Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jampot

  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...
  15. 'You are required to pay' is a no-no isn't it? Prejudicial... Also no payment details, and rear of the PCN is only referenced on the 'tear-off slip' which isn't part of the PCN. Full of holes. Don't pay.
  16. What you need to understand, perhaps, is that (assuming this is car or house insurance) the underwriting criteria will change when the address changes. I recently moved house, and whilst my insurer didn't make a charge for changing the address, they were also 'forced' to issue a refund, since the postcode I have moved to is obviously rated as 'better' than the postcode I was living at previously. Had the move been in reverse, my premium (pro rata for the year) would have INCREASED as a result. So... firstly you need to be clear as to whether there WAS an admin charge, or whether it also took into account a change to the pro rata premium for the policy. Then... you need to see whether this charge was documented in your paperwork you agreed to at the inception of the policy. A lot of insurers will quote a low figure to gain your business, and will levy charges for changes instead, to pay towards their admin costs. If the cost wasn't agreed to in advance, then you should be able to claim it back from them. Be warned, though, if they didn't reassess the risk when changing the address, a change to the pro rata amount could cost MORE than the £25 charge they have levied, so if you make them withdraw the charge, and they then decided to reassess the policy based on the change of address, you could end up in a worse position!
  17. Its funny, as I intended (and read) the opposite. Certain = no doubt. I take your point though, but I don't think the letter-opening monkey at the DVLA will care... Just checking the wordfile original, and actually the line says: "I am not in a position to comment on... but I am certain that the documentation was posted..." So what I've sent to them has bold text, just not on the word you highlighted, and I think I've done it in such a way as to underline my certainty rather than undermine it.
  18. For anyone who is interested, I've copied to here the full text of my reply to the DVLA. I've cobbled together some other information from this forum regarding the UPU (although I admit I haven't verified it, despite a good search on google) - but the piece about document SERVICE (rather than ownership) is certainly true. Thanks to Danny K for the template letter, too - as you see, I've alluded to it, but have admittedly glossed over it... but hopefully it should be enough. I've also just remembered - I never got the V5C for the car I bought when I part-exchanged - I had to pay the [problematic] £25 to issue a replacement, so yet again a good example of things getting 'lost' in the post from the DVLA. They'll have that on record, too... Here's the letter: Continuous Registration Centre 16th January 2008 2nd Floor, Bourne Gate 25 Bourne Valley Road Poole BH12 1DY Your Ref # blah blah blah Dear Sir / Madam, Yesterday, I received your correspondence (reference as above) regarding the alleged ‘Failure to Relicense’ the vehicle XXyyXXX. As I stated on the form I returned prior to your response, not only did I post the relevant paperwork to you, I had already posted paperwork to you in relation to the same vehicle in order to retain my personalised registration mark which had previously been assigned to that vehicle, so there is clear evidence of my intent. To summarise, I purchased (brand new in 2004) the blue Audi S4, with the initial registration XXyyXXX. Shortly afterwards, I applied to assign my retained registration mark, XyyXXX, to the vehicle. The vehicle was registered thus until July 2007. At this time, as I was part exchanging the vehicle, I applied to retain the XyyXXX registration mark, and the vehicle was duly issued with a new V5C, and I was correctly issued a retention certificate for XyyXXX. Following this, I returned the correct section from this ‘new’ V5C, providing details of the new Registered Keeper which were, for the record: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah The transaction to part-exchange the vehicle took place on 28th June 2007, and this is the effective date when I ceased to be the owner / keeper, although clearly I was still listed as the registered keeper at the start of July, whilst transfer of the registration mark, and subsequent re-issue of the ‘new’ V5C were completed. I am not in a position to comment on whether the department did (or didn’t) receive notification – but I am certain that the documentation was posted to the department according to the instructions on the V5C. Your response suggests that I should then wait up to 4 weeks to receive an acknowledgement letter. What your department has either failed to appreciate, or perhaps unfairly relies upon, is that a keeper who has sent the V5C off to the DVLA, and/or handed the remainder to the buyer, no longer has that document to refer to. I was extremely disappointed to receive your response as, even considering these circumstances, you still believe that I am liable for the ‘penalty’. As clearly we have both been let down by Royal Mail, and as there is clear evidence that I correctly returned the previous V5C in order to retain my registration mark, I would have expected you to take no further action on this. In particular, given the fact that the vehicle was immediately