Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No you don't have to pay them.  it is their scam which the Courts know about. There was a classic case a few years ago that decided that £100 was not a penalty because that company had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear of cars that overstayed etc because they were there to maximise the availability of car park spaces. As Starbucks was closed in your case, Met have no legitimate interest so their £100 charge IS a penalty. Therefore the case would be thrown out. if they took you to Court and you turned up in Court to defend yourself. So no you shouldn't pay.
    • Thank you as always. Okay, will contact Tesco and will ignore the appeal, and will let you know what happens. You guys are superheroes.
    • A former Tesla engineer is in a decade-long battle with the car company, owned by Elon Musk.View the full article
    • what isn't working out....one very small issue, the rest is going perfectly fine. stop doing your usually running around waving arms and screaming on my god oh my god...sorry too used to you LMM even if you cant hold down a new bank account all is not lost .  ive not seen any reports that monzo refuse people  so go with them. pers as i said id NOT be using any switch service, as there are debts you want to stop paying and get them defaulted BEFORE you ever think of poss might could should pay them. its only a handful of stuff like rent/ctax/ etc that you need DD for ive not used DD's in almost 30yrs now nor use Standing orders, i do it by BACS each month priority bills first (can take roof from over my head if not paid) there REST all get paid if/when i've had the money. 2 well 3 things id dump too or get cheaper. cable/sat tv - ££6PCM . which i will is internet/tv/landline ? from whom that is very expensive. mine is £27PCM for 100MPS Broadband etc all in. 3 tv licence... who cant tell you are watching live tv even if you dont.... mobile phone £27? - go over to giffgaff no contract and as cheap as £6PCM even with mobile data (but use your home wf-fi when indoors!!) no need to keep using @Username, everyone that posted gets an alert like you do if someone posts. dx  
    • Critall windows date back to the 1880s but their steel construction makes them vulnerable to damp.View the full article
  • 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

me and CPP reclaim


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3514 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

An interesting topic for me as I just read this in the CAG mailshot.

 

As most people do,

I skim these mailings "in case" there is something interesting/useful then move on to more pressing emails

like the usual spam for increasing the size of my manhoo... erm bank account.

 

 

This one surprised me as I've been a subscriber of Experian's Credit Expert for quite a while now.

 

 

Like many people, I rarely read the T&Cs of a reputable(?) company when I agree to a *FREE* trial

and I provided my credit card details as requested (over SSL - remember, they're reputable) to allow them to confirm

and subsequently charge for their credit checking service, if I wanted to continue after the free trial.

 

 

Since then, my old credit card has expired and I've renewed my details using my Debit card as I found their service quite useful

- checking my credit status, confirming my details were correct etc.

 

All of the above is a prelim to my questions (2 off - bear with me).

 

I don't recall seeing anything about their supposed ID protection when I signed up to the free trial (quite a few years ago now),

maybe this didn't exist then?

 

 

Perhaps like most, it was in the T&Cs and I simply checked the "Yeah whatever" button?.

 

After a couple of years of using their service,

I started receiving emails from them saying my online exposure was fine -

My thoughts were "Thanks Experian, didn't expect this

- Nice to see my money is being invested,

I thought I was paying to see what the lenders had access to but now I see you're providing me with a pseudo real-time service".

 

After another year or 2, my bank sent me a text saying my account was overdrawn.

 

Strange... I phoned my bank, my identity had been stolen and someone had attempted 2 transfers totalling around £2000 to other (unknown) accounts.

 

My bank were very quick to refund the money (same day so no charges were incurred)

and apart from signing a pre-printed letter they sent to say I did not know the intended recipient(s),

the matter was resolved (from my perspective).

 

Now, my 2 questions are this... (*phew* - Told you to bear with me)....

 

1. If I received emails telling me my online profile is safe/good etc

(BTW - They also have me listed as Rating 999 - A safe credit risk).

How was it that my bank account was hacked [i forgot to mention, the ID theft also involved blocking access to my online login]?

 

 

I'm extremely careful when I use my bank card and I never give personal details to unauthorised persons

- Damn, I even help stop the [s-p-a-m]mers (CAG renames "s.p.a.m" [no dots] to "problem")

on the phone and a lot more behind the scenes.

 

 

2. If I had insurance

- Wouldn't I have used it in this circumstance (had I known about it)?

Or would it even have have been covered since my bank (god bless them) dealt with it entirely?

 

 

So am I potentially owed a: a refund of insurance money as the service was not provided or b: compensation for my identity being stolen>

 

Maybe I should put in a claim to refund the payments I've apparently made for this service,

that I never knew existed or I had paid for.

 

 

I'm truly dismayed that PIP (essentially this is what they have [mis]sold - Insurance I didn't ask for,

tagged on to my monthly payments without me realising)

exists outside the banking industry but I suppose given the close relationship,

I should be surprised.

Edited by Dragonlaird
Link to post
Share on other sites

time to reclaim then

 

 

get it in quick

 

 

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

own thread created

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...