Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Tryst

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    69

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tryst

  1. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    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. Tryst
    So true, his comment was obvious flame bait.
  10. Tryst
    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?
  11. Tryst
    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.
  12. Tryst
    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.
  13. Tryst
    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.
  14. Tryst
    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.
  15. Tryst
    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.
  16. Tryst
    I have recently been in touch with someone regarding the police taking their car because they were driving without insurance. It turns out that they did have insurance which was only just bought less than a week before but the insurance company had not updated the details with the central computer. I actually wondered if the police had the legal right to take possession of your car or can you refuse to hand over the keys and force them to get a court order to take possession? If the car is in a position that can be construed as "parked" when you are stopped, can you refuse to hand over the keys and have someone else move the car for you later? To me, taking your car because it is not taxed, MOt'd or insured, (or any combination), is no different to a TV license inspector taking your TV because you don't have a TV license. I believe that this practice by the police is unlawful at best.
  17. Tryst
    So the owner of the car still gets his car stolen by the police, even though the driver is not the owner? My car is owned by someone who is currently working abroad, he owns it but I drive it with his permission. How can this give police the right to take his car to pay a debt I may have incurred? I sold the car to him simply because I couldn't afford to keep it myself, he pays for the MOT, road tax and repairs because it is parked on the road and therefore has to be taxed and MOT'd. All I pay for is insurance and fuel although I do buy the tax and sort out the MOT and repairs on his behalf. When he returns from abroad, I have to relinquish it to him since I am only borrowing it, I then have to find alternative transport to get to work. Once I have sorted out my financial problems and can afford my own car again, I will buy one. He's got about two more years on his contract and then he returns for good, I have until then to sort out my own financial problems so I can get my own car. He hates the British Police with a vengeance anyway, apart from giving me a blasting for letting it happen, he would be looking to sue the police for it and he has pretty high legal connections in the UK so he's not the sort of person you want suing you.
  18. Tryst
    I love the wording. "It is clear that the police now recognise that assisting bailiffs with the collection of civil (non-criminal) debts is legally questionable." 'Legally questionable' indeed. How about 'completely bloody illegal'?
  19. Tryst
    Well, I spoke to CAB and their legal counsellor said that many banks acted illegally by placing overdraft charges on accounts that were only used for benefits. Even my local Natwest admitted that they knew about this law and would only charge non-benefit accounts. Incidentally, Santander have now refunded all the money they took in charges but it has taken over a year for them to admit they were wrong. My account with Santander has now gone from over £500 overdrawn due to charges on charges on charges to £160 in credit which makes me think someone with influence rattled their cage a bit and threatened them with legal action when the same was done to them. The fact that I was using a pre-authorised card at the time meant that their system should have been updated immediately and it should never have been allowed to happen to begin with. As a computer engineer and programmer by trade, I know that all card transactions could easily be done almost instantly, but why do that when you can trick people into going overdrawn by giving the illusion that there is more in the account than there actually is by leaving it days before you debit the account? Same goes with cheques, a couple of clicks on a computer can reveal if there is enough in the source account to pay it. Why then does it take up to 7 days to process the cheque? Don't try to tell me that banks computers aren't all linked together, if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to use a Natwest ATM to get the exact balance and take money from your Lloyds account.
  20. Tryst
    Wrong! http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/claim-benefits-then-bank-charges-are.html I was given a sheet of paper from the DWP that showed this part of the legislation when I told them that Santander were putting £35 charges on my benefits account. They would not update their computer so the ATM showed that I had more in the account than I actually did. When I used my "pre-authorised" Maestro card to pay for something, it then went through but then I was charged £5 for an "unauthorised overdraft" and £30 for the debit card transaction that took me overdrawn. When I explained this to the DWP, they showed me the sheet of paper that detailed the law regarding charges on benefits accounts. Social Security Administration Act 1992-Section 187
  21. Tryst
    I did give them 24 hours notice for the withdrawal as I figured that this gave them more than enough time to organise it. I wasn't worried about the ID checks, I knew what that was for. If they closed my account, they would have had to give me ALL of my money back in cash since I would not have an account there any more.
  22. Tryst
    I can see a rise in bailiffs going to hospital, (or worse). Take everything someone owns and they are inclined to ensure they are put in prison in order to survive. To ensure they do, they will take their revenge on the people who did it to them. A sensible offer to repay a debt within a few months may take practically all of your income. I would say the Human Rights Court is going to get flooded very soon with lawsuits against enforcement companies based on the fact that it would be against anyone's human rights to leave them destitute.
  23. Tryst
    Banks are getting to strict with money that doesn't even belong to them. It's our money to do with as we please. If my bank refused to let me have my own money, I would be looking to file a law suit against them on the grounds of theft. I have done this in Lloyds before, I wanted 7K and they told me that I could only draw 5K maximum per day. When I made a big scene (very loudly) in the bank stating that it was my money and I was entitled to remove it as and when I wished, they gave in. The trick is to be very loud and make sure that every other customer of the bank knows they are refusing to let you have your own money, the negative impact it portrays works wonders.
  24. Tryst
    I live in Kent. Sadly the South East is an expensive area to live in. Funny you should say about PC's, the Jobcentre now have a system where you have to update your activity via internet on their website. Without a PC and an internet connection, that's going to be pretty hard but how many people on the Dole can afford either, much less both? They say you can use the Library PC's, again that's going to be hard unless you live in town because it costs in fares to get into town to use the Library and you have to update it daily because it doesn't allow you to backdate anything. This is typical of the DSS, they pay a pittance but expect everyone to have a PC, Internet and phone line or pay extortionate amounts in fares if they haven't. If you don't have those, they look at you as if you're still in the dark ages and often don't believe you. As for the full rent bit, they paid me just £72 of my £90 rent for a bedsit. They said it was because it included my gas and electric but even when I had a 2 bedroom flat with 5 rooms to heat and light 3 years ago in Aberdeen, I never managed to go through £18 a week in gas and electric combined, even in Winter (and winter in Aberdeen is damned cold).
  25. Tryst
    As a person on minimum wage myself and living in a bedsit because that's all I can afford, I know already how hard it is to live on it. Even worse on Dole money because the council NEVER pay your full rent so the backlog has to come out of your benefits, often taking nearly half your benefits to do so. I have spent some time on the dole with only £30 to live on each week because the rest had to prop up the rent deficit. I am going stir crazy with only one room to eat, sleep and live in and quite honestly, I wouldn't expect an animal to live like this. However, with the cheapest flat in my area costing £600+ per month, I just can't afford to move. Add to that, the problem that, if I were to become unemployed again (and these days, it is a good possibility that my job will come to an end again), I would only get a maximum of £400 for my rent from the council due to the stupidly low rent cap. That rent cap only just covers my present accommodation, that's how stupidly low it is. As I've said MA is targetting the wrong people, it should be advising the government since they don't appear to be living in the real world.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...