Jump to content

feralcat2

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

1 Follower

About feralcat2

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  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 disconnec
  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 w
  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 addre
  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 s
  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 m
  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
  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
  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 mocke
  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 a
  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 manno
  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 pr
  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
×
×
  • Create New...