Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chris223b

  1. Yeah the chargeback might be the best option, I just doubt it will work when from the banks perspective it's an old transaction and they only have my word for it that anything is wrong. 


    May have answered my own question, ebay themselves do now list their UK Ltd company at 1 More Place, London as the address for service for UK members.


    Whilst I anticipated being continually bounced if trying to deal with them, you believe they will ignoreclaim form sent to their registered office? 

  2. Bit of an issue with eBay. In a nutshell, this is the chain of events:


    Item ordered in August, delivery address was to my work at a site I am not usually based at. 


    I assumed the item was there, but became aware in late August that it was not. Not received case opened with eBay


    Seller acknowledged failure to supply and dispatched the item which was delivered early September, evidenced in message from seller when she saw it had been delivered. I was advised it had arrived by my colleague at the site so closed the case


    Didn't get to check the item over until late September (although within 30 days of delivery). Found item to be poorly packed and had been damaged (Hermes strikes again!)


    Opened a return case, but was surprised to see it was not covered under the usual eBay Money Back Guarantee when it clearly should have been

    Seller declined return


    Spoke to eBay, who after a very lengthy phone call acknowledged that it should have been covered but their system did not log it as such because the seller never uploaded tracking information so the system went on last estimated date of delivery (which had expired long ago due to the initial failure to dispatch the item). 


    eBay agreed to give the seller 3 days 'to facilitate the return' (ebay could not generate a shipping label because it is heavier than the weight limit on their prepaid labels). Advised if seller did not provide sufficient postage ebay would refund


    Nothing heard from seller.

    When the 3 days were up, eBay did not refund but instead closed the case.


    I issued an appeal on the grounds of all the above. The appeal was declined


    I phoned this morning and had what I thought was a very productive call where the agent apologised and blamed it all on their system making assumptions. Confirmed again the item should have been covered by the money back guarantee. He fully documented the case (did a lot of typing anyway) and transferred me back to appeals, stating also he would actually talk to the agent and explain what had happened before transferring me


    After going round in circles, nothing has been agreed with the second agent. eBay are back to claiming the money back guarantee doesn't apply  now want me to message the seller asking for them to supply return postage refund, and then wait 2 days before 'next steps' are taken.


    At this point, I've had enough. I do not feel it is for me to chase the seller further - nor does the seller have any reason to accept a return when there isn't even an open case for one at present. Also eBay will not explain what will happen in 2 days until the 2 days are up.


    Every phone call results in the need to explain the entire situation from start to finish as each agent claims not to know what has been discussed previously. I believe I will just keep going round in circles and have no reason to jump through any more hoops.


    Since it's a relatively small amount (< £150), I'm happy to throw a claim form at it for the sake of the issue fee as I just want my money back at this point. However it seems a bit confused as to who to send it to or where to send it.


    eBay (UK) Ltd with a registered address appears on all the emails, some people say to send it there, others say to send it to eBay Europe SARL using the UK address citing the Hague convention. I would have thought the UK company was correct and most likely to succeed. 


    Also unclear whether I should send a LBA or not as I am a private individual and also have made attempts to resolve this informally by speaking to eBay up to this point?

  3. Myself and a friend entered into an AST in 2008 with a private landlord where I was the lead tenant. Our deposit was placed with the DPS.


    Although we had a good relationship with the landlord throughout the tenancy, when we gave notice to quit in 2011 he seemed to take the matter personally and started being very standoffish with us.


    On our moving out date, the landlord did not attend the property. When we called his phone to find out where he was, it rang with a foreign dial tone and the call was rejected, so he wasn't even in the country and decided to ignore us. We ended up posting the keys back through his letter box and were never properly checked out.


    Since the landlord had essentially absconded we did a stat dec and sent it off to the DPS to get our deposit back and assumed it would follow. A couple of days before we would have had it, the landlord opposed the stat dec and would not consent to ADR. This left it in limbo and our only remedy was to take court action.


    We mulled it over at the time and in the end made the stupid decision not to pursue him and put it down to experience. Eventually we got over the matter and I'd not given it any thought for several years.


    Until today when I moved into a new property which also used DPS and when I checked my account I found two tenancies were shown, and was amazed to find our old deposit from 2008 is still there, now with the status 'suspended pending review'.


    What is the legal position on this deposit now? Neither us nor the landlord can take civil action against each other as more than 6 years has gone by, but the money is still held with the DPS, and it is our money.


