Jump to content

extrobe

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

About extrobe

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Here are the relevant sections of the T&C's I guess it's a question of whether this meets the criteria of 'In order to provide you with the service you have asked for ... ', but to me it me feels more like a marketing message - which I've expressly opted out of. It was the same when they started spamming me with emails about their new broadband package. These have nothing to do with the running of the account, but everything to do with getting me to sign up to more services.
  2. Hi CAG, hope this doesn't come across as too trivial. I have a pet hate about unwanted marketing emails / messages etc, particularly from companies I use, when I've expressly asked not to receive these. It's the reason why I've had the same email and mobile number for over 10 years with little-to-no junk. On the occasions I do get something, I usually pick it up with the company directly to sort it. However, First Utility seems to have crossed a line this time - in the last week or so, I've had a postal letter, 2 texts and an email. However, these aren't strictly from First Utility - but from Siemens, on FU's behalf, trying to get me to buy a smart meter. Am I right in thinking this is not only breaching my request not to receive marketing information, but actually breaches Data Protection by passing my details to a 3rd party? Would be good to go back to them with something more robust than 'please do not send me this' for them to then ignore.
  3. I thought the law states that the seller must refund the initial postage cost to you, but the seller can force you to pay for the return postage (but only if they stated as such before the sale, else they must cover it) Though suspect that's only the case for non-faulty returns
  4. This is exactly my thought. If he had returned the items because he changed his mind (as he is entitled to do), then ok - but he says they were all damaged / not fit for purpose. If 10% of what I purchased from, say, John Lewis was not fit for purpose and had to go back, I doubt I'd still be shopping there. Something doesn't add up in my mind - reckon there's a little more to this than we're being told.
  5. The 'Yes I think...' was in relation to 'I think I put it in the additional comments box' rather than 'I think I mentioned it' - I know I raised it - twice, and pretty sure I did so without suggesting I was the driver. Doesn't help that POPLA doesn't allow you to see what you've previously entered, but should MET want to take it further, I presume I can SAR POPLA? POPLA themselves make it quite clear they don't want to challenging their ruling, instead directing you to CAB
  6. Yes - I think I included in my 'additional comments' after I'd received MET's evidence back - and again in the post-beavis additional comments.
  7. Of course - shown below (formatting is all mine - it was just a lump of text). As I say, they primarily focus on the Beavis case. And no, no mentioned of the NTK
  8. very frustrating, but I finally have movement at least. POPLA has decided against me (though didn't bother telling me, found out via MET, and confirmed by logging into the site) Won't post the whole response (unless it's worth doing) but they address, and reject, the a couple of the points I raised regarding permission from the landowner to exceed (albeit retrospective), and level of fine. This point I thought was interesting... They did not address the invalid letter to keeper due to it not being possible for them to know how long I was parked Also of interest, they did address the singage, stating... However, those photos aren't, and can't be, valid, as the site has been remodelled since the site plan they provided. I did provide a link to the planning application showing this, but they haven't looked at this (as in, the link I generated has not been clicked) So, MET are now chasing for payment. Should I sit and wait for something more tangible from them, or should I force their hand on the matter? (I rather prefer the latter - get it over with rather than getting a dozen threat-o-grams)
  9. hmm, they say I have to log my comments on the portal - yet there's no such ability to - the only option I have is to withdraw!
  10. Thanks - I'll 'top & tail' it to get straight to the point
  11. Well, 4 months after I last heard from them, I've had an 'update' from POPLA, basically telling me that now the Beavis case has been dealt with, they're allowing myself and the operator a further chance to comment before they rule. My planned response is something along these lines...
  12. How appropriate, given they've just been fined £26m for failing to handle customer accounts & complaints adequately http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35129788
  13. Well, it's the 2nd December, and still not heard anything from POPLA (still 'in progress') Given this occurred in August, getting pretty ridiculous. On the plus side, I've not had McDonalds in nearly 4 months, and no longer get the McNugget cravings
  14. It's the 'new' service (popla.co.uk) - with the status being 'In Progress'.
  15. Does anyone know if there is a time limit on POPLA reviewing the case? I submitted my final responses to the MET evidence pack about a month ago now (2/10), and heard nothing since.
×
×
  • Create New...