Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer and that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim and don't add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the members of suggested above – it should be the final version. court, that I would respectfully requestup but I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Listing removed from eBay, reported by Sky Media for selling a Now TV Cinema pass VeRO abuse?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2639 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've had a listing removed from eBay - apparently it was reported by Sky Media. There is no real reason as to why the item has been removed just that 'please not (sic) that this item is not allowed on our site.' and 'for more information read the help pages or contact Sky directly.'

 

The item in question was a Now TV Sky Cinema pass - I bought another couple of Now TV boxes before Christmas and didn't need the passes. As far as I'm aware the listing was compliant with eBay rules - item to be posted via Royal Mail, so not a 'digitally delivered item' or 'non-physical goods'. I believe Now TV is a subsidiary company of Sky - but they don't own it directly?

 

The link to contact Sky and for more information is: https://business.sky.com/fighting-fraud/ when you look at this it only mentions Sky Sports, about illegal use of Sky Sports programming and Unauthorised foreign broadcasts - nothing to do with what I was selling.

 

I believe when listings are removed like this it is because the company concerned are a member of eBay VeRO - 'Verified Rights Owner' programme or something. I've read in the past that companies basically abuse this, eBay remove all listings that they report which could be for a multitude of reasons. On the list of VeRO members (UK is toward the bottom of the page) I can't see Sky listed http://vero.ebay.com/

 

I hate such bullying by large companies - I've spent a while on live chat to eBay but they are adamant that I need to contact Sky and that 'if Sky allow me to sell the item, I can pass the communication onto them'. They won't give me a copy of the report, a specific number to call for eBay listing removals - nothing.

 

It feels very much like a big bully boy company (Sky) dictating an item can't be sold to another large multinational (eBay) who simply bow to them - no mistakes, no appeals etc.

 

What can I do? Has anyone had this issue before? Please help..

 

Thanks in advance..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chaoticj

 

I have moved your thread to a more appropriate forum were you should get a better response.

 

Briefly looking at your problem I would of thought that this item was bought under the terms of none transferable and not to be sold to a third party in its terms and conditions...but lets see what response/advice you get from other posters.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chaoticj

 

I have moved your thread to a more appropriate forum were you should get a better response.

 

Briefly looking at your problem I would of thought that this item was bought under the terms of none transferable and not to be sold to a third party in its terms and conditions...but lets see what response/advice you get from other posters.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Hi Andyorch,

 

Thanks for your helpful response. I have checked the cardboard sleeve from the Now TV Box packaging, it doesn't mention about the voucher being non transferable, it just says:

 

"Voucher inside to redeem your Sky Cinema Month Pass. Simply enter the voucher code at sign up. Voucher expires one year after date of purchase. After pre-paid period, Sky Cinema Month Pass automatically renews at its then standard price (currently £9.99 pm) until cancelled. Ongoing monthly cost, content and channels are subject to change. Sky content available depends on pack purchased... etc etc etc See nowtv.com for full terms. Information correct at 14/06/16."

 

When you look at the terms on their website, there is also no mention of vouchers/passes being non transferable: http://www.nowtv.com/terms the only mention I can find when I google it is when they have had special offers e.g. getting a free or heavily discounted pass via an offer, the terms usually state that it is non transferable.

 

With the actual passes bundled with a Now TV box, I can't find such terms stipulated anywhere?

 

Thanks in advance,

chaotic_j

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should imagine the pass is only part of the contract throught the Now TV box purchase. The pass is not a separate tradeable item. It would be an oversight by Now or Sky, if they have not added any condition to the contract terms.

 

Ebay probably automatically delist any such attempts to resell such these passes and i am not sure you can do much.

 

If you wanted to sell the pass on, you would probably have to do it privately without advertising.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...