You want to give it *at least* 6 - 7 working days to clear in order to get no interest charge. Try and budget from the 10th to the 9th of each month, and pay on the 9th by debit card - that way you'll be getting the benefit of the £100 "float" with no charges. If you go down to the wire on paying, you run the risk of missing the payment and getting lumped with interest.

Slightly off tack, but not worth a new thread(?) is there a way to sue these turkeys if they've put searches on your credit file?

You would need a very very good case against Trading Standards to take them to court. It would be a waste of time and effort.

 

Complaining does get you somewhere and in Mucky Hall's case it usually gets them off your back - East Ayrshire Trading Standards is the one you want and Sam Gardiner is the person dealing with Mucky Hall.

 

Take the 'tested' route first, court could be very costly and very time consuming.

Funnily enough I just got a phone call off these a-holes about 30 minutes ago.

I'll be sending them a SAR in the morning for their trouble.

As requested by a Mod, by I don't know why, heres a thread for people who get xxxxxx off by Argos in cahoots with eBay.

As you can see from what happened to a friend of mine (below) you're not alone - Argos habitually sell off their damaged returns and other tut as "Brand New" on eBay, and eBay allow them to do it again and again and again.

If you want the truth about Argos and eBay before you get ripped off yourself, check Argos feedback and you'll see how many people get caught by their dishonesty.

My mates case:

Re: If you have Argos Problems

As others have mentioned, a vanquis card is legitemate - albiet potentially expensive - means to repair your credit. Just make sure you

a) pay your balance off each month in plenty of time, and

b) don't try to skate right up to your due date because they *will* flip you over into interest at the slightest (usualy bad) excuse, and

c) be very aware that they will pull all sorts of stunts to line their pockets, so ALWAYS keep an eye on your account, prefferably on a daily basis.

A favourite stunt is the "VALUESAVER 08004083990" un-authorised debit. This is a phone call that you get from Vanquis offering all sorts of wonderful for nothing, which you duly accept.

A month or so later you'll get the un-authorised (because you didn't agree to pay anything, right?) charge from "VALUESAVER 08004083990".

When you get it, ring the 0800 4083990 number and deny having an account with them (because you wouldn't have authorised it, right?) - they will tell you that you have an account. Deny it, saying you have signed up to nothing.

They will tell you "you don't have to sign" - you may laugh at them at this point if you wish.

Ask them to provide evidence of your agreement with them.

They will ask for your postcode, give it, then your name and you'll be given your "Account number".

State that you would like them to return your money within 24 hours or you will be contacting the police to report the fraudulent transaction as you did NOT agree to the account and did NOT authorise anyone to take money from your account.

They will say they cannot refund within 24 hours it will take about 7 days.

Accept this, demanding a letter stating that your phantom account has been closed. They will refuse this, but close the conversation by informing them that you have recorded the conversation and if any further transactions appear on your account you will immediatly contact the police and hand them the evidence contained in your recording.

Put the phone down rather than listen to some muppet tell you how "you shouldn't record phone-calls!!!"

Raye Summers will at best pass it on to someone else, but Argos are professional pass-the-parcel experts and it's only worth writing to any of them in order to prove at a later date to a court how bad a company they are.

As always with Argos, the best advice is not to buy anything from them in the first place.

Be warned, this an example of what Argos call "Brand New" and eBay allow Argos to advertise as "Brand New".

http://s1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb384/glen_b_uk/?albumview=slideshow

A private sellers account would be closed down after at most a couple of examples of this level of mis-description - yet if you read Argos' feedback they do it constantly.

Argos will not replace an item with a new one and will expect you to send it back to them "for inspection" before refunding using the worst courier company on earth, Yodel, who will often simply lose it in transit giving Argos an out, or it will arrive with Argos damaged and they'll wriggle out that way.

The best advice is dont use them.

Hi i have been done right up by args with my childrens xmas present, i went into our local store and paid cash for a pool table that is my childrens main xmas present, and at this time this was in stock a would be delivered within 10 days!, GREAT! Now this was paid for and ordered at the beginning of december, so we would have this in time for xmas, now we just got a call from customer service 14 days before xmas saying that this will not be with us until the new year and even then they will only be calling me with an update no promise of a delivery! and with them calling me so late to inform me that we wont get this it has left me no time to get my money back and order from somewhere else now where do i stand as the reciept states delivery within 10 days and when i ordered this it was is stock?

 

Thanks Ag...

Write a polite email to this address: [email protected]

Start it with all your order details and the name of whatever Argos creature(s) you have been being fobbed off by. Then your name and address.

