Jump to content

WebMaster

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3,918
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

WebMaster last won the day on September 21 2013

WebMaster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,152 Excellent

About WebMaster

  • Rank
    Site Team
  1. I think that being able to say "In the time I worked there they were receiving 100 clicks per day (obviously discount spiders from this figure) and averaged around 50 pounds of web-based sales each week" would certainly be a big help. They could argue that there are less tangible losses associated with their disappearance from Google - brand name awareness etc, but the onus will be on them to substantiate the 8930 pounds. Further down the line you'll get a copy of all the docs they intend to use in court (if it goes that far), and you'll be able to see where they are getting this figure from
  2. As a fellow web developer I see someone who *did* do their job right. I guess that highlights the need to explain it to the judge in simple terms. Perhaps alexbabwa could clarify his employment status. Sounds good from a technical point of view. The legal people on here will probably say that you need to add something along the lines that you also do not accept the 8930 figure and ask that the claimant justifies it. If the claim gets through to the next stage you'll have ample room to provide explanations of what NoIndex and Do Not Follow mean (perhaps quote from somewhere like Wikipedia). Incidentally, do you have any proof that the claimant received the email/Word doc? Just wondering if they might try to wriggle out of it by saying they hadn't received it. Also worth pointing out that, even if the judge did find in favour of the claimant (but from what you've said you're clearly in the right), it doesn't follow that he would award the full 8930 - he might decide that figure is nonsense (especially if the claimant can't produce evidence to back up this figure). So it's worth attacking that at a later stage too: how many days was the site out of Google, do you have any figures (from your time working with them) on how much traffic they were getting from Google, how much in sales they were making from Google traffic etc.
  3. Your CAG email login details *aren't* the same as your forum login details. Could you drop me a private message with the CAG email account that you created please? I'll check that it was set up correctly, and hunt down the missing confirmation email.
  4. Just to clarify (in case anyone is worried that there personal data has been stolen from the forum), the 'hack' took the form of a Denial of Service attack. The hacker never had unauthorized access to the forum or the server.
  5. I guess you had manually re-subscribed? When I looked in your list of subscriptions yesterday I could see the thread
  6. I think it's a case that you're still subscribed to the thread, it just isn't showing in the list of subscriptions (one way to confirm this would be if you receive an email notification to say that I've responded to this thread) ? That looks like a problem with the lightweight templates used for mobile viewers
  7. Sorry about the delay. Fingers crossed you should now be seeing the mobile version from your Nexus 7...
  8. Odd, I thought we had tapatalk turned off - we haven't used it for a while. Anyway ... How big is your screen? We serve up the mobile version of site based on the browser user agent - anyone on a mobile phone or older tablet should see it. Anyone on a laptop, PC, or more recent tablet should get the full version of the site. The mobile version is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum.php?styleid=18
  9. Not at all, Firefox should be fine. Just we've seen this issue in the past with older versions of IE
  10. Exactly, if they're offering me 5 pounds now it makes me wonder why they are so keen to settle and how much they are really liable for. Do you know why they are doing it, Martin?
  11. Thanks for the reply. No, there was no PPI on the loan. I challenged the dealership on their dodgy selling tactics and the ombudsman found in our favour - but this was all relating to the how the salesman had added on GAP insurance and various other fees. Nothing to do with Barclays. This would be around 6 years ago. The letter and the return slip at the bottom of it make no reference to full and final etc. In fact there's very little on the reply slip. Just fields for her name, address, signature, and their reference number. The prepaid envelope is addressed to "CCA3 Remediation Team"
  12. Bit of an odd one. The wife had a letter today from Barclays: The loan they are referring to is a loan she took out 8 years ago to pay for a new car (in fact the car salesman helpfully arrange the finance package, earning himself a nice fat kickback in the process, but the provide was Barclays). This was before I met her (the good old days), and when we got together I encouraged her to use her savings to get it paid off early, rather than continue to pay high interest rates. So I'm wondering why Barclays are now contacting her offering her money (albeit only a fiver). I'm sure it's not out of the goodness of their hearts. Has there been some recent scandal (like with the misselling of PPI) and they are being forced by a regulator to issue refunds?
  13. It's a database backup - we take one each morning at 4am. It causes each database table to be locked one by one, and that's what causes the slowness. We had hoped that nobody would be around at 4am.
  14. Just to add to what CitizenB has said, I've checked our mail logs, and it doesn't appear that we've sent you any mail since lunchtime on the 24th June (there was one email on the 24th, two on the 22nd, two on the 20th, one on the 19th, one on the 16th). Does that match up with what you've been receiving? I can't see the contents of the emails, so can't say if they were subscription notifications, notifications for new private messages etc etc
×
×
  • Create New...