Jump to content

feralcat2

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good

1 Follower

  1. Apologies accepted. Does anyone know when the Ofcom report is due on the 'Additional Charges Enquery' (ie dd and late payments charges) as I'm trying to prepare a submission for the County Court on my own dispute, and don't wish to be annointed or embroiled in the down-draught of the Regulators dispensations. Since the service disconnection last month, I have now recieved more memo's from V/M with the generic 'sorry to hear your unhappy' diatribe. They abjectly refuse to respond to correspondence and provide no direct contact provision whatsoever to resolve disputes. The disconnections they made last month has now introduced another issue into the mix, 'unjust enrichment' whereby I assume (rightly or wrongly) they will make charges for non-existant services. (not recieved the bill yet.) I find it difficult to understand why they abjectly refuse to respond to correspondence, it seems to me that they are not serious in resolving the issues in dispute. Or perhaps, like me, they are waiting on Ofcom to utter the magic words and fill us all with glee, (not bloody likely.) I assume he will recommend more of the same, and leave it down to us mortals to fight for whats right and get rid of this dd charging nonsense. And another thing, who trusts banks now, there they are pleading poverty and unable to provide loans, asking the state to bail them out when they squandered billions. I better stop before I get riled up and stick the money under the mattress.
  2. to Meagain, Jeff 2000 & dave 12345, Apologies for the delay in responding,V/M disconnected the service and for some unknown reason made a reconnection, albeit they have not replied to corespondence other than the generic 'Sorry to hear you're Unhappy'. Seething is a more appropiate word, inasmuch as I don't owe them a penny other than the illegal demands for payment handling & late payment charges, approx £80 now. In the articles above I apologise for the word 'Juvinile',... for during my submissions, it was not meant to cause offence. 'Un-informed' may have been a better word choice. The word 'Juvinile' only referred only to the circumstance of a penalty charge and the ruling in the Warsall Court, no personal connatations were intended. The Judge ruled that a D/D is a core term in a contract, which to my mind is both illogical and out of kilter with current custom and business practices. It is hardly ever mentioned as a core term in advertizing and to all intents and purposes it may be considered a discount but not a charge. The legal concept of DD being a charge brings in its wake a gamot of banking rules that are a never ending quagmire. Watching the Labour Party Conference on T/V I note the GB approving DD for payment of energy bills. Where does this man come from, my pension is paid into the Post Office and they don't do DD's, perhaps he intends to increase pensions to take account of his blunder.
  3. Hi Meagain, I agree with you that because a you refuse to pay by DD, you incur a penalty, and that is madness, but that is the current state of affairs in respect to paying telecomunication billing. As stated above, I do not have an express contract with V/M (being a telewest customer) wherein V/M (on take-over) imposed a non-DD charge and abjectly refuse's to provide evidence of liability. I cannot be liable to V/M if I have not signed a service contract stipulating payment by DD. Further, I have written inexcess of 37 letters to them and only recieve generic replies which do not address the issues at hand. In terms of contractual obligations, I understand a basic contract has 2 parts, 'the substance and the effects, namely the core terms and non-core terms.' The Substance, is those matters material to the service supplied together with the unbridled cost of the service,.. namely, The Bargain. The Effects,.. are those matters that equates to purpose,.. wherein, access, permissions, responsibility, dispute/complaint, means of payment, suspention of service for non-payment ect,.. are central to the service but do not impede or impose upon The Bargain as agreed between supplier and customer. The substance and effects are to all intents and purposes , two sides of the same coin. Also, in regard to those DD charges, I understand tha the telecommunications industry is the only utility industry that imposes this particular charge on its customers. Having painstakingly read the responses published by Ofcom in respect of DD charging, the only persons to agree in favour of those charges are the Telecommunications companies themselves, all others were abhorrently against the charges and the chaos caused to the finances of those without banking facilities. In a case (above)where a Judge can rule that payment by DD is a core term of a contract within the gamut of the numerous ways of paying bills, he is reflecting the nonsensically madnes that contract law is an ass and his words prove the point impecabely. I understand Mrs Bond is appealing this decision, and I wish her all the best.