Then ask Raye Summers : "Could you advise me please as to what legal recourse I may have available to me via the Online Facility at Northampton Crown Court? Is my case covered by the Sale of Goods Act? I would appretiate your answer within 7 days."

Put it just liike that and not as a threat.

Add Thank you, and Yours Sincerely and hit send.

See what happens and report back

Anyone who buys anything from Argos on eBay deserves to get ripped off.

Read their feedback page - they habitually and knowingly list used items and damaged returns as being new - not even "New Other" but New as in brand spanking new. They knowingly list items they don't have available and hold on to peoples money.

eBay of course do sweet FA about it - whereas a private seller who has a sale go wrong - often due to a dodgy buyer - gets bullied and their visibility in auctions reduced by eBay for months.

Anyone else going to be whacked with a £100 fine for driving a van with an XUD engine in it after January 3rd?

For the un-learned - Boris is going to be hiting anyone driving (for instance) a Fiat Scudo / Peugeot Partner with the 1.9D engine in it for £100 if theypoketheir nose into outer London.

Strangley though, if your Fiat Scudo / Peugeot Partner - built on the same day in the same factory and fitted with the exact same engine - has windows and is badged as a Fiat Ulyses / Peugeot 806 it's no longer a menace to Londons environment and gets to visit London for nothing.

The same engine is fitted in the Citreon Xantia and many other PSA cars - which also travel free and un-fined.

Does anyone know how Boris has come to this decision?

Does Boris know that the XUD is one of the few engines that can run unmodified on pure veg oil?

Anyone else going to affected by this silly and obviously arbritrary ruling and fancy getting a campaign together?

Bit of a wierd one... just got back from the pub, and met an old mate down there who's having a hard time of it at the mo. We got talking and basically he is skint, and has no work, so I asked him why he doesnt sell his van.

Turns out that it still has finance on it, but it's wierd... I'll explain, and if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions on it, I'd be grateful, because the guy isn't a whine or a shyster, he's always worked hard but he's really in the cack right now.

OK, her'es how it goes:

He's got the van - probably worth 1500 - 2000

He bought it on finance in 2003 - he's sure it's finance and not a personal loan, and is fairly sure it was lease purchase, not lease, and done in his personal name, not a usiness name (he's a sole trader)

He paid (he thinks) about a third, then his marraige went west and life fell apart etc

But the odd thing is - they have never come after him for a penny. It's as if the documents have been lost and the loan never exsisted.

Now obviously, he could do with the money, but - how does it stand legally?

I'm fairly certain from what he's said that any chasing they did now for monthly payments would be statute barred - but what if he sold it and it flagged up on HPI? Would they still be able to come after him, or have they effectively waived their rights by their own lack of action / incompetence.

He actually has changed the name on the V5 from his old trading name o his own name a few years ago which didnt prompt them to come after him, and neither have his two changes of address over the years. It really sounds as if they have lost any record of the agreement.

I wouldn't normally ask this sort of "dodgy" question, but this lads in the cack for no doing of his own and could use a break, so does anyone have any opinions or insight they can offer?

Cheers

Mo

Just a quick reply of support. Santander are cretinously incompetent, and I wont bore you with the litany of rubbish I've had to deal with from them, but one thing I have learned is that - if you have the gonads for it - you get an almost efficient response from them if you go into your branch, ask to use the branch phone to contact customer services and have out with them in a loud, forcefull but polite voice - letting them know that you are in the branch and you want to be connected to a manager (always take it higher,the poor peeps you get first are just cannon fodder and palm-you-offs).

This has worked for me several times on a number of different complaints - one of which they ended up sending me a hamper and £100 for.

Try and do it - you'll find that your fellow customers (and often the counter staff LOL ) are extremely supportive as they're sick to the back teeth of Santander as well.

Good luck x

Council Tax is governed by Summary Warrant legislation. There isn't a court case as the Sheriff is presented with a list (often with thousands of names) of all Council Tax accounts which the Local Authority wishes to pursue having defaulted on payment. The Sheriff signs the front of the list and this gives the local authority the right to do "diligence" against the debtor e.g. wage arrestments, bank arrestments and attachments. The Council will hold on to the warrant for a few weeks to see if the customer pays. If no payment is received the Council will use a Debt Collection Agency usually with a Sheriff Officers arm to negotiate with the customer, and failing that will enforce the diligence.

Thanks for the explanation.

If you're going to correct me then at least try to correct something I have actually said. ....What I did I say was that after a set aside the claim is returned to its initial state - where it can be re-served and the defendant given a proper opportunity to mount a defence. something which was denied them the first time.

