All I can get is the basics from the CAB website where it says (quote)

It would appear that the CAB website is wrong.

Sale Of Goods Act 1979, s.27: It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods [...]

There are plenty of places in the Act where the words "unless otherwise agreed" pop up. This isn't one of them. See also s.29, which makes it clear (at least, clearer than most points of law) that handing the goods to a courier doesn't amount to "delivery". The condition is "until the third person acknowledges to the buyer that he holds the goods", which for postal or courier service would be the actual delivery or that little card through the door. Note that this doesn't have a qualification on seller-as-business. There's also s.35(2) which provides a right of examination, and a further provision which guarantees this right for buyer-as-consumer, which means you can argue that if things are "lost in the post", you have not had the opportunity to examine and therefore reject the goods.

In general, parties are free to enter into any contract they see fit, but the contract is inferior to everything else - statute, the Common Law, regulation, etc. Contracts generally cannot exclude rights guaranteed by law.

There are of course provisions that read the other way.

If you feel you need to seek professional help you should do so, since any part of this post, including this sentence, may be wrong.

*poof*

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.

That'll be a legacy Telewest issue, I guess. Certainly, customers from the NTL side of things from 2005 onwards will find on the paper they signed (that'll be the yellow copy) words to the effect of requiring payment by DD. As for take-over, it was NTL that was doing any taking over - NTL bought Virgin Mobile and the right to rebrand their previous NTL-Telewest operation as Virgin.

Private sales are excused from the fitness and satisfactory quality tests. It is pretty fundamental to the concept of a sale that the seller is responsible for delivering up the goods being sold. If they have handed off to a carrier, the carrier is fulfilling this role on behalf of the seller, not the buyer.

eeebuntu - Vodagroan

I believe that Ofcom and the ASA have let telcos off with this one on the strict understanding that any "fair usage" clause is a matter of network condition, though from this contact it would appear "to a reasonable person" that this is an actual limit.

Any Vodafone customers willing to take up the baton and complain? All the better if you are able to record the call. I get the feeling that I couldn't just randomly send this somewhere, since I'm not a customer and would have no standing to make a complaint.

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.

This statement by BT presupposes that all of these items are fair, and so cannot be used in deciding whether or not they are core terms. It's saying "these are core terms because they are core terms".

"Core terms" as I understand it refers to the basic substance of the contract in the services provided by both parties, and as I recall it is defined this way in the Regulations (though I would advise anyone to check) - BT provide telecomms services, but they cannot argue that they will provide "payment handling services" (I prefer those of our respective banks, thank you), and would consider the idea that receiving payment from the customer is itself a service to be utterly nonsensical.

Next time I deal with Virgin, I shall be striking out a few pieces and attaching it to the signed contract.

Of course, you can argue that because their contract stipulates that you pay by DD the fee effectively amounts to a penalty for breach of that contract, but that way lies madness.

As has been mentioned above in this thread; They are obligated to do their utmost to make sure that bays are available for blue-badge holders. The fines do act as a deterrent to most residents who have no clue that they are unenforceable.

I believe that is at least part of the reasoning that the banks have used. You being disabled does not require that service providers deliberately mislead other customers as to their powers. That would be fraud.

I am also under the impression that there is a route to have such tickets made in a way that they would be enforceable, though I am not sure exactly how.

Parking on private land is a purely contractual matter. A £70 private parking ticket would only be enforceable if you could prove £70 of losses that you didn't bring upon yourself. This might include parking fees of £70 you couldn't take because a car was in a space, or £70 of damage caused by someone who is trespassing. If you are parking in a supermarket to do your own shopping (i.e. not on business), UTCCR apply. Hence anyone could defend against claims they were not handing out enough tickets.

No, those of you with full use of bodily functions can park a mile up and walk.

Again, noblesse oblige. If there's one thing I can't stand more than political correctness, it's the self-righteous minorities. You may be surprised to learn that a significant proportion of disabled people, perhaps even a majority, can happily get through their day without reminding everyone how disabled they are.

Irrelevant. Tesco - or any other supermarket [and seftonview hasn't to the best of my knowledge said he's taking the claim against Tesco, only a large supermarket]

Read the thread. I'm not aware of any other "large supermarket" whose name begins with T and has five letters.

You are wrong on your statement of the only circumstances you can generally get a court to blame someone for actions of a third party.

Short of negligence, which goes without saying, I'm struggling to find another example. So: [citation needed]

In most large supermarkets it is very rare that the parking lot will get full, so even if you could argue - like you have done above - that able-bodied shoppers should not have to park a mile away, there is still in most cases room for such shoppers to park within the same lot without taking up spaces for blue-badge holders.