  4. to jeff & dave 123456 The views expressed above seem a little juvinile for in the Warsall County Court in Case No: 7WJ 02610 (Bond (nee Ferihough) -v- British Telecom) the Court has already ruled that the payment of £4-50 is not a penalty insofar as it is a core term of the service contract. As I understand Mrs Bond's arguement was, that the imposed £4-50 non DD charge was unfair within the meaning of UTCCR 1998 and likewise if the charge was removed it would not effect any term or condition of the contract in any way. The Judge stated, that the £4-50 charge was a core term and as such was not subject to the assessment of fairness under UTCCR1998, because matters which are core terms relating to price and service are not assessable, providing, that due notice has been given to the consumer that there is going to be a change in either price or service. British Telecom argued that non-direct debit charges, minimum contract periods and charges for itemised billing were core terms, because they are essential to the bargain which consumers will assess when making a decision to contract. B/T submits that late payment charges, payment failure charges and restoring service charges are non-core terms. Whilst this case does not set any legal precedent, it is nevertheless a signpost of things to come. It highlights the relevance that the Courts take in the on-going development of contract law. The Court did not consider the charge was a penalty, far from it, it considered the charge as an essential core term of the contract. Equally, Ofcom considers non dd charge a legitmate business expense, and call payments by DD a discount. Their only arguement is that, non dd payments should not be used to penalize consumers who make payments on time rather than lumping them as bad debtors, My understanding of contract law subscribes,.. that when a customer sign's on the dotted line, those terms and conditions as agreed rendered both parties liable to that agreement and both parties were responsible for adhering and complying to the terms agreed. However, in respect of V/M, at no time did I sign a document with them agreeing to make payment for service by means of direct debit, yet they invoke charge against me and abjectly refuse to provide any express or direct evidence showing that I am liability for the charges imposed. On the other hand, The Regulator Ofcom is charged with a duty to ensure fairness is prominent within the telecom service industry. To date, the behaviour and remonstrations within the current review raises the question of how fairness be achieved if Service Providers are permitted to notify customers (by generic means) of price or service changes when the consumers did not agree to that particular charge when making a decision to contract in the first place. It appears that as the law stands now, neither the Courts or the Regulator is protecting consumers from Service Providers employing illicit tattics by way policy charges to boost profit margins. Just another hussle/ confidence trick for the hard pressed consumer to worry about.
  5. Hi Maybelline Standing Orders are just another banking instrument. Service providers prefer D.D's insofar as they are variable. As your service bill varies, Providers can demand the amount required irrespect of whether the bill is right or wrong. They expect you to be alertand inform them of any errors, albeit, they do not endeavour to compensate you for the hassle caused. My dispute with V/M is much more straight-forward than standing orders. I simply do not wish to pay 'payment handling charges' or 'late payment charges'. I am capable of orgaiising my own financial affairs, where to me, these particular charges are a penalty for not having a bank account. Whilst the Penalty arguement is straight forward in citing the penal code for wrong-doing, the opposing arguement is more akin to addressing the provisions of The Price Indications( Method of Payment) Regulations 1991 (SI 199) Under those regulations, Service Providers have carte-blanche authority to include additional surcharges into their contractual terms and conditions. OFCOM acknowledges those regulations and admit that it is competetion between Service Providers that controls prices rather than consumer choice. Having a valid choice is a pipe-dream, inasmuch as all Service Providers impose surcharges within the terms and conditions of supply and argue passionately that listing the related price structure is a benefit for the consumer. I fail to see the logic in this arguement. Most people are quite capable of handling their own financial affairs and don't need a bank to organise payment and charge them for doing so. I make my own arrangements for paying bills and admit I am a little richer for it. Service Providers have admitted to OFCOM that the surcharges (ie payment handling & late payment charges ) are basically a tool to combat bad debt. In that sense, those charges are not a fair and reasonable amount for administration cost purposes only, but are a further means to increase revenue. In his Consultation Document, OFCOM has recommended that Service Providers will need to change their terms and conditions to reflect administration costs and not bad debt bounty collection. Thus, is it any wonder that companies impose surcharges, usuall on vunerable persons and those on low income benefits ect, who are struggling to make ends meet. Those people have no interest in banks and banking charges, they have no money to bank. Yet Service Providers require those people to pay for their inability to collect debts or payment for service. Payment collection charges are a fuctional addition to the basic service price. It is collated within the price structure for service. Therein, charging twice for the same functionality is akin to fraudulent trading, It would have been more beneficial to everyone had OFCOM looked at price rather than competition, as a means of resolving the mountain of complaints in regard to surcharges. (Please note, I understand that those charges are outlawed both in Ireland and in France.)
