Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Its WAR

  1. Rather disappointed to to receive an order form the court striking out the claim on the basis that it was not issued in the name of the person entitled to bring a claim (ie my uncle). I had made the mistake of naming myself as the claimant. I should have applied to be his litigation friend (and of course can do so if I issue another summons and send the litigation friend forms into the court with the summons). Alternatively I can apply to have the order set aside and support the application with the litigation friend forms. The setting aside application costs £80. So clearly the best option is simply to issue another summons and apply the rules of CPR 21 and in the meantime there is a window open for the BBC to make the refund and safely for them avoid a hearing. However I am sure the court will look dimly on another summons as the defendant has made an offer to settle the value of the refund. This offer has not yet been accepted by me nor rescinded by them. So it is obvious I should first accept the offer and therefore risk losing the opportunity to discuss this claim in a court if they pay up. Unless of course they renege on their offer, in which case my action has an extra point of claim.
  2. This message arrived today from the previous chat. I am sorry as previously advised the service chosen is an estimate only and is not guaranteed, therefore not covered by the money back guarantee. Parcel Force do not offer any type of guarantee with the contract we have, therefore we cannot pass this onto our customers as per our terms of use which you have agreed to when placing the order, no refund is due. This then makes it clear that Parcelforce (Royal Mail) have sold their products to the various courier companies at special rates by excluding the features and benefits which they do provide to customers if they buy them direct from Parcelforce. The couriers then market the service excluding these features and benefits without telling their customers they have been excluded. This supports my argument that they are actually selling a totally different product than the one they describes as Parcelforce Express 48. More interesting is the thought that Royal Mail are 100% aware that these products are being resold without the features and benefits yet still allow the companies to market and sell the product by the same name. Therefore they support them in this misrepresentation. I suggest then that the level of misrepresentation amounts to fraud rather than negligent or innocent misrepresentation.
  3. Yes FruitSalad, and this is a very similar cause for action for when choosing PF48 but the automatic compensation is excluded as happened with my claim against Parcel2go, with the only difference being P2G made efforts to sell me insurance but did not tell me they always remove the free insurance that PF48 normally comes with. So this is all about arguing the case in court (and has little to do with actually caring whether I get any compensation). I will send them a 7 day letter before action in the expectation they will be too slow to respond. This will allow me to issue the summons and claim damages which just might make them choose to defend (assuming the claim is high enough). I guess I have to calculate the stress etc that you mentioned and the cost of a defect from ebay which has the effect of losing Top Rated status and therefore get lower ranking in where my listings show up and increased selling costs. Except I don't actually lose my status yet, only when my defects reach 3% of transactions in any year. Currently I am at 1.97% so could probably 'afford' 2 or 3 more without losing status. However, I guess they are not liable for consequential loss even when they fail to perform. It's somewhat strange to think that most actions seek the result of being refunded or other monetary amount in the hope court action becomes unnecessary. I actually want to discuss this in court and would hope they fight it all the way.