Certainly my local "large supermarket" is a no-go zone at peak times, and queues for the car park backing up a mile and a half is a regular feature in traffic reports in early December. I don't believe it is particularly unusual in this respect. However, I'm still not seeing how that makes them responsible for the actions of ignorant folk who have driven past plenty of useful empty spaces and blatantly disregarded the giant orange and purple signs identifying priority spaces (in various forms, most of which convey the meaning "THESE SPACES ARE NOT FOR YOU") and park there anyway.

The issue here is that the supermarket is responsible for not doing it's utmost to prevent others from abusing these spaces, and that is something that the court could and would blame them for.

[citation needed]

Not true. "The matter of them being occupied by ignorant plebs" - as you so aptly word it - is an issue, not because seftonview made it one, but because the supermarket - as stated numerous times above - had an obligation to do it's utmost to make sure that these "ignorant plebs" would not occupy the spaces.

[citation needed]

In the absence of a policy, disabled persons have automatically been discriminated against.

[citation needed]

Able-bodied people can park a mile away without difficulties.

[citation needed]

That's a very broad generalization. There are plenty of folk who wouldn't qualify for a blue badge who could not walk a mile each way, let alone with bags of shopping on the return leg. IIRC, the test used by the government is a distance of 100m on the flat.

You can search the net - I think it's on the HMCS website - for the amount of vexatious litigant orders are given every year - very few, and also for the reasons.

My point precisely - it is the exclusive purview of the courts to decide that you cannot bring any further claims. Hence you could happily sign it, take the money, imply severability and later say "hey, you do know you can't hold me to this part, right?". They could not reasonably defend a future claim by saying you agreed not to sue them. I fear on this point we may be headed toward violent agreement.

Please read the posts. Even if these are unenforceable, it is definitely not as well established amongst consumers as the information about bank charges is.

You use "established" there. I do not think it means what you think it means. The law regarding penalties handed out by private organizations is pretty unambiguous.

I'd fathom a guess that most consumers do not know that these are unenforceable and they do act as a very good deterrent.

Not a good idea. Taking advantage of this fact would likely amount to fraud by misrepresentation.

I completely disagree, and doubt very much that a case of such a small size would be taken to anywhere higher than County Court due to its cost.

One of the things that the DJ made abundantly clear early on in my recent case was that a small claim does not automatically mean small claims track, or even the County Court. I was forced to retract a comment I made in the most recent hearing after the DJ explained that if I wanted to pursue the argument it implied, the paltry sum at stake would not prevent him from handing the case over to the High Court.

Also, a county court claim would - as I have explained above - at the most be a 'persuasive precedent', so unless the bulk of claims grows to a massive stage - as the bank charges claims did - it is unlikely that a test case will be staged as it is not worth the risk for anybody.

A major difference is that the law at stake with the banks is settled and well-known, which is why the judge in that case ruled fairly definitively on the matter of historical fees. The construction of the new terms complicated matters, hence he left that matter undecided. I don't believe we have firm, established law in this area.

Ultimately, a decision has to be made about whether the issue is of parking bays or policies. If it is the latter, then the whole issue of whether or not the bays were available and who was in them has to be dispensed with. If you want to take on both, it seems an awful lot like trying to eat one's cake and have it still.

Note that the main source of the shades of grey here is the fact that Tesco car parks are private property, and things would be somewhat clearer if these were bays marked alongside a public road. A significant difference is that local authorities may be able to enforce parking restrictions with a fine, whereas private companies may not (as much as they might like to think otherwise). Anyway, on with the show ...

It doesn't mean there will be either. Is your position now that I should sit patiently in the car like a good second class citizen until a space becomes free?

In what respect would that make you a second-class citizen? Those of us with use of our legs also have to sit and wait if the car park is full.

The issue isnt that there were no empty bays. The issue is that there were no empty bays because a number were being abused by those not entitled to be there.

As I understand it, designated spaces are a priority, they are not exclusive. The idea is that if there are plenty of other spaces around, those not in need should (rather than must) leave them empty. If the only parking bay left in a car park is a designated bay, all bets are off. The only circumstances you can generally get a court to blame someone for actions of a third party is when the third party has acted on instruction or behalf of them (which is why e.g. we can blame banks for the actions of debt collectors). It's clearly the case that those people in the spaces were acting against Tesco's instructions (the ones that say "you probably shouldn't be parked here").

The prima facie issue is that of no empty bays. The matter of them being occupied by ignorant plebs is only an issue because you made it one.

So the crux of this argument is that service provicer one can defend by saying that the disabled person could have also been discriminated against by service provider two?

