Jump to content

MAGDA

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    2,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MAGDA

  1. Hi, it's a long time since I was last on the forum, so firstly, hello to everyone, and

    secondly, I wonder if anyone can help with a query I have.

     

     

    We purchased some software online, FL Studio, from a well known online retailer.

     

     

    The software was practically impossible to install (it was for my daughter) and wouldn't download from the website either.

     

     

    In the end, my husband who works in IT had to locate missing files etc, from an external source,

    it took over two hours just to get it to install,

     

     

    since then it has been prone to problems with glitches in the software, loss of sound, that type of thing,

    and my daughter is very unimpressed with it.

     

     

    We have contacted the company and explained that we consider the software to have inherent faults

    and explained that it intermittently does not work properly.

     

     

    If you google FL, even just the installation, it comes up with pages of info on this topic, so it is a well known problem.

    We do have a compatible op system etc by the way.

     

    The company has refused a refund, directed us to a dedicated website/forum, to solve any problem and that is it.

     

     

    We have only had the software for around a week, do we have any legal comeback on this?

     

     

    I explained that yes, the software has been opened, but how could we possibly know it is flawed otherwise.

     

     

    Many thanks.

     

     

    Regards,

     

     

    Magda

  2. Hi dx,

     

    well, it was purchased through my Isme catalogue, so

     

    went onto the outstanding balance, but I have made regular payments, so would think so.

     

    I think it is down to Isme to deal with the problem, not to refer me to their supplier,

     

    they, after all, are the retailer and whether they have the technical knowledge or not,

    they should be dealing with me direct, not through a third party.

     

    If I returned the item, as I want to, they obviously could then contact their supplier

    and decide whether to replace the item or credit the amount to my account.

     

    If I had purchased the item from any other retailer, I would take it back to the shop,

    but in this case, Isme don't seem to want to know.

  3. Hi, many thanks BankFodder for your reply.

     

    I will maybe give the supplier a call and see what they say,

     

    just out of curio, and then get back to Isme.

     

    If I don't get any joy then from Isme,

     

    I may have to go down the route you suggest,

     

    so many thanks for the info.

     

    John Lewis it is, next time..

     

    ..sounds like they offer a good service, which is more than you can say for a lot of them.

  4. Hi all,

     

    I purchased a hoover (a Vax) less than six months ago from ISME catalogue.

     

    The hoover was hardly used until recently (I had still been using my old hoover,

    but had purchased the Vax one as it was a good price

    and my old one, although stil fine, was showing signs of age.

     

    I recently have been using the new, Vax hoover,

    but it very quickly stopped picking up,

    and had not been particularly good anyway.

     

    My husband has cleaned the filters and so forth, but it still is not picking up adequately and is really not a great hoover.

     

    Also, the pipe section of the hoover keeps falling apart and I have to keep pushing it back in.

     

    I have contacted Isme and explained that the hoover is not working as it should and I wish to return it.

     

    However, they say I must contact their supplier (the manufacturer) and ascertain the cause of the problem before they can accept it back, if at all.

     

    I have said that under the Sale of Goods Act the hoover is not fit for purpose and my contract, in effect, is with Isme.

     

    However, they argue that is not the case.

     

    They say they lack the technical knowledge to deal with the matter direct

    and if I return the hoover to them, they will return it back to me,

    and add the postage cost to my account.

     

    Are they correct in what they say?

     

    Many thanks,

     

    Magda

  5. Hi, I have a question relating to TUPE and wonder if anyone can help. My husband worked as a contractor for a large IT company through a third party: the company who had been awarded the contract to supply staff to the IT Company. He was paid by the third party company, not the IT company for whom he indirectly worked. Some of the employees who worked through the third party company (the "Agency") were permanent employees, but the majority worked as contractors, as in my husband's case.

     

    A few years down the line, the IT company put the contract out to tender again. The contract was awarded to a different company (Agency, for want of a better word) who would now be supplying staff to the IT company, as the previous third party company had now, of course, lost the contract.