  6. Hi Maybelline, Thank you for your fast response, I have found V/M to be 'a most agrivating company to deal with insofar as they refuse or fail to answer correspondence other than by automated mail-shots. I've had enough of 'Sorry to hear your unhappy, ect ect, where the issues 'drags on' for months. I have refused outright to pay payment handling charges and late payment charges. Each time I settle a bill, I issue them with a conformation of why payment is with-held and the relevant reasons for my actions. This process has been going on for some time. All that appears to happen is that someone at V/M calls at a really inconvenient time, discusses the issues and life goes on. It is me that is getting pee'd off at the continual hassle. Anyway, I am getting prepared to do battle and have a few arrows in my quiver to sharpen, One imminent problem arises in that, V/M do not correspond, nor it appears, is there anyone in that company that takes ownership of the complaint. They appear to allow matters to drift rather than resolve issues. However, I take your point about the conveluted way they have of resolving issues. Nice to know they have a sense of humour.
  7. Hi, I am new to posting on this site, but have been following the debate in respect of penalty charges, namely payment handling & late payment charges. Currently I am in dispute with V/M and have refused to pay these charges until they provide express conformation showing I am actual liable for these charges. At no time did I agree to pay by D.D or pay any penalty charges, ' or whatever name they are called'. I am an old Telewest customer with a service contract of indeterminable duration. (it rolled over year after year). As my dispute with V/M intensifies, I can foresee ligitation with V/M at some time in the future respect to the behaviour they endow, failure to correspondence, automated correspondence, phone calls that harbour on harassment at inconvenient times and no-one taking ownership of complaints. To progress, can one or other of you 'legal eagles' out there qualify the 'legal defination of penalty' with respect to contractual charges within the remit of liquidated damages, and how does this imposition of billing and charges combined, apply in regard to services. Whilst I am familiar with some aspects of contractual law, I seek to establish the legal groundwork prior to entering the arena. Further, V/M have issued a document called 'Customer Aquisition Policy,(explaination & guide) at 5.6 Direct Debit (quote) 'where an upfront payment is exempt on new accounts, it is 'compulsary' to set up a direct debit. (telewest customers please note.) Secondly at 10.0 (Bill Payment) (quote) V/M admit they will accept a wide variety of payments (namely cheques, debit cards, bank cards ect ect.) however where-ever customers elect to pay by D.D. a monthly fee of £5 will be added. Also if accounts are not settled within 28 days of production, a late payment charge is added to the bill. (unquote) I have 2 'issues of concern with this policy, 1, Compulsary D.D. and 2, the reciept of bill time line. My bill arrives approx 8/9 days late from date stated and currently V/M add the late payment onto the bill in advance of payment. This addition is I believe unlawful insofar as it is in advance of any wrong-doing. Also, I have a major concern over the Compulsary D.D. account, this concern is finaancial, mainly over the £38 the bank penalty charge if the account is lacking in funds. Furthermore, I know of no other service organisation who insists on compulsary D.D. aaccounts just to recieve consumer services (perhaps Sky maybe.) It is clear from their 'Customer Aquisition document' that V/M have unbridled preference for D.D. payments, but Ireland, & France (and some other EU States I think ?) have outlawed these surcharges. 5 years ago it was possible for the customer to stipulate how he wished to pay, today, that process seems to have been abandoned in the UK to the detrement of consumers. However, back to basics, If someone could identfy the legal defination of 'PENALTY' (or the relevant case law precident as applicable to services,) such, with another bow, that I can apply it to my armoury, and go prepaired to use it when the time is right. Thanks.