disposed of (and I can provide as much proof of this as is necessary) there was no possibility of any financial gain for me, and absolutely no motive for me to fail to notify you of a change of keeper. Clearly, as your department feels unable to simply let this matter drop, I have investigated the situation further with respect to the legal ability for the DVLA to issue a ‘late licensing penalty’, and I have been rather shocked with what my investigations have turned up. There appears to be clear contradiction between the DVLA acting as ‘judge and jury’, without a proper appeals process, and both Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 – the former of which allows me a ‘right to a fair trial’, by way of an independent and impartial tribunal, and the latter expressly disallows the process of issuing a ‘fine’ (as your ‘penalty’ purports to be). The DVLA method of ‘trial’ is by way of a computer database and the postal system. Because of this, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right. I am more than willing to expand on these points if necessary, but I trust that this won’t be necessary. As I understand it, there has already been at least one case at County Court (May 2007 in Mansfield) in which the DVLA (Secretary of State) were similarly unsuccessful. Whilst perhaps not a binding precedent, I would imagine that a reasonable Judge would, when considering all relevant factors in this case, rule once again against your department. If that weren’t enough, I trust the DVLA is aware of Royal Mail’s requirement to operate a Universal Postal Service and that, unlike many other countries, in the UK a letter becomes the property of the recipient upon posting, rather than upon receipt. There is a clear assumption that, when using Royal Mail’s services, documents (even official ones) can be considered ‘served’ purely by posting. Indeed, a quick check on other Government websites concludes that: “A document may be served by leaving it at the appropriate address for service under this rule or by sending it to that address by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post.” In addition, I understand that the V5C contains no reference to posting via an alternative (and possibly more ‘secure’) service such as Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery, so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper. That you either didn’t receive this notification, or failed to update your records accordingly, is unfortunate – but I contend that it is unreasonable to expect me to chase up your failure to acknowledge the service of this document, especially given that you expect me to ‘wait’ for a period of at least 4 weeks before doing so. I would have thought that the DVLA was well aware that the postal service cannot be wholly relied upon, given that your department was recently forced to admit that it had ‘lost’ the details of 7000 motorists, which I understand went missing from a sorting office in Coventry whilst on the way to your Swansea offices. Furthermore, the DVLA also managed to send 100 questionnaires (out of 1,215) to the wrong addresses – clearly showing that there is the potential for lapses of process within the agency. Taking these 2 events into consideration, is it any wonder that the document I sent to you has been ‘lost’? Irrespective of the wording of the V5C, I consulted the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As the vehicle was sold to a Motor Trader, section 23 applies: ******* Change of keeper: obligations of registered keeper where vehicle registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper a vehicle trader 23. - (1) Subject to regulation 24, this regulation applies where - (a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle; (b) the person disposing of the vehicle is the registered keeper; © a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and (d) the new keeper is a vehicle trader. (2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following - (a) the name and address of the vehicle trader; (b) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader; © a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and (d) a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b). (3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2). ******* There is nothing contained within section 23 which requires me to follow up after 4 weeks if I have not received acknowledgement of the notification. Having read the remainder of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, I am unable to find any general provision which could bestow that requirement – and in the absence of the V5C document (as obviously someone in my position would be) I would reasonably expect to see the requirement to pursue this letter properly documented within the legislation. Interestingly, your letter dated 10/01/08 also refers to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended). I had a brief look at this legislation too. Section 30 deals with the ‘Additional liability for keeper of unlicensed vehicle’, but when determining the ‘Relevant period for purposes of section 30’, Section 31 part 5 states: ******* (5) Where the person convicted proves— (a) that throughout any month or part of a month in the relevant period the vehicle was not kept by him, or (b) that he has paid the duty due (or an amount equal to the duty due) in respect of the vehicle for any such month or part of a month, any amount which the person is ordered to pay under section 