     

    The new Agency Tuped over the existing members of staff who were the permanent employees (though it's important to remember that these permanent employees did not, at any time, work dirctly for the IT Company (the customer) - they worked indirectly through the previous Agency (contract holder who supplieid the staff).

     

    My husband, and some of his colleagues, whilst doing exactly the same job as the permanent members of staff, were offered the opportunity to also keep their jobs (so in other words, the exact same role that they had previously been carrying out) but at a vastly reduced rate - around £12,000 p.a. less. They are now also permanent employees of the "Agency."

     

    The staff being tuped, of course, remained on their old salaries and I believe have also been receiving regular pay increases since.

     

    Previously, although some members of staff working for the agency had been permanent and some contractors, they were on the same rate of pay, as they were all doing exactly the same job.

     

    However, several years down the line, my husband and a few of his colleagues are still on the same low wage and the tuped employees are sitting next to them, doing identical jobs (this isn't a case where anyone could justify that the roles differ slightly etc - they are the exact same roles, and they do the exact same job, with the exact job title, earning at least £12-15,000 a year more, possibly more now, due to the pay rises it is believed they have received). Also, my husband is better qualified than the members of staff earning the higher amounts- both in terms of his educational background and also due to training he has since carried out at the request of the employer, which the TUPEd members of staff have no interest in doing, even though the employer would like all staff to achieve the additional qualifications. However, despite achieving these qualifications at the employers request, there has been no payrise, no incentive at all.

     

    Obviously, this is a very unfair situation, where two people doing the exact same job can have such a vast difference between their earnings. My husband has not received any pay increases (even in line with inflation) and therefore each new year is running at a loss. He has applied for a lot of jobs elsewhere, but there just isn't anything much around and his other colleagues, also on the lower wage have obviously found this to be the case also.

     

    We find it very difficult to manage on my husband's salary and I can't see how this isn't discriminatory, when one employee and another (it is at least three years since the higher earners were TUPED) are earning completely different amounts for identical jobs.

     

    Was Tupe even relevant in this case, as the permanent employees worked for an agency who lost the contract. The contract was awarded to a new agency, but would they, in this sitation, be required to tupe over employees from the previous agency, who merely supplied staff to the "customer" - the IT company.

     

    Do we have any legal comeback with regards to this?

     

    Many thanks, Magda

  6. Anyway, hopefully, this will all be completely sorted soon, but GE money are really the most difficult company out, they know what they are doing and deliberately try to avoid doing what they have been told. One of the managers at GE even said that if they removed the entry it would seem as though there had never been any relationship between us, and so, they just can't do it. How ridiculous is that!

     

    Awwww sad !!!!!! brings a tear to the eye

     

    Yes, It was a wonderful relationship (Not!) while it lasted, but ah well, just a distant memory now - they really must learn to move on....

     

    Well done Magda

     

    Thanks Andy, been a long haul, but seeing some light now...

     

    Andy

  7. Just an update. As mentioned before, I complained to the ICO last year re: Lloyds Tsb and also GE Money. Lloyds TSB had placed a default on my credit file in 2010, six years after the event, and GE Money were reporting that we were six payments in arrears each month, even though the account had been registered as a default in 2004, so should have automatically dropped off after six years. They had purchased it back from Link and thought it was ok to start reporting on it again.

     

    Well, the ICO found in our favour on both complaints and he recommended that both entries be removed from the credit reference agencies, he said that GE were in breach of the DPA and also Lloyds. He said that when someone defaults on an account and is only able to make token payments, the default should be placed on that persons credit file there and then, regardless of whether they are making the token payments or not. It is not acceptable some years down the line to place a default then, as using the fairness test, the person who didn't pay at all is obviously in a better position than the person who did. I have to say, Lloyds have been a lot more helpful than GE Money, although having said that, Lloyds refused to remove the default when I initially wrote to them, stating that they were correct. Lloyds removed the default pretty quickly once they had received a letter from the ICO, but GE Money continued to report us as six payments in arrears and were coming up with all sorts of excuses, such as they had decided to close the account and write the balance off (which I hadn't asked them to do, makes not difference to me either way). I said that didn't prevent them informing the CRAs of their 'error' but they said they couldn't update the files until the account was officially shut down. The latest is that after informing them I would issue a court claim, they have updated the entry to show it is up to date, which, whilst an improvement on the 6 payments in arrears, is still not correct, and not what the ICO advised them to do, i.e, to remove the entry completely. I have now gone back to the ICO and he is going to offer further assistance in getting this sorted.