    Any chance of getting this back after all these years? And if not, what will eventually happen to it?

  4. I believe that a former employer may have acted unfairly against me whilst I worked there and I'm intending to SAR them to see if there is any evidence of this which I can use.


    I do not know where the evidence may exist or in what form, whether it is in emails, phone calls (which I know to be recorded and stored) or paper records so I would like to make a SAR for every piece of information they have. I also obviously do not want to disclose the reason for my request and find that the evidence I'm looking for may miraculously disappear.


    I am uncertain whether it's better to make a SAR in the next couple of days (before GDPR comes in), or wait until next week when GDPR is introduced.


    Under the present system, AIUI I pay the statutory fee of £10 but I then have an unqualified right to request all information.


    However, under GDPR the statutory fee is abolished but they will be able to charge a 'reasonable fee' where the request is 'manifestly unfounded'.


    Is there any guidance as to what a reasonable fee might be (lower/higher/the same as the current statutory fee?), and what qualifies as a 'manifestly unfounded' request - is a general request for all data rather than a targeted request considered 'unfounded' in itself?

  5. Seconded. In general though, even if the limitation act did potentially apply, I'm not sure when in practice things would ever take so long but ultimately still result in enforcement that it would even become a question.


    Even the least competent LA (for which there are many competitors) with the smallest parking department and the longest delays is going to 'press the button' which issues an NTO before the 6 month period for doing so expires. And after that if you don't intervene it's all automatic and things will very quickly escalate to the Order for Recovery stage which in turn will very quickly escalate to the bailiffs.


    I've only ever had 1 PCN which the LA didn't try to pursue. In that case I got a ticket on my (very obviously crash-damaged and written off) car the day before I scrapped it, and I never heard anything more about it.


    Likely when they tried to use the registration number to trace the registered keeper and send the NTO all they got was that the vehicle didn't exist and so the ticket went nowhere. That was 10 years ago.


    And I suspect if I was ever going to hear anything more about it then I would have done a long time ago and so in practice it remains the case that it will never come down to needing to consider the limitation act.


    What is happening in your case that thinks you might need it?

  6. I have an ancient Myjar default from 2012 from when they tried to pursue £1055 against £50 borrowed.


    It went through a few DCAs who sent standard threat letters which were easily seen off with section 77 requests but no court action was ever taken, and it should have gone SB in March.


    I was looking forward to it being gone from my file on today's Noddle update, however instead I've found that 1 week before the default reached 6 years, it was suddenly marked 'satisfied' and it now appears as a satisfied closed account rather than having dropped off my file altogether, where presumably it will sit until 2024.


    Obviously it's new status is far less damaging than the active default, but not as good as it having disappeared and when I'm so close to having a clean sheet on my credit file I don't want this thing hanging around on it in any form.


    How can they mark it as satisfied when it has never been acknowledged?

  7. I've not heard specifically of the term managed loan,

    but I would assume this is an arrangement where they force you to convert your overdraft to a loan in order to get it paid off?


    Would this end up being a separate loan account with a CCA attached to it or would it somehow still take place on the current account?


    I ask because the amount claimed was far in excess of the overdraft limit,

    but the reconned paperwork that was eventually provided supported the number through the application of a large number of fees and debit interest

    (which seemed to be higher than fees that were charged when I was running the account).


    This of course assumes that the recon statements were real and weren't just constructed by MKDP to reach a number,


    I'd had no original paperwork out of HSBC since 2011.

    If the former

    , then it doesn't look like they did convert it

    . If the latter

    , then they may well have done.


    MKDP's recon paperwork had holes like swiss cheese in it anyway.

    I seemed to lose the case largely based on a reconned overdraft agreement which was undated and so couldn't be conclusively attached to any period of time

    (and I would suggest couldn't be claimed as a true reconstruction when it was missing something as fundamental as the date it was made),


    but crucially was neither the original agreement or the one in force when the account was closed.


    The judge heavily grilled the claimant's solicitor over the shortcomings of this paperwork

    (and used that as part of the reason why she denied their fees)

    but ultimately decided it was all they needed to enforce the claim!


    I'll bung a SAR off to HSBC then and see what comes back.

  8. As far as I'm aware it's not a Tomlin.

    There was a brief discussion regarding settlement before the hearing but the claimant's solicitor couldn't get hold of them so the hearing proceeded.