 

I don't suffer from any comprehension problems Spam, nor was I trying to "win one" over you, but what you wrote was misleading, and thats dangerous when you're in the middle of something and some bunch of thieves is asking you to sign something.

I speak from experience: I've been through exactly this with Cabot and their chimps.

The claim does NOT have to be "re-served" - the claim STANDS, as originally put, and is contested on the basis that it was originally put - entirely logical if you think about it, otherwise the plaintiff could simply serve a differently set out claim, this time in full knowledge of what the defendent used to get the original claim set aside.

I was served today with a Sheriff Officers warrant with notification that my wages will be arrested in 14 days unless payment is made - I'm being chased for over £6,000!

 

 

Jen

Not 100% (or even 50%) up on N-o-t-B law, but - can't a Sherrifs Warrant only be set up by a court case? What happened at the court case?

My understanding after a set aside as in this case - is that the claim is returned to the point where they would be required to bring a new claim or have the original claim re-served,.

"Judgement" is set aside, not "the claim." The Claim still stands, and must be dealt with. A set-aside basically puts everything back to the point where the original summons was served, but *this time* the defendent responded and fought the claim.

New for 2010...

PayPal thoroughly enjoyed recieving this letter from me a while back

PalPal (Europe) Ltd

Whittaker House

Whittaker Avenue

Richmond

Surrey

TW9 1EH

 

Tel: 0208 605 3000 (the number is genuine by the way)

 

Your name

Address

Postcode

 

 

(date), sent by registered Royal Mail

 

Re: PayPal Account registered to: (your email address(s) - how they identify your account)

Letter Before Legal Action

 

You have limited my access to my account and denied me access to my funds on the pretext of non-exsistent "European Union money laundering regulations".

As requested, I have provided you with:

Proof of address;

Proof of bank account;

Proof of identity

 

You continue to hold my funds on a pretext of European Regulations WHICH DO NOT EXSIST.

 

If you fail to restore access to my funds within THIS WORKING DAY I will begin a claim against PayPal (Europe) Ltd and PayPal(Europe)S.A.R.L in the British Small Claims Court.

 

For clarity: I am entitled under multiple Treaties as a citizen of a European Member State to prosecute legally any person or entity wherever based who offers services to me in my country of domicile.

 

I will therefore claim:

 

1) That you have fraudulently and illegally claimed privity in private contracts made between myself and other third parties vis: denying me access to funds supplied to me by unconnected Third Parties for goods and services rendered to them by me, vis (name the individuals or companies).

 

2) That you have fraudulently re - invested my funds against my wishes and fraudulently profited by way of earned interest on my funds during the period they were denied me by you, vis: [ Fraud Act 2006, 4:1: (b) & ©] and [Fraud Act 2006, 4:2 ] and will challenge you to place evidence to the contrary before the Court by way of independantly verified accounts.

 

3) That no contract of use between us that you may cite as relevant is legally binding where it runs contrary to British Law, vis. [unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999] and in claiming such in defence of your actions you are seeking to decieve both me and the Court

 

4) That you falsely and fraudulently claim to be holding my funds on a pretext of my criminality, and will challenge you to identify to the Court under which, if any, European Union statutes you proport to be able to withold funds without first having obtained a Court Warrant from the relevent authorities.

 

5) Damages for loss of use.

 

6) Costs of prosecution

 

7) Costs incurred by me as a Litigant in Person

 

8 Interest such as the Court sees fit to award.

 

 

Post by registered, and send to this email address from your registered email addres(s) [email protected]

"Last of the Mohican" is clearly unable to read and understand PayPal's terms of reference for doing business - as such, if there's an ignoring to be done, it would be his (hers?) scurrilous and wildly inaccurate attempt at humour. (whilst still wet behind the ears!)

Touch a nerve did we?

Buzby, I kicked the legal $h1t out of a DCA last year pretty much on my own and won a couple of hundred pounds compensation. Not sure that makes me "wet behind the ears" or not.

Try not responding to every thread on CAG about the biggest ongoing fraud in Europe (a.k.a PayPal (Europe) S.A.R.L. ) with either jibes or negativity and you might not stick out like a sore thumb.

And now, I shall take my own advice and ignore you. Bye...

"Buzby" is a Paypal shill of antique standing. Ignore him

The convincing way to kick Paypal in the nuts is to refuse to use it.

 

On ebay.de the vast majority of sellers who sell to the home market (not abroad) continue to accept payments by bank transfer, as they always did, because they think it daft to pay an extra fee to Paypal, and the buyer are content with this, as they always were, because it works.