     

    I have found the ICO to be really helpful, or at least the person who dealt with my complaints anyway. He has been really fair about everything, I thought he would automatically take the side of the banks, but he didn't, so was pleasantly surprised.

     

    Anyway, hopefully, this will all be completely sorted soon, but GE money are really the most difficult company out, they know what they are doing and deliberately try to avoid doing what they have been told. One of the managers at GE even said that if they removed the entry it would seem as though there had never been any relationship between us, and so, they just can't do it. How ridiculous is that!

     

    Hope anyone else having similar problems is getting on ok.

     

     

    regards, Magda

  8. Hi Caro, many thanks. My defence relied on several points, but was mainly to do with the fact that the claimant was in default of s78, which is why they wanted to adjourn, to try to come up with yet more paperwork. There were other issues as well, but obviously each case is different. I have defended a few claims myself with help from the forum which has been invaluable at times, but for the last two, I used Watsons, who fortunately were able to take my case. I would recommend that anyone tries to get help on a CFA basis if they can, but obviously it depends on how much merit their case has. There are some great people on the forums as well and that has made a huge difference to people being able to defend these cases if they can't get a solicitor, which I know isn't always possible of course. I don't know where I would have been at times without the information I managed to find out on here.

     

    regards, Magda

  9. Hi mandm, nice to hear from you - haven't been on the forum so much in a while for one reason or another - hope you are well!

     

    I was very fortunate to have such a good outcome!

     

    Hope all of your own battles have now gone away and life is a bit quieter for you...

     

    Magda

  10. That's the trouble with a lot of these cases, some of it is down to the judge you get on the day, isn't it, which if you are a LIP as donkey just mentioned, it can be difficult to argue against an experienced barrister and HFO do instruct pretty good barristers I believe. That was one thing I was really pleased about, that I would have had a great barrister in my corner - makes a huge difference.

     

    The OFT are aware of all of the issues regarding this case, I made sure of that some time ago. Hopefully Hfo won't be around too much longer.

  11. Well, according to M&S they know them as Roxburghe, so that's what they call them, but they said it was actually sold to HFO Capital - although the agreement between M&S and HFO, of course, was entered into between HFO Cayman and M&S, but HFO claim it was then sold to HFO Ireland - usual HFO tactics to muddy the waters as much as they can.

  12. Hi BA, No, M&S claimed it was sold to HFO Capital Ltd in the letter they sent to me. They gave HFO's name, but TR's address - and the date of the assignment was a day out, which although not much of a difference, is still wrong. Mind you, Watsons weren't really focusing on the assignment issue too much anyway as there were other, better arguments in my case that could be used.

  13. I’m surprised in some ways that they back down so easily on M&S accounts, as they had a CC licence when they bought them, and the agreements are usually there somewhere. Think they may have lost the will to fight any cases. Which is rather good, cos they deserve to be kicked from here to eternity for the untold and unwarranted misery they have caused to so many vulnerable people through their lies, deception and bullying.

     

    Just need their licences revoked now.

     

    The main thing I’m keeping a close eye on is who eventually gets hold of the assets of HFO Services – and there are a lot of account assets and judgments sitting there (which were supposedly assigned from HFO Cayman). Hope there’s no mis-valuing of assets going on...

     

    Hi Donkey - well, think it was because Watsons had spotted a lot of other problems with HFO's case - things which I'm sure I wouldn't have noticed, because obviously that's their area of expertise. All in all, we had a really strong case, not just based on the agreement but a lot of other things as well. I think HFO's barrister probably weighed up the pros and cons and decided it just wasn't worth going ahead, which I was more than happy about! If HFO hasn't lost the will to fight any cases, they soon should hopefully! Watsons did have another case back in January against HFO and they beat them on that occasion as well - that one actually went to trial. So hopefully, HFO might start thinking twice before taking people to court on a whim.

