Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
  • 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

Very.co.uk are claiming an item was missing from a PS4 bundle I returned


92FS
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1949 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

Thought there was something fishy with my account balance on very.co.uk,

 

I contacted customer service this morning.

Turns out they've charged me again for a PS4 bundle that I returned last week, as an item was 'missing' (PlayStation Network 365 Day subscription card).

Apparently it's in transit back to me and they say they're incapable of advising me until I get it back -- for whatever reason.

 

Of course, no one from Very warned me that they'd charge me again, let alone that they'd be sending it back to me.

Not a call, not even an email.

Is 'Just figure it out yourself' Very's new motto?

 

When I dealt with the return last week, I immediately sent it back upon picking it up at the Post Office.

I didn't even leave the front desk, as all I had to do was affix the return label I'd already printed.

 

I barely even opened the cardboard packaging, just a tiny slot to fit a folded up return slip in there, promptly sealed back with tape.

Therefor, either the missing item was never included in the bundle to begin with (an issue people have had in the past with other Very bundles), or it was 'lost' when someone dealt with the return.

CCTV at the Post Office would support this, as the package never left the front desk.

 

Any advice on what to do next?

I have already tweeted to them about it.

Thanks everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

youreturned it within 14 days

its an online order

you don't need a reason under CRA.

 

even so, it was unfit for purpose, so that additionally brings into play the short term right to reject it within 30days

 

cant see they've got a leg to stand on.

 

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

Thanks everyone. The subscription card was an optional extra in the 'bundle' (and yes, I opted in for it at an extra cost to myself). It's worth about £35 on its own, but hardly a reason to send everything else back to me! They could've queried why it wasn't with the other items, at which point I'd have noted that they must not have included it in the first place or that they lost it when processing the return. Their package never left the front desk of the Post Office (as far as my involvement with it goes), so it's impossible for me to have removed anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so why did you return the PS4 budle in the 1st instance?

not that you needed any reason, but did you tell them om the return note?

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

I did indeed choose the closest option on the return note.

 

They had a promotion which, as I recall, showed a picture of a PS4 Pro. When I clicked through, they must have had some regular PS4s in the list of options because that's what I ended up ordering. My fault for not being more attentive, but the whole thing seemed a teeny bit misleading. Especially since the price I paid, ~£350, is what I'd expect to pay for a Pro model... certainly not a regular PS4 bundle, which retail for about a £100 less.

 

I picked up on my mistake in the email confirmation, but it was too late to cancel at the point I clocked it wasn't a Pro. I had to wait for it to be delivered at the Post Office, at which point I was ready to immediately return it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK understood

someone trying to pull a fast one...twice!!

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

their web site is VERY unclear on this point, if you do a word search you get nothing for PS4 other then the PS4 pro but click on the details and you get the ordinary spec.

As the card is only an activation code tied to your account keeping it would be pointless but there is a secondary market for these things.

 

I dont know if you remember phone cards- yu bought them in shops for use in special phone boxes back in the 1980's. There was a massive market fro stolen or hooky phone cards back thn and when BT wnet about investigating their misuse they thought they would find a load of small shops doing a wrong'un but it turned out that a bloke in the factory was stealing them wholesale and selling them on.

I reckon that your card is not part of this hooky secondary market and probably was never posted out and they ahve made an assumption you have kept it rather tyhan looking at the bigger picture

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should add a paragraph in the cag customer service guide about packages and mail in general.

Personally, since I received a woman pleasure toy instead of a candle holder (I know, more or less same shape 😂), I make a video when I open packages and mail from dodgy companies (all of them really)

Same when I post something, I make a video, endorse the seal with a scribble of a certain length and do a close up, so nobody can claim that package has been opened between the video and posting.

This saved my bum when a smart guy on eBay bought a perfect binocular, claimed that it was damaged and then sent back another one, same brand and model but broken.

EBay gave both of us money back, even though the fool had listed my binocular the very same day he received it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...