You don't know that you have been discriminated against. If I were offering a service of some kind, nothing anywhere says I have to provide parking for my customers. What you're suggesting is that if I can park and you can't, that's discrimination on grounds of disability. Some might argue that it's actually discrimination on grounds of when we arrived into the car park. If the car park is half-empty, you've probably got no case, since you were probably not prevented from parking. If the car park is full, you've definitely got no case, because (as I said above) all bets are off, and able-bodied people were also prevented from parking.

I've had no communication from the other side at all apart from a without prejudice offer with content amounting to an admission of liability.

The courts are loath to infer any admission of liability, particularly as these letters often come across as "we're really really really sorry, and we'd really really really appreciate it if you didn't let this get to trial", and yet come with a fairly clear "this is not an admission of liability". Without seeing the letter, I can't say for certain, but unless it actually says explicitly that they admit liability, I wouldn't rely on this.

Apart from the term restraining me from bringing DDA claims relating to parking for a period of 24 months. Quite a significant term, don't you think?

No, I don't. Mainly because the only way you can be prevented from bringing another claim is if the court issues a restraining order against you, as was issued against a certain married couple earlier this year when a DJ considered their repeated claims were vexatious and not brought in good faith. Other than this limited set of circumstances, nobody else can deprive you of your absolute right of redress.

Earlier, you mentioned something about using civil penalties. I should warn you at this point that it is well established that these are entirely unenforceable, as they are applied on the same basis as those of the banks.

My suggestion would be to accept the token payment and get on with your life, unless you are happy to become a test case. I would imagine that a test case would take much longer to decide than one based on setteld law, and at the very least you will probably be forced to something higher than a County Court.

In summary, you need to think very carefully about how you reach the conclusion that you were discriminated against, and the sort of questions that will be asked by the opposition should they decide to defend in court, and even by the judge as a matter of basic rigour.

So I'm just going to jog on. Oh wait, I can't jog. Shoot.

I see what you did there, I almost forgot to laugh. Noblesse oblige.

My friend's case went to CISAS but was not successful. Basically CISAS took nearly single claim that VM made.

AIUI, you are not required to accept the decision of an ombudsman service, and their decision is not binding until you do. If your friend is not happy, they should make it clear that they do not accept their findings and go one step further. Things may proceed more smoothly at court, since when they are asked if alternatives have been considered, they can rule it out since they have already tried them.

So... are you going to send in the sheriff ?

Maybe. I have some interesting information that may prove useful if it turns out to be true. All I need to know to go with it is when VM pay their staff.

Hi MeAgain,

 

I am cosnidering similar thing - did they accept your assent by silence? Did it work ?

We shall never know.

While there was that payment, they didn't file their documents on time, as a result two weeks ago today their defence was struck out and they were ordered to pay the difference in interest by ... about five minutes ago, actually. I've checked with the "secretary" at home, and with the bank, and there's no sign of the extra payment due.

The case is not yet over, since the default is still there.

Somehow, I doubt the possibility will make you lose any sleep.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact remains that the media forum is still crippled even after ignoring the troll.

Indeed - that doesn't look like the sort of thing I was thinking of, though it raises another concern entirely.

Once you put this chap on "ignore", you won't see his posts, his threads, you'll know he's posting, but you never have to read what he says ever again, you can enjoy the media forum the way you like it and those who do want to read what he has to say can do so. Problem solved, everyone is happy.

Perhaps, but why should those people that actually want to find something relevant in the media section be made to either skip through ten pages of results or put the guy on ignore? After all, at some point he may decide to say something useful.

edit: For what it's worth, I added it to my ignore list, and those threads are still showing up, so the media forum is still broken.

I see no problem with his/her posting, after all no one forces anyone to read them.

Precisely how does this affect the fact that they have rendered one of the board sections completely unusable?

If they're not following through on their threats because they can't - e.g. if they haven't got an enforceable agreement - then you can make a complaint under the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, or whatever it's exact title is. Follow the link to the Unfair Trading guide at the top of the page.

I'm not 100% sure that they can't, though TBH I can happily dodge the matter and make the harrassment and libel the primary issues of the complaint. Some of the harrassment would be trivial to prove with suitable evidence, and defamation carries a presumption of guilt (even if suitable documents were to be fabricated, truth alone is not an absolute defence). IME, when they threaten legal action, when you call them to instruct them that they should do so immediately, they then come up with all sorts of excuses for why they won't do it.

Any thoughts on the wisdom of calling their bluff by writing to them saying "Take me to court, b*tch!"?

One of the finer points I'm aware of is the "duty to mitigate losses", and I'm fairly certain that the cost of pursuing this (were an actual human involved in the process) would have easily surpassed the amount they are demanding a year ago. Were no actual humans involved in the process, then there's no shred of good faith and the case is open-and-shut.

I have a copy of the memo.