    Judgement was given for the claimant, but all the costs apart from the court fees were denied.


    I asked the judge about agreeing repayment,

    she agreed that if an agreement could be reached immediately she was happy to write that into the judgement.


    The solicitor and I discussed the arrangement privately outside the court room.


    He finally got hold of MKDP, they agreed the repayment plan,

    details were left with the usher and the judgement when it came through (as posted in page 2 of this thread) included a repayment arrangement which I've stuck to ever since.


    Their solicitor told me judgement wouldn't be entered unless I defaulted on the agreement.


    Although every piece of advice I've got contradicts this, it has indeed never shown up on my credit file.


    If it was a Tomlin order wouldn't this be agreed prior to the hearing and involve me admitting liability (which I never actually did, I simply lost the case?) or is there some sort of 'back door Tomlin' process which exists?

  9. Thanks for the reply,

    I understand the CCJ will only last for 6 years,

    but at present it doesn't seem to have been entered or for some other reason doesn't show (for what reasons I don't know) even though I got the judgement 2 years ago.


    The claimant's brief seemed very clear that it wouldn't show at the time,

    I don't know if there was some reason they asked for judgement not to be entered at the time (although I can't think possibly why they would want to, or what advantage that would give them).


    Either way,

    at present I'm only 8 months away from repayment,

    9 months away from the default disappearing

    and by extension because the CCJ doesn't show,


    the whole matter being closed and my getting a clean credit record to build up.


    But AIUI, if the CCJ now gets put on,

    I will then end up with a CCJ visible until 2021

    (even if it will spend most of that time showing as satisfied).


    Essentially they've threatened to punish me for not accepting their offer.

    What I really want to know is whether Robinson Way are able to carry out their little threat and ask the court to 'correct' my credit file in this way


    - or are you saying that even if the CCJ gets put on it will only stay there until the account falls off the end in 8 months time?


    I wish I left well enough alone and kept quietly paying them now!

  10. About 2 years ago, I defended and lost a court claim. An arrangement was agreed during the hearing, and the other side's costs were denied.


    At the time, the claimant's solicitor said that judgement wouldn't be entered due to the arrangement being agreed with the court as long as I stuck to it.


    Advice here (and elsewhere) is that this was rubbish, and judgement would be entered.


    However, although the default account appears and updates, the CCJ has never appeared on my credit file with any CRA.


    The account has been sold twice since then and has now ended up with Robinson Way.

    I have always stuck religiously to the repayment arrangement,

    paid on time every time without fail.


    2 years later,

    I'm now about 8 months from completing the arrangement

    (and due to the age of the account, only 9 months till the default drops off my file anyway).


    My credit rating in that time has improved,


    I got approved for a bad credit credit card, used it sensibly and more recently got approved for a much better one from my bank,


    I've been approved to rent a flat without needing a guarantor as I did previously and I was looking forward to only being months away to my bad credit history being behind me.


    As I have recently come into a small amount of money,

    I decided that the sensible thing to would be to use this to pay off this account and bring the matter to a close,


    I've just been on the phone to Robinson Way to see what sort of lump sump settlement they would offer.


    I got transferred to legals because they have a CCJ for the account who mentioned that after paying it off they would instruct the court to change the judgement as satisfied on by credit record.


    I told him about the fact that it doesn't currently show anyway, and wanted to make sure that I didn't do anything to make my position worse.


    The settlement offer made was derisory

    (less than 5% of the remaining balance, considering I've already paid about 75% of the amount on the judgement at this point anyway)

    and I hoped to push them for a better deal.


    The conversation ended up degenerating and no reduced settlement was agreed,

    and I told them I would just carry on with the existing arrangement.


    At the end of the call the legals guy issued a (very) thinly veiled threat after I didn't accept their offer;


    he said he would 'make sure the error on [my] credit file is corrected as regards to [my] unsatisfied judgement not showing'.


    he's threatened to ruin my credit file,

    after it is only months away from being clean.


    Is this just standard DCA phone threats or can he actually get my credit file changed?

  11. how many people are involved in this restructure? If a dozen then they have to have a consultation period of at least a month and thus the threats about withdrawing the offer if you question it is merely a shield to prevent the questioning of the legality of their procedures. Read up on redundancy procedures and use that knowledge to assess your own situation as it may be a lot stronger than they make it out to be.