  8. -------------------------------------------------------- Good news for you Charlie 23, The senseable way to defeat these leeches is to remind them of the standards to which they must adhere if they wish to conduct business. I'm not resident in the North, the air up there is much to rereified, I much prefer the quiet byways and hyways of the Kent @ Sussex Downs. Albeit I'll take you up on a few Guiness if your down this neck of the woods, best regards feralcat2.
  9. Hi Sidewinder, Thank you for your Posting 300 Reading the CEL profile was a revelation to me. CEL are a far more sinister organisation than I had ever imagined and goes way beyond the simplefied atmosphere of chasing a parking over-stay violation. With the battery of sneak services available to them, the provision of driver identity should be easy- peasy, but no, they intentionally elect to not to provide the driver identity to the registered keeper, but subscribe to quoting the much-alligned Principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. This is a farsical situation, and makes a mockery of the Data Protection Act with so many subtifuge trade name companies having access to your data, no one knows where your 'personal information' is stored or for what purpose. I was of the opinion and understood that CEL were acting on behalf of McDonald's, and only those two companies were those ones with access to my personal data. Now, with the discovery of Creative Car Park and Newlyn and God knows who else are sharing my personal data, this behaviour I believe, is a violation of the Data Protection Act in-so-far it limits this 'free wheeling' of data from one company to another by limiting the behaviour of Data Controllers to engage in such activity. This clandestine operations of CEL suggest that they are monitoring behaviour of motorists and their vehicles. This begs the question,? why, and why would McDonalds want to monitor my behaviour, I'm a vegetarion and have no interest in eating meat or burgers. The more I discover about CEL the more angry and determined I become. I have no connection whatsoever with Creative Car Park, Mc'Donalds, CEL or Newlyn's for that matter, but the fact that they hold and monitor my 'personal data' without any permissions to do so is a step to far. So bring on the County Court ligitation, and lets find out exactly how many subtefuge companies are monitoring my personal data. I would assume that within the Traffic Guard system as operated by CEL, given that they hold no allegiance to personal data protection, free exchange of information is practiced between clientele. I beg the question, is anyone aware of existing case law on this subject. Lastly, a few questions arose about printers not being available for letters, write your letters by hand, and make copies ( by hand if necessary) and send them off and get 'proof of postage'. Should the matter go to Court, the Courts are not looking for fancy writing, only integrity.
  10. From nemeses, --posting 258/ page 13, From your DLVA enqueries, it would appear that the name 'Creative Car Park' is a sudenum or (covert)trade name used by CEL to glean information from the DVLA by acting as a respectible and responsible business. (look up Creative Car Park on google and click 'company' on bar and a whole new profile/aspect opens up. see the logo at bottom of page.) I harbour no doubts that if CEL correctly acted within the Code of Practice guidelines set by the OFT and the DVLA, then 90% of the parking issues which they themselves create would not transpire. They advertise all the usual car-parking facilities for payments ect, even resorting to branding in 'your company's name' which to me ,means a clandestine type approach, like those operations currently in use at Gatwick. On the Creative website, please read company news, advisers, contact news, business development, contact customer service, an email address, the CEL addess & 33/35 Daws Lane, London NW7 4SD. and all relevant registration and business address's as applicable. It makes interseting reading.
  11. Hi Sidewinder, sorry for my ignorance, I never gave it a thought, it shows how the simplest clue can be mis-understood. Thanks for the prompt reply.