     

    I agree, we do want their licences revoked now and hopefully in the not too distant future. That would really be the icing on the cake.

     

    I know it's difficult to say too much, but is that all still happening behind the scenes - revoking HFO's licence(s)?

  14. I haven't updated this for a while, but just to let others know - we had a very successful outcome with this! We used a solicitor in the end, Watsons, who handled this right through to the end for us. We did get to trial with a very good barrister, which was then adjourned at the request of the claimant., because basically, they didn't have the slightest chance of winning on that day and they knew it. A new date was then set for the trial to take place, but Cabot discontinued at the 11th hour.

     

    Thanks for the help I received on the forum and many thanks to all at Watsons, particularly Gwyn, who handled the case - without their help I'm sure it wouldn't have turned out nearly as well.

  15. Many thanks all, and thanks for your help as well. It didn't go to court, they have just discontinued, literally days aways from trial. Watsons had arranged a great barrister for me also, someone known for his expertise in consumer law, so that helped as well. I am just so over the moon that HFO haven't succeeded - they've obviously spent a lot of money so far as it has practically reached trial, so that brings a smile! I have to say Watsons really are a genuine lot, they are about the only firm I know of who handle so many of these cases and obviously stand to gain nothing at the end, if they lose. I also think this forum is fantastic, this is where I started a number of years ago when I knew absolutely nothing about consumer law or consumer rights, so keep up the good work!

     

    Many thanks to the HFO fan club!

     

    Magda

  16. Just to update, my solicitors, Watsons, have successfully defended this which is fantastic news - they are a brilliant firm and my solicitor, Gwyn Jones, has put in a huge amount of work throughout and has remained one step ahead of HFO all along. If anyone has problems with HFO, it is definitely worth seeking legal advice as these cases can be very difficult to defend on your own. I'm not completely clueless about Consumer law, but I really don't believe I would be in such a good position now if I had continued to handle this case myself.

     

    Good luck to anyone else in a similar situation, just goes to show HFO can be beaten!

  17. Hi sue, yes, it is very frustrating. Whenever you complain to the credit ref agencies you are told that the creditor says the information they hold is correct and therefore it will remain on your file - it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever, even if you provide evidence to back up your argument, what the creditor says is final. Equifax were particularly bad, they totally ignored the letters we uploaded providing evidence that the info they held was incorrect - then they closed the case and said that it had been dealt with, when in actual fact they had done absolutely nothing at all. If you ring them you just go through to a call centre in india or somewhere.

     

    However, I have complained to the ICO re: the GE Money problem I have had and also Lloyds Tsb and just to warn you, they do have quite a backlog - it took them around four months to deal with my complaints. I have just heard back that the ICO has found in our favour re: GE Money and is advising them to remove the information from our credit files. I am still waiting to hear back on the Lloyds one. One thing the ICO did say was that they aren't taking any further action against GE Money as this seems to be a one off mistake on their part - which I know for a fact isn't the case. So, the more complaints they get about any one company, especially if it is for a similar scenario, then the better.

     

    In my case the account actually defaulted in 2004, but Lloyds didn't report it to the Credit ref agencies. We have made token payments since 2004, but Lloyds suddenly decided in 2010 to place a default on our credit file, which is grossly unfair. They claimed it hadn't been passed to their official collections dept prior to 2010 and a default doesn't become active until this happens, absolute rubbish. Did Lloyds write to you around 2009ish and say that they were clearing your arrears as a gesture of goodwill, and then expect you to resume making your normal contractual repayments? This is what they did to us and many others and when we couldn't make those payments they started to report that we were in arrears again with the CRAs.

     

    Hope you get things sorted out - get a complaint off to the ICO as soon as you can - it's worth a shot!

     

    regards, Magda

×
×
  • Create New...