Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zamzara last won the day on October 9 2010

Zamzara had the most liked content!


263 Excellent
  1. If they agreed to rearrange, then there was no failure to attend, that's all there is to it. Good reason therefore isn't a factor. Apply for a hardship payment (which will be a reduced amount) and appeal the sanction as well - to a proper tribunal, not just the DWP's own reconsideration.
  2. The regulations are made under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which says in paragraph 10 : "An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."
  3. Just to update this with the outcome that we did receive a refund of the money directly from the company. I don't particuarly feel that this excuses them from their conduct in wrongly taking it, but I am very grateful to Lee for his assistance.
  4. Or to look at it another way, there are two legitimate functions of a lawyer:- 1. To give accurate and frank advice to his or her client, considering both strengths and weaknesses in the client's case, and looking for ways to rebut counter arguments. I will call this advice. 2. To present the client's case to the other side, and put it in the best possible light. This I would call representation.Giving representation is of course perfectly proper even if clearly a partisan activity. But RLP's "opinion" from Mr Mawrey is clearly not normal legal advice as in case 1, but rather an odd mixture of 1 and 2. It seems to be more like advice to the world, but with the purpose of furthering the goals of representation. I am not at all sure that barristers are supposed to do this.
  5. RLP's web-site is becoming increasingly shrill and ridiculous, with pop-ups proclaiming how legitimate they are, giving exactly the opposite impression. It reminds me so much of private parking companies and other specualtive (in a lot of cases) invoicers like TV licensing.Their QC's advice is clearly the best possible argument that could be advanced from one side. It does not consider obvious counter-arguments (such as the very obvious problem of lack of causation). The part about being a consumer in paragraph 50 is simply wrong because he is ignoring the fact that RLP's invoices are a 'product' for the purposes of CPUTR.
  6. Yes we are in contact, but it's not quite resolved yet one way or the other.It has also just been pointed out to me at work that what happened is an offence under Sch 1 31. of the CPUTR 2008. It's not a lot of money individually, but spread over a lot of people it is.
  7. There was more to the process than I knew about to start with. Nevertheless the process is highly misleading and predatory. My partner has corrected some of my earlier information. What actually happened was she answered a question correctly online, was told she had won a prize and was asked for her contact number to claim it. A text message contained a PIN to verify that it was her phone which she entered back on the website. However the information about the cost of entering this PIN was hidden on the next screen of the text message, so was not visible unless she actively scrolled down, which there was no reason to do as the PIN was immediately visible. This is bordering on a criminal bait and switch as she was told she was already entitled to the prize at this point. It looks like it may have been this company as the modus operandi is the same. Phone companies should not be passing money on to these people. The fine they have been given is just the cost of doing business.
  8. First post on this site, and he manages to respond to the wrong thread ( somehow on one that is three years old), threaten menaces for non-payment, and make incorrect claims about powers to increase a debt arbitrarily. What a show of competence.
  9. Thanks Lee. I will get here to email in the next couple of days.
  10. The advert has long disappeared but, I suppose it might pop up again randomly though. Perhaps I'm not explaining my point very well but I do get the bit about agreeing, I am qualified in contract law. I can fully understand that if someone uses their phone to access content or send messages then they agree to pay any advertised fee to the phone company. But in this case, there is no conenction to the phone account - it was on an unrelated web site. So whatever was agreed to on that web site, Vodafone is not a party to that agreement- so why are they paying this 'debt' on my partner's behalf?
  11. I still think that misses the point though. If someone agrees to something online while not using their phone, how does that concern Vodafone at all? There is no connection between the 'service' offered and my partner's phone contract other than her putting in a contact number!
  12. My partner was looking at mobile phones online and entered her number expecting to be called with more information. It turned out that the box she entered it into was an advertising box belonging to a third party company. She was then had around £5 removed from her Vodafone credit to pay for three or four texts sent to her by this third party. Now, I am not sure exactly what was written on this advert, but my view of the matter is as follows:- 1. The essential features of a contract were not present, particuarly intention to be bound, and, 2. How can Vodafone, who are not a party to any alleged transaction on this website, deduct money from my partner's prepaid balance to pay this charge? Surely if X company of [problem]mers insist that this charge was agreed, it is up to them to pursue it, not just deduct it directly from money prepaid for telephone services entirely unconnected with them? Or in other words, on what basis could Vodafone defend passing on money like this for something unconnected to them?
  13. Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles Regulations 2005: ...© produces at a police station specified in the seizure notice a valid certificate of insurance covering his use of that vehicle and a valid licence authorising him to drive the vehicle, There seems to be no basis for not accepting third party cover stemming from another's insurance. The police used to claim that this should be interpreted to mean the vehicle has to be named specifically in a document but this was debunked in Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester earlier this year.
  14. As far as I am aware a sign at the entrance (i.e. a controlled parking zone or CPZ) removes the need for signs on posts inside the zone, but does not remove the need for markings on the ground. There would still need to be marked bays on the ground to show that restrictions (as signed) apply. http://web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbconsulting/Making%20a%20challenge.html
  15. Unless this was entirely voluntary, then it was a citizens arrest under s. 24A of PACE 1984. As an offence was committed (by somebody), they potentially had a power of arrest if they had reasonable grounds to believe your daughter was guilty of it, which they probably had. There is then an additional requirment that the arrest must be 'necessary' for one of the specified purposes. However, since they then released her without involving the police, this logically must mean that either:- 1) they no longer belived she was guilty, or 2) the additional requirement that the arrest be 'necessary' in (3)(b) was not met. If 1) then clearly they do not really belive she committed any 'wrongful act'. If 2) the arrest was unlawful. (In any event the demand for money is nonsense because the wrongful act (if any) is not the cause of the expenses they claim for.)
  • Create New...