Hi Andy, thanks for that. But, after reading it, my question remains: where should I address my complaint/suggestion? Or, do you ladies and gentlemen think that the wording is ok? Best wishes, Neil

The Direct Debit Guarantee says: "If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society If you receive a refund you are not entitled to, you must pay it back when the organisation asks you to" Twice now I've succeeded in getting a refund within hours. Both times with the Coop Bank, but all banks seem to have similar or worse procedures. The Coop says "before making [a refund]... we need to establish whether the claim falls within the scheme. Our internal timescales[sic] for carrying out this investigation is 24 hours." The BACS scheme advises "Refunds paid under the Guarantee are immediate once the error has been established." I think the wording of the guarantee is misleading. The wording should be changed to "you are entitled to a full refund... as soon as it has been established that an error has occurred". My question is... where should I address my complaint/suggestion? Or, do you ladies and gentlemen think that the wording is ok? Many thanks for reading. Best wishes, Neil

... and, after a little bit more polite nagging on Twitter, the Coop has now paid me the £40 compensation they offered.

To be fair to Coop Energy, I've just received a message from Charlotte on Twitter offering me £40 compensation by way of apology for the inconvenience.

... and Coop Energy have refunded my overpayment. I strongly suspect the speed of refund is partly due to my efforts to shame them on Twitter. Their Twitter account appears to be run by a lady called Charlotte, who communicated quite well. Coop Energy is @CoopEnergy and you'll find most of my public posts if you search for the hastag #coopenbadservice (not my creation; I wasn't alone in berating the company for money owed and poor service! No interest was offered, nor any compensation for my inconvenience. But at least I eventually got my money back. Again, thanks very much for your help, BankFodder

Thanks very much for your encouragement, BankFodder. I sent an lba as you suggested and I've just received Coop Energy's response. They cite "a few technical issues" (which in fact led to me being charged the wrong price for electricity throughout) and promise to refund my overpayment within 7-14 days. It's irritating that they're not paying straight away - it's not their money, after all - but good that the lba has worked without the need to go to court. I would encourage anyone else who's been ripped off in this way to follow the advice from this forum. Again... thank you very much. Neil

Done. Thanks BankFodder

I transferred from Coop Energy in February. My credit balance was over £400, so I canceled the final direct debit. The final balance of my account was £244.63CR (I calculated this using agreed opening and closing readings because, of course, I can't see my bill - see other threads). Coop have refunded only £86.01. I presume the justification for this is that I did not make the final direct debit payment (don't forget the account was in credit by more than double that payment). I have had no response to correspondence and a number of fruitless and misleading telephone conversations with Coop Energy CS. Should I take them to the small claims court, as suggested in another thread? And, as they've made a part payment, do I need to issue them with another final demand before initiating court proceedings? Thanks in advance for any advice.

I transferred from Coop Energy in February. My credit balance was over £400, so I canceled the final direct debit. The final balance of my account was £244.63CR (I calculated this using agreed opening and closing readings because, of course, I can't see my bill - see other threads). Coop have refunded only £86.01. I presume the justification for this is that I did not make the final direct debit payment (don't forget the account was in credit by more than double that payment). I have had NO response to correspondence and a number of fruitless and misleading telephone conversations with Coop Energy CS. Should I take them to the small claims court, as suggested above? And, as they've made a part payment, do I need to issue them with another final demand before initiating court proceedings? Thanks in advance for any advice.

Point taken. But the POPLA process seemed to me to require the appeal to depend on points raised in the initial appeal. Perhaps I didn't understand it fully: I was just depending on template letters from this forum - for which I'm very grateful - and only posting copies here so that people can find them easily. In the case of the initial appeal, it's already cost them the £27.50 (iirc) of getting details from DVLA, even the way I did it... which to me feels safer

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439022-TWO-Parking-Eye-successes-(with-templates)&p=4670983#post4670983

Parking Eye have cancelled/been obliged to cancel two 'tickets' for me so far. The first (an out of town shopping area car park) went through the full POPLA process, the second (Asda car park) was just cancelled by Parking Eye after I lodged an appeal to Parking Eye online. Here is the text I used (all gleaned from the CAG forums - thanks very much, everyone). I hope it helps someone. ********* INITIAL ONLINE APPEAL TEXT (both appeals) ************** Dear Sir or Madam re: PCN number XXXXXX/XXXXXX I have received your parking invoice impersonating a 'parking ticket'. It is clear that your operation is some sort of 'parking space maximisation scheme' and your aim is clearly to maximise profits. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis: A The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss. B You are not the landowner and do not have locus standi. C Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract. If you choose not to cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining: 1 The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation. If you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis at POPLA, I will point out that it was a flawed decision, it is not binding, and it is set for the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it. 2 Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site. 3 Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. 4 A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions. 5 The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. Please note that I intend to claim my costs when I prevail. ********* FULL POPLA APPEAL TEXT ************** I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice XXXXXX/XXXXXX. I have researched the matter and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that each is considered: 1. Unclear, Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage 2. Contract with the Landowner is not Compliant with the BPA code of Practice and No LegalStatus to Offer Parking or Enforce Charges 3. No Contract with the Driver 4. Unfair Terms 5. ANPR Accuracy 6. No Breach of Contract and No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss Below are the detailed appeal points. UNCLEAR,INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand, and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance, the parking space used or exits to any of the shops. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms ParkingEye are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity and frequency) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v MartinCutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2] CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODEOF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES ParkingEye do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, ParkingEye have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided“witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require,if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter,on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS)v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that:"If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services,they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore,that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. TheAppellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, asset out above. The Operator, either through the original correspondence, nor reply to appeal make no reference to the recovery of monies for the Landlord at all. NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER There is no contract between ParkingEye and the driver, but even if there were a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc. were not satisfied. UNFAIR TERMS The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding)pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes atSchedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term." ANPR ACCURACY This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so"live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was only at approximately 20% capacity and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident.Neither can ParkingEye lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable)against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket.This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as ExcelParking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) . The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue. SUMMARY On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Thanks very much, unclebulgaria67, for taking the time to reply. Especially as your reply is so encouraging

Apologies if this has been asked elsewhere. I did search and didn't find anything. Motorcycle policy taken out online and paid for with Grove & Dean (Performance Direct); full business use declared. Grove & Dean representative calls to check details and then says there's a further fee because one of the intended uses is motorcycle training (not mentioned on website). Cancel policy straight away, before start date of policy. They retain a £55 administration fee. I was under the impression that distance selling regulations require a full refund to be made if whatever has been purchased online hasn't been used. Was I wrong? This company seems to be using this as a business model! Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Iain, I hadn't made the connection between the covering letter and the option I selected. Do you think this will be enough for them to get out of the extension (should things come to that)? Thanks very much for your input, in any case.