    Also, is there a company pension scheme? If so then the pension trustees also have an interest that could be in your favour as it may be that the company will be forced to top up the pensions of those made redundant (but not those accepting the severance) That could well cost the C a damned sight more than any settlement they are willing to offer at present and thus want to avoid redundancy rather than really threaten it.


    I don't know - they won't tell me anything about the restructure, only that there is one and my job is at risk. It could only be me. In reality, if I'm right about my suspicions it will affect somewhere between 75-100 people. There is a company pension scheme which I pay into - nothing mentioned about what will happen with that.


    You need to remember that this isn't an open negotiation - it's likely to be a without prejudice or S111A ERA negotiation and in either case, you'd never be able to go to court to argue that a contract was formed as any such discussions would be inadmissible.

    I'm thinking more though that if I don't leave by mutual consent and end up being made redundant then I have a good constructive dismissal claim as if I am right about how they will restructure the company it appears obvious this would be a sham redundancy consultation about which the outcome has already been decided and with future people effectively already appointed before I've left.

  12. Last Wednesday, completely out of the blue I was called to a meeting at my HO and told that due to restructuring my job is at risk, the company produced a settlement offer and has given me a week to think about it (unlike 10 days as in ACAS guidelines)


    They refuse to announce the nature of the restructuring, just that I don't fit within it and if I decline the offer then I have been told in no uncertain terms that I will be made redundant and end up with less money than they are offering.


    Although I don't know (and probably never will) I am almost certain based on noises from the past few months that the restructuring involves paying off half the people that do my job, and then replacing the job of the remaining people with a new one with a bigger remit to cover the loss of those of us that are gone, and they are doing this entirely arbitrarily without any due process or allowing me to reapply for the new job. Given that there are already a small number of people doing this bigger remit job, and they have always said I would be suitable to do this if the opportunity gave up, I believe I am being constructively dismissed, and they are relying on the fact that I won't be able to claim that if I accept the offer.


    A few hours after the meeting I sent an email to the people that were in the meeting (my line manager and her line manager) asking firstly for an extension of time to consider the offer, secondly for a fuller explanation as to what is going on and why I won't fit into the restructure, and thirdly asking if they will revise the sum offered. I did stress that I had not made any decisions and nothing in the email was intended to constitute a decision or limit my options.


    That evening I got an off the record phone call from my line manager stating that I shouldn't have done that, I should have just taken the money and because I am seen to be arguing with them they might now just withdraw the offer and make me redundant.


    Can they do that? I thought if the offer is open then it remains open until the window closes or I accept/decline it. Negotiation and asking for an explanation is surely not declining it? I also don't think they would be that stupid, because if I stay I will get to see what they are doing and retain all my employment rights including the right to take them to a tribunal.


    I ask because I have now been offered another (better) job and if they want me gone I'm just happy to take the money at this point!

  13. There is a mayor and I already thought about phoning the local rag, it is a unitary authority so there is no superior county council to complain to and the mayor is on the same side as the local MP so probably not much point going to him either.


    The concern I have is that the wheels of the bulk process will turn unchecked...all the council need to escalate it to TEC is to issue a charge certificate which they've done, all TEC need to issue a warrant is for my to fail to make a witness statement, I can't make a witness statement as none of the 4 grounds cover this situation, then all the council need to instruct bailiffs is a warrant which they'll have. Whether or not it's legal and action is being taken on a cancelled PCN is likely to have very little to do with anything. I was hoping there would be some sort of formal complaint I could raise to someone (ideally someone higher than the council) in this case but nothing I can see seems to cover this situation happening...the TPT's own website certainly does not consider that the council might just ignore them.


    I have considered the extreme option (if I get a court registration notice and the council ignore me) of paying the ticket and then issuing a county court claim against the council for the payment + costs + damages, hopefully it won't get that far.

  14. I've had an issue with a PCN going on for a little while. Essentially I got no ticket on my vehicle and no communication from the LA, the first I heard of it was when the TEC sent the order for recovery


    I completed a witness statement which was accepted, then the same thing happened again.


    Again I completed a witness statement which was accepted, this time the LA said they wouldn't accept it and would continue to pursure for recovery under the order (which had been cancelled!)


    After I challenged the legality of this, they eventually issued an NTO. I raised representations which were rejected so I took it to the TPT.