May we see it? Suitably anonymised to remove the name of the customer, preferably still bearing the name of the agency responsible. Plenty of ways to post it up anonymously should anyone wish to do so.

Resurrecting this for the moment. It would seem the troll has now moved to the "Bank charges in the media" section. I believe his stories are not appropriate there, and he has rendered it unusable for its intended purpose of highlighting relevant news stories by posting any story from any source whatsoever that happens to contain the words "interest rate".

I don't know of any cases myself - perhaps it has become an urban myth.

 

Given the propensity of DCAs for obnoxious behaviour this does have very convincing aura of believability

.

"Aura of believability" would not sit well with the authorities should someone get into trouble.

I've noticed in several places that people are advised not to sign letters. Other than in cases of "please supply a specimen signature" do we have any hard evidence of banks and DCAs forging documents by scanning the signature from a letter? Name and shame as you wish as long as it is known to be true, as it is certainly in the public interest to know if companies are operating unlawfully.

In my ongoing battle with several companies, part of me wonders whether repeated threats of legal action without any sign that they will actually be followed up might amount to harrassment.

I am somewhat tempted to write to a DCA telling them that as I will not be paying them they should hurry up and take me to court or face a complaint to ... well, everyone.

Could repeated legal threats be construed to be harrassment in a legal sense? I believe it might fit the literal definition, but would like to be sure before my long-overdue complaints go through.

Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd is a front for HSBC to make it look like they've escalated your complaint. Write to them saying you will only communicate with them in writing, and that they are not to contact you by telephone or call upon you personally.

They may say that your account has been passed to them by HSBC, and HSBC may say they are no longer handling your account. If there is even the slightest hint that you as a reasonable person would be drawn to the conclusion that these are two separate people, then they are committing a fraud by misrepresentation. Contact Trading Standards and tell them that HSBC are lying to you.

Just trying to be helpfull...I'd say it's got a lot of words but is not very clear. Try using shorter sentances. Surely the first thing to state is that you are rejecting the car, then the reasons, then what you would like to happen?

There's plenty to say the vehicle is rejected. I've removed the very first line, which contains too much identifiable information to be worth censoring, but starts off saying so. The attached note says it several times in bold. There should be no confusion on their end over the fact that the car is being rejected.

A few things aren't clear - Why is repair not appropriate? Who says the car is only worth £X/3? Are you asking to find your own vehicle using the existing finance?

These details I would rather not reveal publicly. Suffice it to say the vehicle broke down on the way home, and a closer inspection showed up damage that wasn't visible at first. Valuation based on comparable vehicles, and came from someone who happens to work at a local main dealership. If they refuse, then I guess the HP can be considered null and void due to the misstatement of the value of the underlying goods.

In the matter of a finance company supplying an unsuitable (broke down 2 miles from location, around the time their office closed for the weekend) and overvalued (by around 3x) vehicle:

Under the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) I am entitled to repair, replacement or refund. Repair evidently is not appropriate in this case. I am reliably informed that the approximate value of the vehicle as supplied in the condition as it appeared was £X/3, assuming no further mechanical faults, and not £X as stated on the HP agreement, therefore I cannot rely upon any valuation on a vehicle supplied by yourself, therefore excusing me from any requirement to accept a prescribed replacement.

 

In lieu of the £X/10 deposit and the termination of the agreement without penalty, I am prepared to do the work in sourcing a suitable vehicle to the value of £X locally (and therefore removing a Z-mile round trip from the equation), since evidently the finance has already been arranged. Under these circumstances, the remainder of any rebates and compensation shall still be payable. If this is not acceptable, then your only option shall be a full and complete refund, and my release from the agreement without penalty.

 

I am informed that you have made requirements for the vehicle to be collected from its current location. Once you have confirmed a full refund or that the finance will be available on a replacement vehicle, the keys shall be released to you.

 

(Further details attached)

The "further details" make it clear in no uncertain terms that the vehicle is being rejected as being unsatisfactory, unfit for purpose, and not as described, as well as reminding them that the burden of proof lies with them. Sound good as a start?

If anyone's interested, I may let you in on the mammoth notice that was drafted to make it absolutely clear that the goods are rejected.

See case Howard Maine v A Ogden 1975.

Can you provide a better citation? A quick google shows only this thread. Not helping matters is the former township of Howard in the State of Maine.

Release of personal details of Registered Keepers - WhatDoTheyKnow

The response to point 2 concerns me. The details of over 1 million vehicles are released every year. There has also been a very sharp rise recently. Note that "reasonable cause" extended to more than just parknig enquiries, however.

I am also concerned by the fact that it seems that they rely on the say-so of the applicant to demonstrate that they are telling the truth about both an infringement and their ability to enforce it. Anyone else have any thoughts?