Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

Monument paid PPI refund to DCA on sold card debt - help!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2474 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

HI

I applied for the PPI from Monument and i had an outstanding debt which was very old, they sent out an letter to claim PPI and i have applied online.

 

Now i have received an response from the they will be adjusting the money towards my debt, I have attached a copy from them, can you please guide and advise what would be the next best step to get the Ppi

 

PDF uploaded

monument reply.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry what is you problem then?

 

 

that's a std letter from monument by the way

had the same only 12yrs ago

but ofcourse the FOS have decided several times now it IS PPI but that's not the issue?

 

 

so why are you not happy with it?

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

if they still own the debt

yes they can offset against it

nothing you can do about it sadly

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

yes if they still own it

 

 

in E&W a statute barred debt still exists

just that any judgement anyone might get in court cant be enforced

so they don't bother.

 

 

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

Hi Dx

 

I have proof that is attached stating that they do not own the debt,

 

please see the attachment and advise.[ATTACH=CONFIG]65619[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]65619[/ATTACH]

 

Sorry i am having problems with the attachment uploading,

 

it says that the debt was sold to Arrow Global in Dec 2014, so what should i do now?

Edited by almdhussain
problem with attachments
Link to post
Share on other sites

attach as PDF's

follow upload

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

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

I have recived £400 out of 2.6k,

when i called Monument they told me that according to terms and conditions they are setting off the balance to the DCA.

 

I have read the thread by nutter192 and written a letter to them and yet to receive a response from them,

also asked for the written confirmation about the setting off the debt to Arrow Global.

 

Even though FOS says they cannot offset to a different company but Monument insists they can,

i am thinking of putting in a claim to get the balance, i shall be sending in LBA's soon.

 

Any advice on this matter is much appreciated.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

no harm in ringing the FOS now and asking their opinion.

 

 

they might help before you need to pop their FOS CQ into them

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

  • 7 months later...

HI guys

I have recieved an email from the fos adjudicator and they have told me that Monument has not done anything wrong by offsetting my debt even though they it is not owned by them?

 

this is new for me as i have read in the forums they cannot do it but the fos agrees they can,

 

can anyone help as i have to prepare and fight for this one, the letter that i have received from fos the text is below

 

""your complaint about R. Raphael & Sons Plc (trading as Monument)

 

Thank you for waiting while I’ve been looking into your complaint.

 

I’ve now looked at all the information that you and Monument have given me.

 

Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think that Monument has done anything wrong – so I’m not asking it to do anything else.

I’ve explained why below.

 

your complaint Monument paid you a refund for the Payment Break Plan (PBP) attached to your account.

 

The refund was applied against your debt, which is now owned by Arrow Global.

The surplus was paid to you by cheque.

 

You believe this falls out of this service’s guidelines, and that the whole refund should be paid directly to you to pay off “as required or as I see fit”.

 

You’re also unhappy that Monument has not followed this up in writing after discussing the matter over the phone with you, and that it has not provided confirmation of tax paid on the refund.

 

I can only consider the complaint about Monument.

my findings

The guidance that you are suggesting Monument is in breach of is an issue of Ombudsman News dated September/October 2004.

It does not concern refunds.

 

Your assertion that Monument’s final response letter dated 9 November 2016 “admitted the Payment Break Plan was mis sold” is incorrect.

 

Monument very clearly stated at the top of that letter that “Without admission of liability, and as a gesture of goodwill, we are prepared to adjust your account”.

 

So Monument’s offer was made as a gesture of goodwill.

That’s important.

 

It’s quite possible that this PBP was not mis-sold and that you should really not be due any refund.

 

Indeed, I’ve not seen any information suggesting that you were mis-sold the PBP.

 

So it is to your benefit that Monument has refunded you these amounts as a gesture of goodwill.

 

Do I think that Monument acted unreasonably in offsetting the debt? Not at all.

 

It’s worth noting that in accepting this offer you agreed to the terms of it – most specifically, that “Any adjustment is offered without admission of liability and as a gesture of goodwill.

No conditions can be placed on the offer by any other party.

Any monies still owed from the original debt will be offset by the adjustment”.

 

But even without this cause, I can’t agree that Monument has acted unfairly.

 

Firstly, it’s paid you a refund that as far as I can see there was no reason for it to pay.

 

Secondly, this has benefited you.

It has not only cleared your debt but resulted in a further payment direct to you.

 

Monument has not acted at all unreasonably in paying the refund this way and I will not be asking it to do anything else.

 

Monument’s position is set out very clearly in its final response letter and was further explained to you by telephone.

 

In that sense, I’m satisfied it has addressed your queries.

 

Concerning the tax paid on the refund, this is very clearly explained on Monument’s final response letter.

 

I’ve included the relevant sections below:

what happens next If you don’t want to take your complaint further, you don’t need to reply.

 

But if you don’t agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 25 August 2017.

 

I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think.

 

If we don’t hear from you by 25 August 2017, we might not be able to look at your complaint again.

 

So if you want to reply but you think you’ll need longer, please tell me as soon as possible.

 

In every case, both the business and their customer can ask an ombudsman to make a final decision.

 

If you have any questions, please get in touch.

Yours sincerely""

Link to post
Share on other sites

then you now need to prove it was mis-sold, in otherwords they were wrong to levy it upon you.

 

 

look at the T&Cs of PBP and find where you are not entitled to it. you did not meet the requirements.

 

 

that way it will over turn the GOGW and then they must refund you directly.

 

 

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...