Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


46 Excellent
  1. I wonder if anyone can help with this... Before Xmas, 2 orders were placed with a company abroad, and Paypal was used to take payments. The orders were for 92.5% (.925 / Sterling Silver) items, and each one totalled a couple of thousand pounds. Background checks were done of the retailer, and they were also aware that my friend planned to send every item to the Assay Office for hallmarking on entry to the UK, as anything "Imported" cannot be sold as "Silver" unless it bears a UK hallmark. To cut a long story short, my friend was ripped off. When the 2nd of the packages arrived (there were a number of delays and a bit of to-ing and fro-ing) she packaged some up, and sent it to the Assay Office. To her shock, a few days later, she received a call saying... (and I bet you've already guessed!) that the items sent were Silver Plated over base metal, and not .925 silver at all! This is where the problems REALLY started. She had already sent BACK to the manufacturer a large portion of the original order to be remade - but the biggest problem was that the opportunity to raise a dispute with Paypal had already expired. "No problem", I said... you paid with your Visa credit card. Contact your bank and have them look into it for you. Issue a chargeback if appropriate, or otherwise step in and resolve the issue. Cue much to-ing and fro-ing with HSBC, and having dealt with 2 different departments: a) they refuse to issue a chargeback b) they refuse to accept responsibility under section 75 of the CCA Both are equally disappointing. The exact wording on the letter says: "The bank would only hold such a liability with a retailer that has debited your XXXX Card, in this case, Paypal. Paypal's obligations to you were to pass the funds to the supplier which it has of course undertaken. Paypal are therefore not in breach of contract with you and as such the bank would not hold any liability". So this is where I need some advice! Clearly Paypal have more obligations than simply to pass the funds to the supplier. But what exactly ARE their obligations, and how can I force HSBC to take Paypal to task on this? *I* think that Paypal are obliged to look into the dispute, regardless of the amount of time which has passed between paying for the goods and raising the dispute. But is this a legal obligation? In the current situation, my friend is out of pocket to the tune of roughly £4500. 2 orders were dispatched to her, but most of the first order was returned to the supplier, who are obviously not going to send it back now (!) so she doesn't even have the full complement of 'trash' silver either! Can anyone suggest the best approach to try and remedy this situation. Conversations with the supplier initially are pretty clear. It is without doubt that what was received was NOT what was ordered and paid for, but I am struggling to get any asssitance from HSBC or Paypal to resolve this satisfactorily. She would be happy to send the rest of the items back, at her own cost, if it resulted in a full refund, but clearly this isn't currently an option. She fully accepts that she must hold some responsibility for: a) choosing a company who ultimately set out to defraud b) placing a second order without fully verifying the contents of the first c) delaying hallmarking / testing of the items until the Paypal dispute window had expired However, there should still be sufficient help and assistance to buyers in this sort of situation, as it is surely what the likes of Paypal and HSBC are actually there for.
  2. I think if you let the dealer know within a reasonable time, you don't need to prove anything... rather, it is up to him to prove otherwise... However, since you've now left it a year, and have (it seems) not even sent anything in writing, I fear it is now a little too late to address the matter.
  3. Just to reiterate - I got the full amount (£125) back, after writing a strong complaint to Bovis. I followed PCM's appeals procedure (such as it is) and got the expected denial of my appeal, but had put enough information in the letter(s) to show them I was not only well informed, but prepared to take things further - so it won't have come as a surprise to them to see Bovis involved, and them being politely asked to return my money. My argument with Bovis at the time was, the clamping has been put in place for a specific reason - and that reason is NOT to make a stack of cash out of the residents, but to clear up the issues with student parking. As far as I am concerned, as soon as someone can show (through ownership or tenancy) that they are a resident, their appeal should be allowed automatically. 'Visitors' are somewhat of a grey area (to me), since they cannot prove a connection with an address in the area... But if you want some good information, PCM's signage is full of ambiguity. If you have a permit for ANYTHING in your windscreen, I reckon you pass the eligibility criteria...
  4. £320 sounds a huge amount - way more than the signs say they can charge, IIRC.
  5. Next question... Their letter states that if I still fail to make payment, they have 2 courses of action available to them. The first is an action in Civil Court, the 2nd is to refer the case to a DCA. Being as a dispute the basis for the penalty, is not a DCA obliged to pass the file back? Or is there a special law which allows for a DCA to act on this matter as if it had already been to court? I certainly hope the latter isn't true, as I would certainly be denied a right to an 'independent' hearing if that were the case, and the DVLA could act as judge/jury and simply farm collection out to whoever was nasty enough to chase for money...
  6. Hmmmm... According to my latest letter, when talking about the acknowledgement letter which they send out... "You remain legally responsible for your vehicle right up until you receive this letter." Ummm. WTF? NO I DO NOT! If the vehicle is involved in a crime (speeding, red light violation etc) and I haven't yet received a reply from the DVLA, when the police come knocking, I can fill out the necessary (police) paperwork documenting when the vehicle was sold and to whom. This absolves me from any further action, irrespective of what the DVLA think. So... that begs the question, if all the facts point to a disposal on a given date, and the DVLA simply didn't receive the paperwork, why can't that be a statutory defence under the Continuous Registration scheme? If both parties agree that transfer of the vehicle took place on a certain day, this should be acceptable to the DVLA and I cannot see the system being 'fair' whilst documents can get lost in the post, mislaid in an office, or simply filed incorrectly.