  12. To Legaladvisor, Sorry about my ignorance, can you please advise what CAG is or means. Thanks.
  13. hi Lilo72 The letter from Newlyn is a futher breach of the OFT code of practice inciting physical/ psychological harassment in persuance of a debt. CEL have a right of passage to engage ligitation at any time of their choosing and equally, you have the right to defend yourself against spurious and ficticious claims. CEL have intentionally refused to provide evidence in support of their claims and in doing so, have breached the codes of practice as set out by both the DVLA and the OFT. Those codes are an important plank in your defence, Cel have 'to be seen' to be acting in a mannor commensurate with best practice. Todate they have not acted with the best intentions and have intentionally refused to provide any evidence in support of their claims. Secondly, as Barnsley Boy has shown in his posting @ 286, Civil Court rules set out the proceedures for a hearing, and threrby gives you the right of 'Discovery' where CEL are required by law they to provide all the evidence necessary to support their charge. It has to be a substantial claim, not a 'wishy-washy claim' that wastes Court time. As you already understand, the PCN claim is a penalty, not enforceable within the restraints of the common law of contract. I believe that your time limit was 61 minutes, whereas the car park sign says 75 minutes. This discrepency would be difficult to explain in legal terms. and would challange the vaildity of the ligitation. Furthermore where CEL have not complied to leave a notice on your vehicle (as subscribed within the DVLA code) that failure would be considered a fairly substantial omission on unfair behaviour. Lastly, the Court will provide sufficient time for you to prepare your defence. (if it ever comes to that) and will want to know why the debt has been artificially inflated before any legal action has begun. It is the business of the court to approve costs and those additional costs set by Newlyn can be challanged. In Contract Law, the alleged debt does not increase with time. At this time all you can do is to write back to Newlyn's and insist the return the file back to CEL as the debt is disputed in accord with the OFT guidelines. and wait for developments. (hope this helps.)
  14. Hi Sidewinder, from your posting @ 256, I was sent an exact replica of your letter some months back, albeit now they are telling me that they are forwarding my file to debt collectors ect (you know the spiel) I have replied quoting breach of OFT guidelines (see Barnsley Boy posting @282) albeit I quoted Section 2.6 which deals with Physical/Psychological Harassment as it has more teeth.(It is valid in the Civil Courts as well as the Crimnal Courts, and eventually the debt may end up in the Courts, Who Knows ???) I have also informed CEL that, in view of their out-right refusal to provide substantive information regarging their charge/penalty, I would now charge them for all further correspondence, including corresondence with any debt collectors acting on their behalf. I also included their client Mc Doonuts as an accessory to their fictious behaviour, and notified CEL that should McDoonuts refuse to pay, they would be liable for payment, given they were acting on McDoonuts behalf. If it transpires that I am forced to spent time researching, reading and replying to ficticious correspondence, then I hold them liable for payment for that time since their PCN penalty claim is unenforceable under the common law of contract. Thus, to those more legally minded than myself, can you please comment on this tactic as it becomes difficult to work around the continuous hassle. I know that is what the little ****-bags want, but I prefer to see them in Court, even if it transpires of my own choosing for psychological harassment.
  15. Hi Wrinx, in response to you request at posting 256, The OFT Code of Practice at Section 2.6 (i), states (Physical/ Psychological Harassment) (quote)Examples of unfair practices are,. "Disclosing or threating to disclose debt details to a third party unless legally entitled to do so." (end of quote) Every letter I sent to CEL I have disputed the alleged parking charge (debt), in that I am the registered keeper, not the driver. and that no contractual relations whatsoever exist between Mcdonalds, CEL or any other principal landowner and myself in respect to the gatwick site. Given the debt is disputed, CEL have no legal authority to pass-on the debt to anyone, insofar as their charge has not been 'legally proven' to be a legally enforceable debt. CEL have threatened litigation against me in their correspondence, That means, in regard to the OFT code, that the only people they can pass the file-on to are their lawyers for actioning. I have challanged them to take legal action, but they ignore all reasonable requests for evidence of the alledged debt (as you well know.) Lastly , the OFT Code of Practice i(IE debt colection guidance) is a free download from the OFT website. or give them a call and they will give you details.....
×
×
  • Create New...