    At the hearing my appeal was upheld and the TPT confirmed in writing that they had directed the council to cancel the ticket.


    I am well aware that the council is aware of the hearing since they send a bundle to it and I've had no communication from them in over a year (the hearing took a long time).


    The council has now ignored the hearing outcome and sent out a charge certificate on what is now a cancelled PCN! There can be no claim of 'crossing with post' as this has been sent 5 weeks after the hearing.


    I've already fired off an email demanding they withdraw it, but this is now the second time the council has acted what I believe to be illegally.


    What's the best way forward if they ignore my email and escalate it to the TEC again? Is there any action I can take based on the actions they've already taken?

  15. New snag with this...

    payments have been paid to MKDP exactly in line with the agreement and nothing was ever missed.


    At the end of last month,

    MKDP sold the account to Robinson Way,

    who sent me a deed of assignment and new payment details.


    My payment for last month was still made to MKDP

    but this crossed with the communication and in fact was made a couple of days after Robinson Way owned the account.


    Neither of them now wants to take responsibility for where that payment went

    - MKDP said they have forwarded the payment to Robinson Way and as it's not their account any more I would need to raise any queries with them.


    Robinson Way say they have not received any forwarded payments from MKDP,

    I am now behind with my payments and need to pay £100 this month to bring the account up to date and then pursue MKDP myself for a refund of the £50.


    Both parties essentially just want me to forget about this payment which will end up with me paying an extra £50 which I am absolutely not going to do.


    In this case, who's fault is this,

    and could the court get involved since the instalment arrangement was written into the judgement and so ordered by the court?


    I don't think either of them can be considered to be acting reasonably since they are relying on a communication sent 2 days before the payment was due and which having been sent by second class post they know I would not have received in time to pay anyone else last month.

  16. The CCJ will be registered chris...post up the Notice of Judgment on receipt....nice to see their costs were declined.



    MKDP today wrote to me under their alternative letterhead of 'Keynes Collections' (which apparently is a 'final escalation point' should 'Raven Recoveries' have been unsuccessful in getting payment...PMSL) and 'are pleased to confirm' that they have 'accepted' my settlement arrangement...as if they had any choice when it was in the judgement.



    Anyway, the judgement came through from the court a few days ago. Quite basic and doesn't contain the detail the DJ went through:






    1. There be judgement for the claimant in the sum of



    2. The defendant shall pay the claimant's costs summarily assessed in the sum of £220 (just the court fees).



    3. The total sum due of shall be paid by instalments of £50 per month, first payment due on 30/4/15 and on the last working day of each month.

  17. Just FYI, I lost this one. The reconned overdraft agreement from 2010 was deemed to be sufficient evidence that the interest & charges were justly applied even though it does not cover all of the borrowing, and no schedule of charges was provided anywhere to justify any charges. The late witness statements were both admitted on the basis that they did not fundamentally change the case.



    The judge took some leniency in that she did not award any costs claimed apart from the issue fee & hearing fee (they also wanted a £210 'attendance fee' for the local solicitor they hired to represent them to save them the bother of sending someone in house down, and a £195 'admin fee' for their costs in preparing the case), apart from that they won.



    An instalment arrangement was agreed at the time and will be written into the judgement, the claimant's solicitor (who to be fair was a perfectly decent chap) seems to think that this means I won't have the CCJ entered onto the register as long as I stick to it since I'm fully complying with the judgement - so in effect I have a CCJ without having a CCJ. Whilst I would love that to be true I thought a CCJ had to be satisfied in full within a month or judgement is entered?

  18. No they cant issue a supplemental witness statement....you should ask that it be disregarded by the court.



    Thanks Andy. I already submitted my own supplementary statement before I received the advice, I will explain that I submitted mine only because they did and ask that both are disregarded - how should I approach the judge with that?



    Can anyone provide some general advice on how these hearings go and protocols etc I should follow - the only time I've ever been to county court before was an N244 hearing for a parking ticket. That hearing was entirely led by the judge, I didn't feel at any point that I could discuss anything she didn't want discussed (although I did win it)



    Will this hearing be different in that we each say our piece, and if so who goes first? Do we also get a separate section to sum up or do we only speak the once?



    Also, MKDP have advised that the witness in the witness statement will not be attending, but a 'representative' will. Am I right in thinking then that I can be cross examined by them, but I will have no opportunity to do the same back because their representative is not a witness?

  • Create New...