30 is to be calculated as if that month or part of a month were not in the relevant period. ******* So, for the purposes of pursuing the duty owed for the period, the DVLA must not count the month(s) for which the person convicted can prove that the vehicle was not kept by him. In short, there is clear provision for the Secretary of State to accept that a vehicle is not kept by a person, without receiving and/or acknowledging notification of a change of registered keeper. As I disposed of the vehicle in June, clearly it was not being kept by me in October, November or December (or, indeed, January). With proof of this being readily available, the DVLA cannot pursue the alleged owed duty for the entire period – and having correctly notified you of the change of keeper (by serving the document via first class post, in the prescribed manner) you are seeking to punish unfairly for something which lies utterly outside of my control. As the DVLA has authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt, should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234. Please also note, the best address to correspond with me is: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I moved from the Blah Road address you are writing to, during August, into temporary accommodation, then (during September) into the address above. I obviously arranged for my Driving License and V5Cs for subsequent vehicle(s) to be changed / issued to my new address, but had no need to notify you of a change of address for a vehicle which I hadn’t owned or kept for several months. I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has now been dropped. Yours faithfully, Blah Blah
  19. Correct, with a DIRECT DEBIT. But if it is a Continuous Payment Authority, it is generally believed (at least by most card issuers I've spoken to) that it can only be ceased by the company requesting the payment. Even if you cease the card, the card issuer can/will still accept the payment and chase you for settling the bill. Of course if it has been setup fraudulently, then I would be writing a stern letter to the originator of the transactions (you must be able to get proper contact details from somewhere) asking them to cancel the payment authority, and to refund the monies they've taken since its inception. Give them 14 days to do this, or prove that they have a right (a signed contract) to take this money, and then issue a moneyclaim online.
  20. When exactly did you buy it? If its within 6 months of now, then consider a claim with the garage who sold it to you, on the basis that your rights under the SOGA still exist for 2nd hand cars. It should be of merchantable quality, and be 'durable'. For the purposes of ascertaining what the fault is, within 6 months of purchase, it would be up to the GARAGE to prove that the fault developed after you drove it away, and was not inherent when purchased. After 6 months, the onus is on you to prove the fault existed. This burden of proof could be very useful in determining exactly what the problem is - since if the garage disputes your claim, they would have to get the engine inspected to show the real cause - so it could end up costing you less to put back together again, even if they aren't found to be responsible. If outside the 6 months, I would still get an independent report as to what caused the problem. Granted the car is outside of its MB factory warranty, but at that sort of mileage, you shouldn't be expecting anything major to go bang unless someone has been negligent with servicing etc. For the cost of replacement, versus the possible cost to determine blame, I wouldn't be dropping this if I were in your shoes.
  21. My sister went through exactly this with her (then) husband. I don't know the actual sum, but it was likely to be around £75,000. He had remortgaged a couple of times, each time forging her signature. His own mother's signature was the 'witness'. As the bank hadn't taken due care with their own process, as I understand it my sister has managed to offload much of the burden, and the bank are now chasing him (and him only) for the 'missing' money. From what I remember (worth checking up on) it is NOT standard practice for a joint mortgage advance (or mortgage on a jointly owned property) to be paid into the current account of just one of the parties for obvious reasons - so worth checking whether the bank failed in its duty of care to ensure that the application was genuine. My sister ended up (obviously) going through a messy divorce and the solicitors assisted with keeping the bank at bay whilst the finances were all settled. The bank in this case was also Cheltenham and Gloucester, so perhaps their procedures and processes are flawed as: 1) they allowed an application containing forged signatures which differed substantially from those already on file (and didn't do proper checks) 2) they allowed an application to be witness by someone who shouldn't have been allowed to (his mother) 3) they paid the funds into a non-joint account (when a joint account did exist with the bank for the couple) As things were breaking down anyway, my Sis didn't hestiate to get the police and the bank's own fraud department involved - although I appreciate if you want to keep your blood relations happy, it might not be advisible to go in all guns blazing - but ultimately she has committed various criminal offences, and perhaps the bank will ONLY take it seriously if it is being actively investigated by the police.
