Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. A tip should never be a mandatory charge at all, it's a discretionary amount offered by the customer for good service. I was given a bill once that contained a "service charge". As the service I was given was absolutely appalling, I refused to pay that portion of the bill. They made a big fuss about it but I told them it was either that or nothing at all and they caved in because they knew it was really unenforceable. If any establishment makes a service charge, the customer should be told how much BEFORE ordering, that gives them the opportunity to leave. Most places don't because they know the customer would leave straight away. However, unless you have been told there is a service charge before you order, you are not legally obliged to pay it as far as I'm aware. Most places have a kitty that all the days tips are put into and is shared out amongst the staff working for that day. Some cafes I've been to, I have tipped well because their service was excellent and I knew all of the staff would benefit from it. Majority of places now have a tips pot near the till so you can put your tip in it when you pay the bill instead of leaving it on the table. When it boils down to it, it's not for me to make up your employees wages if you refuse to pay them a decent wage, they can earn tips with good service AT MY DISCRETION.
  2. Regardless of any claims, certain jobs should ALWAYS have CRB checks. I don't want to see paedophiles getting jobs as teachers of kids etc. Criminals getting jobs in banks where they can steal your money... Oh wait, what would be the difference really?
  3. Most of the time, if you try to contact them, they say there is a customs charge or extra charge for delivery. This is most definitely a trick to get money or better still, your credit card details from you. If it was customs, you would receive a letter from the customs office, not an email. If it was a delivery charge, you would know what you ordered and who shipped it and therefore, know where to pay the extra delivery charge. Go to that website directly and not via a link or URL supplied by the delivery guy. If you enter the tracking number, it will tell you if there's a delivery charge. If the package is unsolicited, just treat it as a trick immediately. (why is the word "s c a m" moderated out and show as [problem]?)
  4. Many of these cold calls come from call centres outside of the UK via recorded messaging, most often injury claims or mis-sold PPI claim companies. Any outgoing calls are redirected to the same call centre. Since they are not located within the UK, they don't fall under UK law. This is how many companies have got around the TPS list. The only ones responsible for it are the companies who are employing the call centres. It takes a long time to get through to a real person instead of an automated reply if you call back to find out who the company is that is making these calls and can cost quite a bit on your phone bill. Without that information, you can't make a complaint. This really needs to be changed so that all overseas calls have to display a caller ID or they do not get through to UK numbers. Also, that caller ID must be specifically linked to the UK company selling the services. We had a mobile phone at work for internal work use between the main office and the guys on the site. It was being called at a rate of sometimes twice a day with PPI claim services and always with an automated voice, no incoming number displayed though. It became such a nuisance due to disturbing the guys while they were trying to work that we had to get rid of the SIM and get another number for it. The number was even registered with TPS but it made no difference at all.
  5. If you give away sensitive information to anyone who calls you on the phone, you're a fool and deserve to lose your money. If they are your bank manager, they already know your details since they evidently got your phone number from them. Also, no bank manager would do anything on the phone, he would call you to ask you to visit the branch to sort things out in person. Even when Virgin Media call me about my bill and then ask me for my password in order for me to pay a bill, I won't give it to them. After all, they called me and I answered my home number supplied by them so It's pretty obvious who I am. Besides, what absolute stranger is going to answer my phone and then pay my bill for me? Volunteers willingly accepted of course
  6. When I shop online, I generally unsubscribe to offers at the same time. I am quite meticulous about reading the wording to see whether I am ticking the box to agree to receiving it or ticking the box to refuse it, (be careful when you do that). I would find it more than a bit annoying if the postman piled loads of junk mail through my letterbox. In fact, I would be inclined to charge the senders for proof reading their garbage. Not to mention the impact on the environment that this total waste of paper entails. At least emails don't waste paper. If it has my name and address on it, for security reasons, I prefer to shred it which then costs me for electricity and time. One would presume that this mail would have your name and address on since it is personalised to your online buying history. If so, I want compensation from Royal Mail for the cost of shredding all this unwanted paper.
  7. Considering how much the banks are actually making in profits that get redirected to shareholders and huge salaries to management, I feel this is a real rip off. Once more, we are funding the banks poor money management. They can't even look after their own money, do you really feel safe with them looking after yours?
  8. I believe that this should be extended to debts that have been cleared. They should be completely removed from your record since there is no longer a debt to be enforced. A person who has worked hard to clear debts that may have arisen from being made redundant etc, (no fault of their own), could still be blacklisted because those debts still appear on the credit report. Most creditors don't look at the notes to see what action has been taken or if the debt no longer exists, they just look at the number of entries and make their decision from there. Most of the time, the credit reference agencies expect you to pay to have entries removed if they are no longer valid. This should be automatic, as soon as the debt is cleared, it should be removed from your file at no cost. They didn't charge you to place that entry, they shouldn't be charging you to have it removed. A debt report should also be filtered so that any debts to names other than the one you gave do not appear. Too many times, I have been turned down because the previous tenant in my home left the address with many bad debts. Again, the creditor sees too many entries at that address without actually checking the name of the debtor to see if was you or not.
