Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part used for testing (and ours reinstalled) as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Also, does anyone have any other decent contact details for Hotpoint (or the Whirlpool group)? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
  • 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

DCBL...Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away....High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1938 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

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd probably have gone with a different pseudonym than "Mr T" to be honest. Though ironically there are a lot of fools involved in DCBL.

 

It's not a pseudonym, the debtors surname would have began with a T (Timpson for example) hence "Mr. T" So it would have been shortened in the transcript, it's just rather unfortunate that it also happens to be the stage name of Lawrence Tureaud :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure you have the right Mr T fule.............Imagine HM Murdock dealing with Bohill.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

:deadhorse:

The above is because it seems that Channel 5 are now trying to flog a dead horse.

 

 

 

Yet another case has been upheld by OFCOM against Channel 5 but this time Channel 5 even try to use the Ali case (THE £20K one) as mitigation for their surreptitious filming inside the complainants home. Part of the agreement between the HCEAs was that if anyone questions the use of BWC, the HCEA is supposed to disclose that the images could be used and that they were the property of the show maker. They were asked about the cameras but they didn't disclose the full use, only saying that they were for protection and then fumbled around trying to avoid mentioning that the BWCs didn't belong to them.

 

 

It was also mentioned that the BWCs were in fact transmitting the images and sound directly to the show crew outside. This is the first time I have heard they did this as it was assumed that the A/V was stored on SD cards.

 

 

This complaint was made quite late so I am assuming that this complaint was made after the Ali judgement when the complainants realised their situation was similar.

 

 

Anyhoo, here is the relevant publication. It starts at page 60 and goes on to page 101 so 41 pages to read but it's well worth it.

 

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/117468/broadcast-on-demand-bulletin-issue-359.pdf

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb find SF, perhaps the writing is on the wall for this obnoxious miserython of a programme.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

In today's OFCOM fortnightly bulletin there are two cases featured, both upheld. I haven't looked at the second one yet as I have to go out.

 

The first case involves a single mum who has depression and a daughter with medical problems. I don't watch Can' Pay but from reading the details of this case, my thoughts are that the HCEA's should have withdrawn as it was patently obvious this woman was vulnerable. Read it for yourself and then comment if you want.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf

 

The first judgement starts at page 41 but I do find the entire bulletin a great insight into the role of the media.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's OFCOM fortnightly bulletin there are two cases featured, both upheld. I haven't looked at the second one yet as I have to go out.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf

 

The first judgement starts at page 41 but I do find the entire bulletin a great insight into the role of the media.

 

Hi Silverfox...the above link is not working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more nails in the Miserython's coffin I hope.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

:

 

Yet another case has been upheld by OFCOM against Channel 5 but this time Channel 5 even try to use the Ali case (THE £20K one) as mitigation for their surreptitious filming inside the complainants home.

 

This complaint was made quite late so I am assuming that this complaint was made after the Ali judgement when the complainants realised their situation was similar.

 

 

Anyhoo, here is the relevant publication. It starts at page 60 and goes on to page 101 so 41 pages to read but it's well worth it.

 

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/117468/broadcast-on-demand-bulletin-issue-359.pdf

 

Silverfox,

The link to the above decision which you posted about on post 79 is broken. Can you work your magic again.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys (&gals) I'll try again

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins

 

 

That link takes you to the website page and the link is a little further down the page. Issue 03/1218

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally put in Post 84!

 

Sorry. Missed that you had already done so

Having now read the second case, it would be worth (in my opinion) to separate them into two separate threads for a more detailed discussion. I will get onto that today.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Missed that you had already done so

Having now read the second case, it would be worth (in my opinion) to separate them into two separate threads for a more detailed discussion. I will get onto that today.

 

Good idea SF, these cases need scrutiny and comment as separate incidents. Both are indicative of a complete lack of ethics by Channel 5 when dealing with potentially vulnerable situations.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Izzit249 will turn up to explain why the Judge was wrong to even query Channel 5's programme.

Now there is a legal Company on the case [Hamlins] perhaps they could have a go at getting Bohill taken to task for barging his way into someone's

house that happened on an earlier series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohill needs the BWC sticking where the sun don't shine, I wonder if going in with BWC on as DCBL don't own the cameras, or copyright of the footage and therefore the footage isn't strictly for the supposed purpose of protecting both debtor and EA, and as in the highlighted cases no prior permission from the debtor there is an automatic breach of GDPR, as the primary purpose of the footage is for a TV programme?

 

That one might tempt Izzit249 lookedinforinfo.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohill needs the BWC sticking where the sun don't shine, I wonder if going in with BWC on as DCBL don't own the cameras, or copyright of the footage and therefore the footage isn't strictly for the supposed purpose of protecting both debtor and EA, and as in the highlighted cases no prior permission from the debtor there is an automatic breach of GDPR, as the primary purpose of the footage is for a TV programme?

 

That one might tempt Izzit249 lookedinforinfo.

 

This is exactly the reason that OFCOM have started upholding complaints. The agents are told to say, if asked, they the cameras were for security and training.

 

If DCBL had used their own cameras, GDPR or even the old DPA would have meant that any images recorded were protected and permission would have to be sought from the individuals concerned and if they had no permission, no program. Also, as DCBL would have held the copyright there would need to be an agreement between them and C5 for the images.

 

In some of the earlier cases which were not upheld I asked OFCOM (on Twitter) whether they would revisit any of the prior complaints to see if the cameras worn belonged to DCBL or the production company. No response!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...