  7. I got a rather lengthy (4 page) letter back - obviously not standard issue, the crux of which tells me I'm still liable for the £40 'penalty'. I need to go through it in detail and find if there's any common ground, or any points I can pick up on - but they've certainly gone to town on a response - I just need to decide whether I can be bothered to take this all the way for the sake of £40. I know that's exactly what they are hoping (that I will bow down) but do I make a stand and end up paying through the nose? Hmmm... I think my strongest case is that they're still trying to tell me that BY LAW, I haven't notified them of a change of keeper UNTIL I RECEIVE THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. That's not how I read the actual Act itself, regardless of what it says on the V5C.
  8. Section 75 didn't used to apply to purchases made abroad. Things changed, recently, and now you have an equal claim against your CC provider. To get things straight - they are jointly liable for the product in exactly the same way as the retailer. If the retailer made certain promises to you which made you go through with the sale, and haven't followed up on them, obviously the retailer (at least under UK law) is on a sticky wicket and you should have a claim for misrepresentation. As you cannot get satisfaction from the retailer, you should jointly pursue the credit card provider. Note that they aren't obliged to help you claim from the retailer or issue a chargeback, but ultimately would have to pay out if your claim against them was successful - so, in practice, they take up your case and fight the retailer so they don't have to pay themselves, if that makes sense. It is a subtle difference. You aren't enlisting their help to fight your case for you. If you approach it from that angle, they will fob you off. But if you go directly after them, and treat them like you would the retailer, faced with paying your claim out of their own pockets / claiming on their own insurance, they'll pursue the retailer or issue a chargeback... They can be slipperly b*ggers though. I had a similar claim, except for an internet purchase. I bought some power adaptors for my laptop from the only place in the world I could find them - the USA. When they arrived, they were the right voltage / output, but the wrong 'tip' so they wouldn't fit the laptop. I ordered solely on the basis that they were 100% compatible with my specific laptop. Company wanted me to pay return carriage AND a restocking fee, so I refused to send the goods back and demanded a refund in full and pre-payment of return carriage. Company wouldn't budge, so I went after my credit card company. They (personally) agreed to credit my card with the shipping costs as soon as I could fax over a receipt showing what I paid, and ensured that I got a refund in full. At first they declined to get involved, telling me just to send the stuff back, but I stuck to my guns, they realised I was serious, and acted (IMHO) properly in the end... Good luck.
  9. I wish you all the best fighting those ****. They will deny your appeal, but I put together a firm set of arguments, questioned the validity of what they were doing, and above all questioned the ambiguity of their signage. You've read the thread on Pepipoo, so there's no need to go into it all again here. I did a lot of background reading and took a determined 'interest' in finding ways to get my cash back from them. In the end, and having put pressure on Bovis, I got my wish. I threatened Bovis (as the landowner) and PCM themselves with court, and would have gone through with it. Bovis put the pressure onto PCM to refund me, and I received a cheque shortly afterwards. I don't have my archive emails (this dates back to Summer '07) with me at the moment, but will have them later. If I remember, I'll see if I can see who I was writing to / speaking to at Bovis. If you need any more help, just ask. PCM themselves are SIA registered - but it is also worth checking out the registration of the actual guy who issued your receipt. One more thing for them to have fallen foul of. Good luck. They aren't a pushover, but worth the hassle of fighting to get your £125 back!
  10. I think, on balance of probabilities, trying to convince a judge that you had a permit in the car, but weren't aware what it was for, would be quite a difficult job. Having a permit, and understanding why it should be displayed contradict the Vine vs Waltham Forest argument. Having said that, I have experience of this company. I have taken them on, and won. I'm just suggesting that the OP may not be able to rely solely on Vine vs Waltham Forest. If it is the location which I'm thinking of, the signage is pretty prevalent, albeit slightly 'temporary' in nature. It is, however, awfully contradictory...
  11. Sorry, I disagree. Vine vs Waltham Forest is not a good authority for this case. The OP was visiting a place where he/she knew that clamping was in force, so reliance on a defence which says that he/she didn't see the signs is bound to fail.
  12. How do they prove when the item is delivered? IMHO, I think service is assumed to be within X days of actual posting, depending on 1st/2nd class etc. I think they might be onto a sticky wicket with 'delivery', since they cannot know (unless they use a trackable system) when delivery actually occurs - UNLESS they stipulate that 'delivery' is assumed to take place X days after posting. Service IS rebuttable, I believe. Despite something being considered as 'served' when 'posted', if it doesn't actually arrive, I understand you can file a Stat Dec... else everyone would simply claim to have posted something and if there was no chance for the receiver to claim non-receipt, there would be a serious imbalance.
  13. If you want to throw £30 away, go right ahead. You can make an informal appeal if you wish, but the Council is under no obligation to respond to it. They will likely reject and send the NTO as described overleaf on the PCN. This, too, may well be invalid. At this stage your 'appeal' is formal, and if rejected, you receive further documentation from the Council, and can appeal to a parking adjudicator. It is my belief that your appeal will be successful 99 times out of 100, since there have been previous adjudicator rulings which nulify your PCN on at least one count. So... if you are prepared to follow process, you won't pay anything - but the process is (again, in my opinion) unduly weighty for the 'seriousness' (or otherwise) of the contravention.
  14. Since the reverse of the PCN is not referred to on the face of the PCN itself, it doesn't really matter what addresses are given on the reverse...
  • Create New...