  4. I have had an online chat with Interparcel. I really think I will issue a summons and hope to get a hearing. I guess I should value the claim as £10.56 being the cost of postage but wonder whether I should ask the court for a token amount for damages (receiving a late delivery defect from eBay etc) . I will have to check to see whether the Mis representation Act 1967 allows for damages or just the contract amount. I suppose the thing is, if the claim is only £10.57 they would be stupid to defend it, so the Letter Before Action should get them to settle......................I would rather hope they don't settle so I get to read a proper defense and hope to get a hearing and discuss this with a judge. Should I sue for a higher amount to include damages and how should I quantify the amount? Me My parcel xxxxxxxxxxxx was Parcelforce 48 Express. Booked on 30 June and delivered on 8 July. How do I claim for your failure to provide the service I purchased? Interparcel Thank you for contacting Interparcel. I am very sorry the delivery was delayed, unfortunately the service is only estimated transit time and not covered by any money back guarantee on late deliveries. Me I don't accept that. I paid for PF48 and you supplied me something that took 8 days. PF48 has a compensation scheme attached and I am claiming it. Please advise how. Interparcel You have booked the service via Interparcel and we do not offer compensation for late deliveries as its estimated transit time. I do apologies for the inconvenience caused. Me OK so I paid for Parcelforce 48 Express but you removed some features and benefits from that product and sold me something which excluded them. I quite fancy having having a judge examine this in court. Are you absolutely giving me your final answer that you refuse to compensate or would you like to get somebody else to make that decision? Interparcel I am very sorry but the service is not covered by a money back guarantee so no refund is due for the late delivery. Me Parcelforce Express 48 is covered by a guaranteed delivery date and does compensate for late delivery. If you are saying the product I bought does not have these features and benefits, then you have sold me something other than Parcelforce Express 48. Please confirm you have made your final refusal to refund or pass this request to the person who will make that decision. Please also be advised I shall take further action should you refuse to compensate. Interparcel You have booked the service via Interparcel and we do not compensate for late deliveries as the service is not covered by a money back guarantee. Me OK. So I have bought Parcelforce Express 48 but you have taken away features and benefits from that product and given me a lesser product because you do not honour the compensation for late delivery which the product would normally come with? Interparcel You booked the service with Interparcel and you would need to go by our description what we are selling and its not covered. Me Thank you for clarifying. So I booked with Interparcel to receive the service you described as Parcelforce Express 48 . It seems you actually supplied a service purporting to be Parcelforce Express 48 but in fact was an entirely different product. Rather than a 48 hour delivery with compensation for being late or lost, you supplied an 8 day service with no compensation for delay or loss. From your replies it is clear you have refused to compensate. I have asked that this complaint be passed to a person who can make that final decision and it appears you have taken it upon yourself to make it. Please therefore be advised I shall now issue a summons in the County Court to recover the compensation for delay according to the features and benefits of the product I ordered but which you failed to supply. I will issue the summons on Saturday 17th July 2021 to allow you time to reconsider your position. Well that was the chat and it's been a few hours waiting for their response. I expect them to fold, but live in hope to get a hearing.
  5. I used Interparcel ( a parcel comparison site) to send a parcel and selected Parcelforce 48 Express. I paid the £10.56 fee on 30th June. The parcel was collected 5th July and delivered 8 July. Parcelforce 48 Express have an automatic compensation scheme if parcels are delivered late. However, Interparcel refuse to compensate arguing their service does not offer it as transit time is only an estimate and is not covered. So this is another case where I have bought Parcelforce 48 Express but have not been given that service but one similar to it but lacking the same features and benefits. In other words they haven't given me what I ordered. I currently have an ongoing summons issued against Parcel2go for the same argument (they lost the parcel), but the argument is the same.......not getting the product I paid for. It is my argument that if features and benefits are removed from a product (and sold at a cheaper price) I should have been told without any ambiguity. Or, if I am not told the product excludes these standard items, they should not be calling it by Parcelforce 48 Express, but calling it something else. I am really interested in having this examined in court but wonder whether it is even appropriate to issue a summons for a £10.56 postage fee. For which I understand the compensation for late delivery is only 25% of the fee. However, I expect a notice before action might get a result. Although even a couple letters sent to complain will cost more than the compensation. I am of course perfectly happy to spend £35 to issue a summons (it was only £25 last time........inflation is coming folks).
  6. I would like to sue both. The points of claim are very similar. Yes for the same uncle. Sadly he is/was so susceptible to be taken advantage of. Now he is in a care home for end of life care.
  7. Yes BF, I have had the SAR returned and recordings of my calls to them. And hold a POA. Thx UB. My thoughts too. Good idea about a possible charter, I will look into it.
  8. I need to either press this to a claim or knock the whole thing on it's head. Sky are not engaging with me. The bank has refused to refund under the DD guarantee indemnity earlier than the date I cancelled the contract. I wonder whether I bother to take it further, sue for 5 years at £37 a month (quite a large issue fee right there). Or choose a shorter time frame, or go for the simple difference between my uncle being charged £37 a month despite Sky bringing out lower priced bundles and my uncle not knowing to take advantage of them (Sky is now only £25 a month). Anyway, I would be pleased to read some final options how to proceed.