  22. Agree totally. Shop around for the best price you can find for the car online, as most places simply 'bulk order' through 1 or 2 preferred dealers, so get access to cheaper prices (fleet prices) than your average punter. You can also shop online for finance, too, if you are going to take it out. And GAP insurance. Then take all of these to your local dealer. He will be making money in 4 or 5 different ways from you: 1) purchase price of the new car 2) part-exchange price of your old car (possibly) 3) commission on finance 4) revenue from 'extras' eg Supaguard, GAP insurance, Accessory fitting 5) Servicing So you can pick and choose what you buy from the dealer. I've gone armed with my own finance for the last couple of cars I've bought. It slows things down a little, but saves me a fortune in the long run. But I still give the dealer chance to 'bid' against it. Take your 'best price' for the car, your 'best price' for the finance, and your 'best price' for any extras, and see what your local dealer can do. Unless it is a rare model which he can't get ordered or can't get access to, he should do a deal. If he won't, it probably means he is hitting targets and doesn't need your sale - so find another localish dealer who DOES.
  23. That rather depends on whether the money they refund could still buy an equivalent holiday. Holiday prices fluctuate according to demand, and seem to change a fair bit. A holiday which was booked 'early', may have cost (say) £1000, but the equivalent bought today (same flights, same hotel) may cost £1200. So a full refund may NOT cover the cost of the holiday, resulting in a 'loss of bargain'. I would be pushing Thomas Cook to switch the booking to an equivalent hotel without charge. If you can readily explain (to them) why you feel the hotel they have offered isn't of the same standard, and be able to argue the case logically rather than emotionally, you may just get a result. If you can't say why you think the hotel is substantially different (irrespective of "T" ratings) then your task is much harder, IMHO. Of course if you can find the holiday you want elsewhere, for the money you'd get refunded, that would seem like the better bet, as it means you can pick and choose your tour operator as TC seem to be rather inflexible under the circumstances.
  24. Cheers - I will amend that. I part exchanged it on 28th June, but because of the retention of the registration mark, and the need to wait for the new V5C to be sent by the DVLA, it probably wasn't 'official' until July... but I take your point. Whilst I understood most of Danny's template, obviously parts of that argument are rather archaic, and the ECHR part (right to a fair trial) quite onerous and difficult to follow, so I wanted some more mud to throw at them, and was quite pleased to find no reference to having to follow up the notification if they don't acknowledge in ANY of the legislation, and also the wording of Section 31, where they will obviously take OTHER proof of a change of keeper (registered?) over and above purely the successful acceptance and acknowledgement of a notification using the V5C document. I know there's a lot of confusion surrouding 'keeper', 'registered keeper', 'owner', 'driver'... etc but am I right to assume that Section 30 (as above) is meant to apply to the 'registered keeper', since by definition, that is the only person which can be chased for liability. The Act is vague, and just refers to the 'keeper'. Obviously a conviction for driving an unlicensed vehicle lies with the driver, but the additional liability as defined in Section 30 seems (to me, anyway) to only be able to be applied to a registered keeper, since ultimately (so claim the DVLA) it is their responsibility to ensure continuous registration. I cannot see that this legislation can apply to a temporary keeper, or one who appears to be a keeper, since there is (as far as I can see) no responsibility for a keeper (other than the one named on the V5C) to license the vehicle - problems would only arise if they DROVE or KEPT the vehicle on a public highway. Correct? If so, that's very damning.
  • Create New...