I cannot believe that anyone on this forum would for one second recommend a course of action that involved paying a PPC, or paying a third party to do something that your could so easily do yourself. Which is to ignore all threats from a PPC. Who was it? Name and shame them, otherwise others will be wasting their money.

Send an letter to Roadside Lawyer asking that they refund you the £32, as they have singularly failed to provide the service you paid for.

Properly administered, credit files arguably lead to cheaper credit. By being able to vet those applying for credit, lenders can apply more accurate risk premiums. In the absence of the ability to ascertain someone's credit worthiness and / or ability to pay a debt back, lenders would have to make assumptions about the borrower, to the borrower's detriment (c.f the market for lemons and information asymmetry). Considering the tenor of many loans (25 years, in the case of most mortgages), 6 years of lending history seems to be unfavourable to the lender.

Ignore it. They will send a few letters, increasingly threatening in tone. Then nothing else will happen.

I don't think that this bit can be stressed enough. Find out who the landowner is, and have them confirm their agency relationship with the clamper.

I see your point. The law has some catching up to do, it would seem. I could see how difficult it would be to explain delivery headers to a Judge.

Ignore it.

Amber means stop. A court will most likely take his word over yours.

Have a read of the clamping guide. Some aspects of immobilisaton are governed by The Private Security Industry Act, the rest by case law. The BPA has no authority at all. You don't have 7 days. You have 6 years in which to make a claim in the County Court for any amount paid.

Isn't that the snail mail equivalent of signing for a letter, but not opening it? The law, as far as I understand it, only deals with delivery, not with reading.

This is trumped by SOGA, which gives the consumer much longer. Luckily, for the OP, a reason is not necessary.

As an aside: For emails, you can use read-receipt tracking. You could also embed a hotlinked image to a server that you have log level access.

Is there some statutory exception where animals are concerned, or where this specific disease is concerned? I would suggest that is a separate issue, and not a consumer / retailer one.

That would be a terrible business model, and likely to lead to a company losing customers. It is not a profitable business model by any stretch of the imagination.

You should probably be expecting a refund, not compensation. Inform the retailer that you expect a full refund, and that you will keep their merchandise in a safe place until such time as they arrange to have it picked up, at their expense. The DSRs don;t really come into play here, as you are rejecting the goods under SOGA.

They are making an offer to treat of £99 to pick the fridge up. You may make alternative (and no doubt cheaper) arrangements to have the fridge returned. The retailer does not enjoy the right to specify how goods are returned.

I'm guessing that there were no terms and conditions that mentioned interest would be paid, in that case. There is no automatic right to receive interest.

The following are good references for all things DSR: The OFT's Business Guide to DSR , and The OFT's Consumer Guide to DSR. Their Terms and Conditions must state that return postage be at the consumer's expense. This means that you can return the item yourself, should you wish. If they haven't mentioned return delivery in their Ts&Cs. then they should be paying for the return themselves.

There does seem to be a complete absence of an offer of settlement. Perhaps you could send your own Calderbank letter, offering to settle, save for costs. Is it just me, or does this read that their client does not feel strongly at all about defending the claim?

Debt collectors have no powers. They can knock if they like, but they have no authority to demand money from you. You have no credit agreement with them. the only possible way that your credit rating might be affected is if, and this is a giant if, they go to court, then win, and you then refuse, or are unable, to pay. This is extremely unlikely at each stage. Don't just not pay. Ignore them entirely. Read the sticky posts. Read the other UKPC posts. The stories and the advice are always the same.

it's possible that they were exchanging driving position for the purposes of fuel economy. The vehicle in front will be burning fuel far quicker than the one behind, so they take it in turns. It takes such a long time to do, as they are also performing the manoeuvre in a fuel efficient manner (i.e. without accelerating or braking hard).

Did this actually happen, or was it whimsical anecdote from the Top Gear writing staff?

There's a good article on Out-Law.com relating to this. It would appear that Mr Shaw's wishful thinking may be based on the idea that the purchaser of software has a necessity to have a backup, and therefore the absolute right to back it up. The nuance may lie in what the consumer is permitted to backup - is it the disk itself. Certainly, the Sony case suggests that the whole pint of backup was for the purpose of redundancy of unstable media, a purpose made entirely moot with the advent of the DVD media disk, particularly modern ones with very long lasting dyes. I fail entirely to see how that may be extrapolated to mean that someone else may do so, using a different disk on an unlicensed basis. [Edit] It's this sort of whimsy that is likely to get the site owner into trouble. Of the criminal kind, not just civil. I wonder if he is familiar with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29), and the fact that pretty much all of his assets would be up for grabs.

nt

As Yorky states - Google has a cache of many of the pages. So does the Wayback machine.