  9. On behalf of my uncle who has moved into a care home. In 2007 he was sold BT Total Broadband, a superfast fibre broadband for £47 along other phone rental and call plans totaling £87 a month. He was on an unlimited call plan for £35 a month despite only making a handful of calls per month He said hadn't gone online for years. I phoned to change the contract and cancel the broadband. I asked them about why he had such an expensive product that was not being used, and when the last time was that he used broadband. I was told that it had not been used at all in the past 12 months and that records did not go back far enough to show the last time. Since it's inception the contract had sat un-revised as an old and obsolete product charging him expensive rates despite new plans offering alternative services at far lower bundled prices. My uncle being too old or unable to grasp the implications the direct debit just auto renewing a product he wasn't using. I have spent the past year getting a DSAR and trying to commence a dialogue with BT to see how they suggest a resolution. None of my letters have led to any dialogue. I am now wanting to issue a summons for the cost of the broadband and the costs of not being switched to lower packaged prices (particularly as the telephone conversation suggests the account had become obsolete). I am not at all certain I have any legal grounds for making a claim other than how unfairly he has been treated and BT will of course say (as will probably many CAG members) it was his fault for not switching to a more appropriate package or will continue to ignore my letters. Any suggestions how to proceed (or not)? Whether I forget the summons and go to Ofcom. Is there a way to value the loss more accurately? Is there a better solution?
  10. Claim now lodged with Insurance Company and I have spoken with them whilst they took more claim details. Nowhere during the call was there any hint that the damage will not be covered. So let's see.
  11. I made a mistake . I was trying to decide how to deal with being away and missing the hearing that I forgot to send the £25 hearing fee and two days later the claim was struck out. (It turns out I couldn't have traveled anyway due to Covid restrictions). I have now advised the defendants that I will be issuing a new claim in 14 days and they might decide to take the chance to settle.
  12. Thx DX. Hi MattyPrice. I made a mistake stating it was Royal Mail 48, it was in fact ParcelForce 48. The thing is the product I chose was described as Parcelforce 48 (that is why I clicked on it, because I wanted that service rather than any of the alternatives on offer). What P2G supplied was not actually that product but a cheaper version of it which excluded the £100 compensation which the product called Parcelforce 48 always comes with. I contend it should not have been described as ParcelForce 48 but called by another name distinguishing the two different products. But also I argue Contra proferentem, also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", which is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Nowhere in P2G order process does it describe the differences between what I ordered and what I got. They did try to sell me additional insurance which is ambiguous as I chose not to buy extra insurance as I expected the product to already have it.
  13. Update on a locked thread. Hearing in 4 weeks. Briefly P2G lost 3 parcels. 1. I sent a gazebo and asked them to use Royal Mail 48 (which automatically comes with £100 compensation) but which P2G sold me without the compensation. 2. I sent a vintage wooden T Square, which they broke and threw away. 3. I sent a vintage camera to Finland which they lost. Total claims £180 All claims were rejected. So far, I might not be able to attend the hearing (which is a zoom meeting or similar) as I should be in S Ireland (depends on lockdown restrictions) and may not be able to get service if I go. I can request a new date for £100 court fee (Defendants are happy with this). Or I could discontinue the claim and start a new one but risk being required to pay their legal costs to date? I guess if I issue a new claim I could write a stronger witness statement to include Contra Proferentem regarding the Gazebo and Conversion for the T Square. Given the new arguments, they might decide to settle if they consider the case will be harder for them to defend. Or maybe I should wait until much closer the hearing date (when I know for certain whether I can travel) and if I can't I can then attend the hearing and no one is any the wiser. Or maybe I just write a detailed presentation and just let the hearing go ahead without me? Or maybe I just risk it and try to get to join the hearing from S Ireland. I really can't decide for the best. Ideas greatfully received.
  14. Broker has found the policy but not the wording, which I find very odd. He has submitted it to the underwriters but thinks it will be considered as a trading risk rather than a fraud.I suppose the question to consider is whether a fraud occurs if the 'fraudster' had no idea he was committing it because he thought the watch was genuine? Or whether regardless, was it still a fraudulent transaction?