 

Therefore, because the sellers have the sense to think it through as far as that, Paypal is not yet forced on the German site for fear of an exodus of sellers were ebay so reckless.

 

In the UK the punters are that much more like dogs sat on thistles, somehow expecting somebody to heed their howling but without the sense to shift their rear ends from the cause of the pain.

 

Are you aware of how you actually don't use Paypal in the UK though? By which I mean, not are you aware we must use it, I know you are - but in terms of fine details? Like we are told by eBay "You MUST offer PayPal" - and that seems to transmit as "You must accept payment by PayPal if the buyer offers it." Can they make you accept Paypal legally? I would have thought not?

I'm contemplating putting on a couple of items on the basis of "If you'll be paying cash on collection, I will discount your winning bid by 10%" That seems entirely sensible to me, since PayPal will a) screw me around and b) screw a load of fees out of me anyway.

Question is, do I fall foul of some deliberately obscure eBay/PayPal cartel rule by doing that?

For the record my feedback is now an exemplary 100% now over 14 items, 9 sold, and I'm always upfront with my buyers and bidders who contact me during auctions as to who they are actually dealing with via my bands MySpace page - they know they're not dealing with some pikey out to tuck them up.

And who exactly is that aimed at?

 

If you want the bottom line, Paypal are doing what you agreed they could do. I hate paypal with a passion and would never use them under any circumstanecs and cirtainly do not work for or support them in any way.

 

But your argument must be based on facts. the fact is you signed up and thus agreed that they can do this. No point throwing toys out the pram if you don't like the truth.

If the cap fits, wear it matey. Just be cause a company (eBay) forces you to use another company (PayPal) doesnt constitute "Oh I signed this, so tough on me."

As members of something called Consumer Action Group, where we percieve a problem with what a company is doing, our aim is to redress that if possible, or to discover ways in which consumers (forced consumers in this case) can at worst negate the effects of that companies dodgy practices, or at best put a stop to them.

You say you "hate PayPal with a passion? Sorry, I'm missing your passionate wish to put any kind of shot across their bows - rather I see your pasionate wish to just bite down harder each time they shaft us again, just because... well, you signed up.

In other areas of CAG, you probably signed a loan agreement - that isnt going to stop you using the law to tell a DCA to go FT when they come after you without a copy of the agreement, or when they're terms and conditions are shown correctly, or they're out of statute, or they told a porky on the POC.

In short, like I said - if the cap fits wear it.

If you arent interested in finding ways to kick PayPal in the nuts, thats fine with me, but take your smirky "Well, you signed up..." shpiel off to your own thread - I can suggest a title if you're stuck for ideas - and maybe some others will feel more inclined to chuck some POSITIVE ideas around, which in my experience has been the more normal behaviour on CAG.

Have a honey of a day.

You know what? I used to *really* respect CAG as a place where people could come and discuss ways to protect consumer rights. Where people were willing to discuss and investigate openly and without rancour find legal ways around dodgy malpractices.

Yeah, lots of blanks were fired in the process, but ideas were exchanged and ways found to negate and nulify illegal practices.

Ask any bank how they feel about CAG.

Ask any DCA how they feel about CAG.

But that doesnt seem to be the case anymore. Now it seems this place is just shill city.

Hope you guys are all happy, and PayPal is paying you enough to screw up Consumer Action Group for them.

Hmmm...

Since the service is limited to E-money, which does not qualify as a deposit or an investment service in the sense of the Law, you are not protected by the Luxembourg deposit guarantee schemes provided by the Association pour la Garantie des Dépôts Luxembourg (AGDL). PayPal enables you to make payments to and accept payments from third parties. PayPal is an independent contractor for all purposes. PayPal does not have control of nor assumes the liability or legality for the products or services that are paid for with our Service. We do not guarantee the identity of any User or ensure that a buyer or a seller will complete a transaction.

Underlining for emphasis is mine.

On what basis does Paypal then withold funds and fundamentally alter the contract between the seller and buyer?

which is thus a reference to a listed directive, which must be construed in accordance with section 210 of the Enterprise Act, whereby a business includes "any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge".

 

That is what it says, in black and white, in so many words. It is required by law, section 212(4) of the Act:

 

Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

 

To buy and sell is to trade.

 

 

P.S.

 

You are making far too much of a meal of it. If you come on like this to Paypal or the buyer I am not so surprised if the World would then seem to be all against you. You are all but asking for it.

 

Yeah cool. Thanks for your input.