Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

Samsung VAT cashback


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3184 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 there,

 

just after a little bit of advice my friend Sally has been having loads of problems dealing with Samsung after buying a £170 TV and trying to get her £30 Cashback. Btw the TV was bought from Pc world although this is of minor relevance in the matter.

 

She has been on the phone and emailing in total utilising about 7 hours to no avail.

 

I advised her to email the CEO and ask for compensation for not having been giving her rightful £30 VAT money back. The Senior customer services chap from exec office has now responded and said that the cheque will be issued, wheter this will materialise is anyone's guess! However he has said he will be unable to offer compensation.

 

Just wondering if anyone has any ideas as to how to chase up the compensation bearing in mind Samsung have been giving Sally the run-around for 4 months, and its more than likely she is not the only one this has happened to!

 

Look forward to any advice and have a lovely day.

 

Best regards

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell us what the deal was and how it was presented to you - and when.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bankfodder,

 

yes the deal was on a £170 TV made by Samsung and instore they had details of how to apply for the £30 cashback.

 

The TV was bought on the 30th April 2012. so four months later still no sign of the money after extensive chasing up.

 

Details of how to claim are found here https://samsungvatback.com/ and the proper procedure was followed by Sally however Samsung and there 3rd party people OPIA who run the promotion kept fobbing her off passing her between each other until a letter was written to the CEO's office.

 

A senior customer service rep has offered a £30 check to be sent out but is unwilling to offer comp.

 

Hope this helps. Let me know if anything else is requried

 

Best regards

 

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very silly of them to make such a stupid fuss. However, I can't imagine that you would be entitled to very much compensation - £5 at most unless you have incurred any particular expenses.

 

I think that it is probably not worth your while doing anything about it.

Take the money but tell them that it has been flagged up on this forum - send them the link and tell them that it is a shame that they are prepared to hurt their own reputation to save bonbons.

Maybe Apple is right, that Samsung are cheapskate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Maybe Apple is right, that Samsung are cheapskate.

 

Yes,

 

true say,

 

I am sure the 665 million they have had to pay out to Apple will be of much satisfaction for Sally

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261

 

many thanks for your advice

Best Regards

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Bankfodder,

 

just to let you know Sally received a cheque, the second £30 cheque issued, banked it and was bounced by the bank this is the second time this has happened now. Imagine this is 5 months later and a measly £30 has not been credited to Sally's account. I am sure Samsung are just waiting for her to give up. Wether this is an administration error (I doubt it as this is the 2nd time around) or not its really poor from Samsung. Think of all the poor people who don't have access to internet or phone who will effectively have been cheated out of their £30 cash back.

 

Shame on Samsung and go Apple, sue them for all their worth!

 

Regards

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Shocking - but i would have sent a recorded letter instead of spending all that time on the phone. Samsung must be having hard times. Their Head Office is in Chertsey, you could threaten to doorstep visit to their corporate HQ and do a leaflet drop to all workers as they enter the building. I threatened this on two occasions in last 10yrs (other companies) and it worked a treat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I sent my £100 cashback claim in Sept 2012 -having followed all the instructions clearly and posted it within the correct timeframe. They emailed to confirm receipt a few weeks later. I heard nothing for weeks and tried to contact them a few times but always received an automated response instead, which doesn't really tell you much. Then I received an email in December stating that I had not sent the documents in time and it had expired. Fortunately I have proof of postage and kept all the emails etc. I went on to their website and put in my invoice number, where surprise, surprise, it said my claim has been successfully processed! I have tried to contact their 0843 number as advised and no matter what time of day I call, I'm always number 9 or 10 in the queue. Once I managed to get to number 1 in the Q but a recorded message said that they were unable to take my call - after holding for half an hour. I think the cashback will be useful for my phone bill!

I will be reporting them to Which?, Martin Lewis and BBC Watchdog or trading standards as I seriously smell a rat...... shame on Samsung....... £100 might not be a lot to them, but it is to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

sorry to hear of your problems with Samsung.

My friend Sally eventually got her £30 back after numerous calls emails and letters like you say which amounted to more than the original £30 she was claiming for!

 

You might want to try emailing the CEO directly:

[email protected]

 

 

 

Good on you for reporting them to the relevant bodies.Samsung need to get their act together and honor their cashback promotions! Wishing you all the best of luck with that! :)

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Another warning not to buy anything that from Samsung or John Lewis that has any sort of Cashback promise.

 

I ordered a Samsung Washing Machine from John Lewis (on line) on the 6th of July on the basis that;

 

1. I would receive it within 10 days,

2. it would come with a 5 year warranty and

3. I would get £75 cashback on the deal.

 

I received confirmation of the purchase shortly after placing the order online. I noticed straight away that there was no mention of the warranty or the cashback on the documentation. I immediately contacted John Lewis to ask what had happened to it. They told me that the necessary documentation and instructions for claiming the cashback would arrive with the machine. The 10 day delivery date passed with no sign of the machine and several contacts with Customer services, and on the 4th August, 19 days later than advertised, the machine turned up but, predictably, with no documentation regarding the extended warranty or cashback.

 

I then contacted John Lewis customer services and was sent an email giving a link to where I could download a VAT receipt which would need to be presented before claiming the cashback. No information regarding this requirement was available before asking. I followed the link only to find that the site had no facility for downloading the link. John Lewis would not accept that this was the case but said that If I wanted I could write to them and they would send me a VAT receipt by Royal Mail; they said that this would take 31 days!

 

Noticing that there was also a time limit on claiming, I returned to the website and eventually found some instructions regarding “downloading” the VAT invoice. These were to “ Bring up the copy of the VAT Receipt on the computer screen, take a photograph with a digital camera or mobile phone, up load the photo onto the computer and download into the electronic form on the web page! ( remember that this a major technology specialist!)

I took a screen shot, pasted it onto a word document and tried to upload but it wouldn’t accept any format other than PDF or JPEG. I eventually managed to upload the receipt as a PDF and the operation was completed. I now have to wait for several weeks before I get the cashbackj and confidently predict that there will be further “problems” then.

 

There are only two possible reasons for the procedure to be as complicated and problematic. Either they are technically incompetent or, more likely, this is a [problem] to entice people to buy products at a higher price than advertised. (google Samsung Cashback [problem] and you’ll see similar complaints on various products going back to 2012). If so, John Lewis is also profiting by it and must bear part of the responsibility and reputational damage.

 

The lesson is; do not buy anything from Samsung or John Lewis offering a cashback unless you have access to a free telephone and a lot of free time on your hands!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...