  15. What is the position if the acknowledgement of service states the defendant intends to defend part of the claim? Surely the form should say which part they plan to defend. Thus giving me the opportunity to settle the claim for the amount they don't want to defend. However, in this case, they have sent in a defence against the whole of the claim. This means they failed to properly complete the acknowledgment of service. It is a defective document, possibly in a similar way they claim the summons was defective. Is there any mileage in suggesting the defects cancel each other out?
  16. The previous offer to refund only had one condition, it excluded the £25 hearing fee. I only had to accept it, which I haven't done yet. So far, the offer has not been rescinded.
  17. Thx UB. Insurers already have POA (or a least the brokers do). The ill health issue is straightforward and easy to confirm as to the reason for delay. There is no point then making a claim for the wall, as the damage to the wall was minimal and indeed I have taken some of it away to make the entrance easier. So the main worry is whether the claim will be void if it is considered the damage occurred on private property.
  18. Defense arrived today. They are defending the whole claim. They state. 1. The claim is defective and has been issued in the name of a Mr (me) and not Mr (the license holder) to which this dispute relates. A Power of Attorney form has been provided but does not list Mr (me). The declaration of truth has also been signed by Mrs (my wife who holds the Power of Attorney) who is not the claimant nor the licence holder. On this basis we would submit that the claim form is defective and should be struck out as the Claimant has no authority to issue the claim on behalf of the licence holder. 2. The Defendant will also assert that a TV Licence is classed as a statutory permission and is not subject to contract law or consumer protection legislation. As such eligibility to refund payments are set out in statute and Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 stipulates 'refunds can be considered in such cases as the BBC may determine. Accordingly the payment of any refund is made at the discretion of the BBC and is done so inline with the BBC 'Refund Policy'. 3. Furthermore the Defendant will assert that a completed refund application was never received by the Defendant, and therefore if it was not possible to adjudicate if a refund was payable and if so what amount was owed. The Defendant had requested that a refund application be submitted however the Claimant refused to provide additional details when requested. My initial observations are: 1. Maybe the claim is defective but it shows the true colours of the BBC to choose to defend the claim on such a technicality. I guess my wife should have issued the summons not me acting as her agent. 2. It may be quite correct that a refund is discretionary, so the question remains whether my reason for a refund qualifies and if so, there should be no discretion. 3. They insist a completed refund form has not been received (which is true as my application was by letter, which they accept they did receive). My letter contained the dates, amount and reason. They rejected the letter implying it did not constitute a 'completed refund form' and continue to reject the claim. 4. I guess they would immediately refund if (my wife) submits a fresh refund application form. I wonder whether the court would expect her to do so rather than pay £25 for a hearing fee. Although I would still seek to pay the hearing fee to have the court decide whether the BBC should still reimburse the legal costs......and of course, this is not about the money anymore, but about examining the argument and getting a judge to decide the issues. 5. I wonder what is 'in it' for the BBC to defend rather than just pay up? 6. Should I write to the court requesting the case is not struck out as it seems to me, the court might well strike it out and suggest I just make a new claim refund on the BBCs application form. 7. I think maybe I go for rough justice and get the issue in a national newspaper for middle England to judge.
  19. My aged uncle has gone into a permanent residential care home and I went to collect his car to bring home to sell. His policy ran out last summer and rather than have him renew it (as he was ill and was never going to drive again and the premium was over £1000), I took out a new policy to cover me when driving it home last week, so I bought just a standard fully comp policy for the year. However, before driving it away I noticed it had been badly dented and scratched down one side. I spoke to my uncle and he said he did it on one of the last times he drove it, well over a year ago just before he started going in and out of hospital and care. He hadn't even thought to make a claim. The entrance to his driveway at home is very narrow with a low brick wall. He said he got jammed against the corner of the wall whilst turning in and rather than reversing back into the main road, he carried on and caused the damage. He also knocked down a few blocks of the wall. My question is whether the damage (I had the quote today £3,000), is covered as the 'accident' happened on his private property and I have a feeling there is some doubt when accidents don't happen on the public highway (assuming he had left the highway in order to hit his wall, but actually half the car would have been on the drop down pavement as he began to leave the highway and enter his driveway). I Haven't found out yet who the old insurers are but I also wonder whether the claim should have been made last year whilst his policy was current. Somehow I expect a difficult claims process. Or, I wonder whether the claim should be made against his household policy? Although the damage to the wall was minimal and in fact I just tidied it up last year (before I even knew there had been the accident). I removed a few loose bricks just to make it easier for me to drive onto his driveway without scraping my cill on the wall, which was invisible when driving and the clearance was only a few inches either side. To get in, you had to be perfectly straight after doing a 90 degree turn off the main road. The wall is only about one foot tall and retains a flower border. But I have a feeling that walls and fences etc are probably not covered but the car might be. Actually, I haven't got a clue either way. So for now, until I speak with them tomorrow, I wonder whether I actually can even make a claim for him? What does everybody think how I should approach this? My uncle bought the car a 2015 Ford Fiesta 4 years ago, for £12,000 and has driven 4000 miles in it. It has now only covered 30,000 miles. So it would still be a lovely car once repaired.
