Jump to content

dvdsteve

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dvdsteve

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. yes - its very cheeky imho, but thats the way it is, its the council, they dont want to sack people for fear of reprisal, they seem just to do it in an underhanded way!!! i got the impression for him that they have been trying to push him out for a while by making things difficult for him, and in return he has been making things difficult for them - which may not be right but seems fair to me, i suppose it has to be something serious for them to sack him so they have resorted to this, im not sure what hes going to do about it, personally i woulnt stand for it but some people
  3. sorry if this is an incorrect forum for this sort of thing but was just looking for a bit of ad hoc advice my friend was employed as a school caretaker for a number of year most likely due to a dispute between him and the school, they decided that instead of a caretaker, they were more in need of a site manager (similar role but slightly different duties) they said that due to legal issues the new post would need to be advertised, which it was and he had to apply for, for whatever reason he didnt get the job and now he has to move out of the caretakers accomodation. m
  4. interesting forum you have here nice how people resort to petty name calling quote - "cheeky git" not really too sure what your forum rules are but i will be reporting POWELL to the administration for this and also calling me a thief im sure that you have evidence to back this up ? and for everyones information, the company accepted my offer of 50% settlement i emailed them saying that mistakes were made by both of us, they mistakenly issued me with an extra set, me stupidly left it in work where it went missing i look forward to POWELLLs response on ho
  5. i have find that most of the comment on this forum and another have been against me im just going by the assumption that if your stupid enough to post out extra stuff, then you deserve to have lost it im sure i will pay up anyway to prevent it going to court, as i do not have as much time to waste on this as the do. i will play my trump card of the unsolicited goods legislation first just to see their response or i may try to negotiate to 50% settlement as errors were made by both of us anyway the ball is in there court at the moment as i dont have the money to pay th
  6. thanks for all your comments this is the information i got from the DTI website regarding unsolicited goods Unsolicited Items Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf. Someone who receives goods in these circumstances may retain them as an unconditional gift, and does not have to pay for or return any unwanted goods. Anyone who receives a demand for payment for unsolicited g
  7. i cant do anything but wait for their response, i sent them a reply with the information on unsolicited goods it could be that they were blagging that they have an "in house solicitor" it will be interesting just to see their response would it be worthwhile for them to take me to court over 54 pounds? surely the man hours that they would have to put in would just be easier for them to right it off i think kingston are an american company - so i may email head office pleading poverty etc see what there response is
  8. agree that the ram WAS theirs, maybe it was unfair of me to keep hold of it (untill it was misplaced) but the principle of the matter is we agreed to a simple transaction, which was the faulty ram was to be exchanged for a working set i didnt ask for the second set of ram therefore it was sent to me unsolicited mistakes were made by both partys them - sent extra set in error me - lost the extra set but it would work out that it will be me that loses out financially, i could not afford to pay them back , so i would need to send them the original set that
  9. sorryt i meant unsolicilted items
  10. hi i am having a problem with some computer companants i had a faulty stick of computer memory with lifetime warranty, i asked the company if i could return the part for a replacement and then followed their RMA procedure and sent back the faulty stick the part that i sent back was part of a matched pair - the company then contacted me saying that they could not replace it until both parts had been received. i told them that i could not return both parts as i needed at least one to kep my computer running - they then stated that if they sent out a full set i could return the o
  11. hi now have received a response from halifax, they wanted to settle with £75 compansation for each of my accounts (about 25%) of total claim i told them i would not settle for anything less than 100% and they have said this is final, they wont negotiate an increase what would my next step be letter before action or as they said they wont negotiate could i just go ahead to file a claim against them? at this stage i am also at a bit of a disadvantage as on one of my accounts the charges and dates to work out the interest is straight forward, but on the other accou
  12. sending my preliminary letter asking for payment to halifax today - total of £524 charges
  13. yes , halifax called me back, seems there was a bit of confusion, my letters were not properly logged or something, my branch manager chased it up for me after if threatened to report them to the data protection commisioner they did in fact receive it and it was forwarded to relevent department, who passed it to adminisration to get in touch with me to get payment for the request, this was not done so halifax are going to waive the fee and post to me by business post by the 40th day (saturday) cant believe it took so long but hopefully if they deliver what i asked for i can t
  14. seem to be giving me the runaround just called back to Halifax, no-one seems to know anything about the request i made spoke to telephone banking and also my branch and they said they will look into it, i also told them that i am going to proceed as if they did receive it and report them to the data protection commisioner as they are on the verge of braking through the 40 day mark they told me that i should expect a call back before 3.30 with an update (im sure they will forget)
  15. just called Halifax to check progress, yes they have received letters and was faxed to head office the same day asked them when i could expect a response, they said within the 40 day time limit ! i will pass on any copies of letters that i receive from Halifax as per request, hopefully will help others on their crusade!
×
×
  • Create New...