  9. Too true. There are families already living well below the poverty line. Any enforcements against them would lead to even further hardship. In addition, many councils are taking it to court without even notifying the debtor of the court date and location which I think is illegal anyway. You should ALWAYS be notified of any court case against you, the court should also be within reasonable travelling distance to where you live as well. That means they must locate you and notify you BEFORE a court case goes ahead if you have moved since defaulting. This business of suing you at your old address means anyone can sue you for debts you don't even have, the first you know that they've even sued you is when a bailiff turns up at your door. Since you have never been summoned to attend court to plead your case, you have been given no opportunity to deny the debt or question the amount the creditor is asking for. Try negotiating with any bailiff who is only interested in getting their cut from it and you'll get nowhere, I have tried it with a phantom debt against me. Someone decided to sue me for £500 plus "costs" at my old address. I didn't even know the company who I was supposed to be in debt with, let alone borrowed any money from them. It took me 6 months and a lot of letters to finally get the information I needed to get it quashed. I only managed it because I was working at the other end of the country when they say the agreement was signed, it would have been a lot harder if I was still in my home town on that day. The company put it down to a "clerical error" and got away with trying to defraud me, how many other people just paid up because it was too much trouble to try to get it quashed or they didn't know how to?
  10. Anyone who has put their car up as collateral against a loan is committing fraud by selling the car before the loan is paid off. Until the loan is paid, the car belongs to the lenders so you are effectively selling someone else's car. Since Fraud is a criminal offence and can carry a prison sentence, the borrower is in the brown stuff up to their necks, it's no longer a civil case and the lender can go after the borrower to get their money back far more easily as the court will issue a repayment plan as a compensation order within the fraud case. Taking the car from the person it was sold to is petty under the circumstances. their borrower face prison and still has to repay the loan as compensation by order of a court, that means they face more time inside if they don't pay. I think the main problem is that logbook lenders, just like payday lenders, charge extortionate interest rates that many courts would disagree with. Therefore the compensation they get is nowhere near what they would like to charge.
  11. I have always been very dubious about the prices these tour operators charge. A hotel room costs the same no matter whether it's 4 adults or 4 children and often, the beds are all singles. It's the same with single person costs, a hotel room costs the same no matter how many people stay in it. That's why I always sort out my own holiday, I buy my own air ticket and sort out my own accommodation and the rip-off travel agents can go to hell. It normally ends up costing less than any travel agent charges for the same holiday. I can choose my own hotel, so I normally go for a cheap no star one because I don't aim to use it for any more than sleeping in. Not being the type that will spend their entire holiday in the hotel, I want to see the country I visit so I don't need all the extras the hotel offers. With the internet, so much can be arranged online now, that there is no need for travel agents any more. I also find that the cheap hotels often treat you better because they don't get the custom from the travel agents. That means they are usually struggling for customers so they are glad of any they can get and often make sure you enjoy your stay to get you to come back or recommend them in future. They may seem scruffy and rough looking but what do you expect from a company running on a shoestring budget? If you're only using it to sleep in, who cares? The big 5 star hotels normally don't give a damn about their customers because they charge big bucks and get all their tourist trade handed to them by tour operators around the world.
  12. I wonder if a FOI request can lead to getting the shareholders names? Any bets that there are a few well known politicians names among them. Thta's usually the case with firms who get let off of serious breaches of the rules.
  13. He did and the officer ignored him. Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. The Government or a public authority cannot deprive you of your property unless the law allows this and it is necessary in the public interest to do so. The Government must strike a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the general interest of society as a whole. If your property is taken away you should be entitled to compensation. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-1-of-the-first-protocol-protection-of-property.html The presumption starts with the removal of property. As such, this is automatically presuming the person is guilty of the said offence for which the penalty is removal of their property. Under such conditions, only a court has the right to judge a person guilty and remove their property so that they are unable to continue committing the offence. Suspicion, which is all the police officer can declare, is not suitable grounds on which to deprive a person of their property. The only time a police officer has the right to remove property from anyone is when owning or using said property is illegal, such as offensive weapons etc. Arrest is simply detention of a SUSPECT for questioning and possible charging for later appearance in court and does not in any way presume guilt. However, there are laws regarding wrongful arrest and many people have been compensated for it. However, in the case of offences such as the one I described, it is simply his word against yours. Also, since he can only consider you a SUSPECT and cannot legally find you guilty, removal of your property on the grounds that you MAY be committing an offence is what I would put under scrutiny here.
  14. Maybe if you had taken the time to read my post properly, you would have noticed that I ASKED if you could refuse to give your keys over. You would also have noticed that I said "I believe" this practice to be unlawful since I didn't know of any statute that said otherwise. However, it wouldn't be the first time a law has been repealed because it violates people's human rights. I believe we still have a law that states that you are "innocent until PROVED guilty". Since when has a police officer been given the power to be judge, jury and executioner? He can only gain evidence to show that you MAY be guilty, it is for a court of law to decide whether you are or not. In the case of my friend, he was innocent and it was a screw up with the computer system that led to him having his car taken away along with his tools and PPE for work because it was far too much for him to carry. He was then left miles from any public transport route to make his own way to his destination. As it happened, it was shorter for him to get home than to get to work. He had to take the day off to sort it out by taking his insurance documents to the police station and then wait to recover his car from the impound yard 3 miles away, which resulted in a days loss of pay which he has never been compensated for. Since the officer who did this could not prove beyond all doubt that he had no insurance, a producer slip was all that was required to allow him to produce his insurance documents within 7 days. As such, this law is allowing over-zealous police officers to take cars from owners who are actually driving legally by exploiting a loophole in the computer system. Now maybe you understand the reasoning behind my belief that this practice is unlawful? Regardless of the statutes you linked, I still believe that it is a violation of your basic rights of being "innocent until proved guilty" and therefore unlawful. For this reason, I have suggested to my friend that he seeks legal advice to see whether it is worth taking it to the HR court. If successful, the HR court could well instruct parliament to repeal or make suitable amendments to this law to prevent this happening again. Parliament may make laws but it doesn't mean those laws can't be unlawful in themselves.
  • Create New...