  20. FruitSalad, absolutely spot on. Win or lose, I don't mind much. But I will request the judge to declare specifically that my letter did or did not constitute a proper claim for refund. And that simply not wanting their product anymore is a good enough reason (although it does not appear as a reason on their claim form). And that it is the customer who is responsible for ensuring they are not breaking the law, not the BBC. Can't wait to see their defense document to see exactly what part of the claim they are accepting and if it is the value of the refund excluding the court fees, I will wonder why that part at least has not been refunded already. 10 days and counting.
  21. Update. Another letter arrived today. They now confirm they cannot refund unless they know the reason "as this may leave the person liable to prosecution". So it seems simply telling them you no longer want to buy their product is not a good enough reason, but telling them you no longer watch live TV as it is being broadcast (which is one of the tick boxes on their form) is. They still maintain it is their responsibility to ensure the public are not breaking the law, rather than the individual being responsible for ensuring they do not break the law, and their responsibility being only to prosecute offenders. They confirm again, they have no legal obligation to make refunds. They state legislation "doesn't allow for any refund if the licensee fails to gain full benefit from it. However, it does give the Licensing Authority power to make any refunds they see fit in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is that refunds can be given for full unused months as long as the licence isn't needed". They state they need documentary evidence in some instances, but how do you give documentary evidence that you no longer watch live TV, apart from signing a letter telling them? Which I have done. They state that no refund form has been received and confirm again that no refund will be given unless they have a reason why it is no longer required. They fail to address my letters (in place of their form) and my reason (not wanting to buy their product anymore) as being a valid application and reason. They await my advise updating them. So I guess it would be straight forward if I complete their application form. But having issued the summons I now require them to repay the £25 issue fee too. So I will do nothing more until or if I receive their defense document next week. It seems to me this case will hang on whether a letter is as good as an official form and whether I am responsible to ensue I do not break the law and that is not their responsibility.
  22. Great few posts FruitSalad and a very clever interpretation for a counter argument. It will be exciting to present it to a judge. I doubt it will get that far though. I don't expect I will make a full/final settlement offer because I really want to see their written defense and subsequently a witness statement and what they will rely upon at a hearing. I had thought to simply reply to their letter along the lines of "Thank you for your offer, to which my reply is no. Yours Sincerely.
  23. There was sufficient correspondence to avoid the court action, but each reply form TV licensing was to send me a claim form to complete so I could answer their questions as to why I was requesting a refund. They suggested that it was their duty to ensure (by asking certain questions) they could be sure I was not committing an offence by not having a license. As if it is their responsibility, which it is not. They may be responsible to enforce the Act but I would think it was my responsibility to ensure I was not acting illegally. It seems my reason saying he "did not want to buy their product anymore" is not one of the reasons on their refund request form.
  24. My particulars of claim were brief. I wanted to discuss the various postal schemes and especially because time was running out, I did not want to bring up their claim to have no liability in tort. Although they did bring it up, the judge was not wanting to waste time on it. They had detailed that part of their defence quite extensively in their witness statement too. It would be could to see how a defense against their claim of having no liability in tort would look like. Especially as it looks quite daunting and must put a lot of claimants off proceeding.
  • Create New...