service on the 02nd August 2016 or agreeing to the charges applied to your mobile phone bill. It is also our understanding that you deny having accessed the service on the dates stipulated by our consumer support and escalations team.

 

Actions Taken

 

Our consumer support team wrote to you in response to your initial enquiry providing you with key details of your subscription including the period of your free trial, the name of the service and the date your mobile number was subscribed.

 

With regards to your questions raised, PSA is our regulator.

 

 

I meant to say the 13th July 2017 and not the 30th July 2017.

As mentioned before the service was activated on the 02nd August 2016, I’m not sure why they said 4th August 2017.

 

Due to our consumer support team being unable to honour your request for a full refund,

the matter was later escalated and a more detailed explanation of the subscription process was sent to you on 13th July 2017 by our escalations team.

Their findings were concurrent with those of our consumer support team and therefore, the decision not to provide a full refund was upheld.

 

As the matter remains unresolved, your enquiry has now been escalated to the investigations team for further assessment.

 

Findings

 

Having assessed all of the information we have on file,

including the additional information requested as outlined above, we can now confirm our findings with you.

 

It is evident, having thoroughly reviewed our records, that a genuine subscription to the TapToFun service was recorded on 02nd August 2016 from the mobile number 07xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

It is clear that the subscription included a free trial period allowing the user to access the service for 1 day completely free of charge.

It is also clear that in-line with current UK regulations, a welcome message was sent to the handset informing the user of the 1 day free trial and the cost of the service after this period had expired.

 

Monthly reminder messages, similar to that of the Welcome message, were also sent to the handset throughout the subscription period.

 

The attached consumer journey illustrates that in order for the service to be initiated the user of the handset would have had to complete a two-step signup process.

 

 

On the first page the user acknowledges the cost and terms of the service by clicking the SUBSCRIBE NOW button.

The second page confirms the cost and terms of which the user then provides consent to charge by clicking the CONFIRM button.

 

Furthermore, we note that the make and model of the handset along with the IP address were captured by our systems, indicating that your handset was, at some point, directed to the TapToFun joining page.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, we have detailed this information below.

 

Handset: HTC Desire 510

IP Address: Xxxxxxxxx

 

We also have it recorded that your handset interacted with the service while your subscription was active.

 

Conclusions

 

Taking into consideration the points raised in your complaint and all that has been outlined above, we are unable to identify any cause or reason as to how your subscription to the TapToFun service could have been activated by any other method, other than that detailed in our findings and as illustrated in the attached consumer journey.

 

In addition, the attached message logs indicate that all messages required to be sent were delivered to your handset and that all the information to enable you to make an informed decision as to whether to continue with the service, prior and after the free trial period, was provided in these messages.

 

While we understand your reasons for deleting or otherwise disregarding the messages, Buongiorno cannot be held responsible, if as a result, you remained unaware of the cost of the service or how to cancel your subscription.

 

With regards to your usage, we can confirm that you handset interacted with our service on the following date:

 

02nd August 2016 – Cut the rope

 

Please refer to the attached screen grab for further clarification.

 

While we appreciate that you consider the charges applied to your mobile phone bill to be unsolicited, our escalations team informed you that Buongiorno do not have the facility to apply charges to your mobile phone bill unless an active response is received from your handset.

 

 

In addition, our findings along with the supporting documents,

demonstrate the steps that you,

or another user of the handset,

would have completed in order to subscribe to the service.

 

 

They also highlight that Buongiorno,

in-line with current UK regulations and guidelines,

took every necessary measure to ensure you remained aware that your mobile number was subscribed to the TapToFun service and how you could unsubscribe.

 

Finally, it is clear from our records that you or another user of the handset accessed the service while the subscription was active.

 

We therefore conclude that the subscription to TapToFun was initiated as a result of a genuine request.

We also conclude that Buongiorno provided you with ample opportunity to opt out of the service during the free trial period,

prior to any charges being applied,

as well as after it had expired.

 

 

We believe we have been open and cooperative in this matter and are confident that we have complied with all UK regulations and guidelines.

 

The decision not to issue you with a full refund is upheld.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of our investigation, I would ask that you take some time to familiarise yourself with our complaints procedure as it provides information on what to do next if you wish to pursue your complaint further.

 

Kind Regards

Nizhar

B! Investigations Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, it is clear from our records that you or another user of the handset accessed the service while the subscription was active.

 

 

any views on the above?

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

I have received an email offering 50% refund. Clearly they would not be offering anything if they were not in the wrong. Is there a legal or technical lever l can go back to them with in the hope of getting a full refund? What do you think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, it is clear from our records that you or another user of the handset accessed the service while the subscription was active.

can you comment on the above statement please from your side?

great news on the discount you are learning.

stick by your guns.

you can hint at starting a claim [notice I said claim not Court Claim] in 14 days should they not resolve your complaint full.

I am a 65yrs old pensioner that got spoofed by a pop up on a tiny mobile phone.

 

 

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...