Jump to content

Anus Horribilis

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Anus Horribilis last won the day on November 21 2015

Anus Horribilis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Anus Horribilis

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Precision, here's how it is. If you're finding this too stressful then just pay them what they're demanding and be rid of the problem. It's not a huge amount of money, just write it off and forget about it. But be in no doubt that they are demanding more than they are properly entitled to, and more than you morally owe them. It's like giving money to an aggressive beggar. If however you're in the mood to say "No" and assert your rights, then CAG is exactly the place to be. The admins and regular posters here are very knowledgeable, and they will not advise you badly. You can refuse to pay their demands, and offer only a reasonable settlement. You can enjoy a sense of victory, even if it takes some time and minor hassle. Because they are going to carry on threatening you. That's what these companies do. And they're good at it - they have tricks and template letters designed to shake your confidence. They will insinuate court action, CCJs, credit blacklisting, trouble with your employer, and the sacrifice of your first-born child to Satan if they think they can get away with it. And it may go on for several years, with the 'debt' being passed from one front company to another. But the vital thing to remember is that if they had a viable case they would be taking it to court and obtaining a judgement which they could enforce against your assets or income. So why aren't they doing that? Certainly not because of any concern for your welfare, because they only care about their own company's interests. What are they afraid of? We know the answer, they won't take it to court because they know it would go badly for them. So you need to make a decision now. Pay them what they demand, or offer a reasonable settlement and fold your arms. The worst thing possible is to fanny around in the middle. Nothing you say to them will make them stop, in fact they are encouraged by long, windy replies. They know they're getting under your skin, and you might break soon and pay what they want. Trust the site team. They have together dealt with hundreds of these cases, they know what they're doing. Good luck, whatever you decide.
  2. Hi UncleB - Firstly, I'm very pleased to say that the supplier has today agreed to provide the necessary paint without charge after reviewing the photos, video and notes which I sent to them. The paint was freshly purchased for this project, and used within a week of supply. The purpose, preparation and application was exactly in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. There was no unused material remaining, but I offered to provide samples of the cured product and/or a site visit for expert inspection and testing. I agree that it was reasonable for the supplier to ask these questions. I was half expecting it to become a small claims battle, but after seeing the evidence they responded very professionally. If it's okay to "name and praise" I will post a final comment later when it's all finished.
  3. Hi - Recently I refurbished my concrete garage floor. Scrubbed and acid-etched it, applied epoxy primer and 4 coats of epoxy paint for a lovely deep colour. Then finally applied a transparent protective topcoat, which went horribly wrong. The topcoat was supposed to be "smooth satin finish with excellent flow”, but it was actually quite viscous and didn't flow or settle well. Even worse, it didn't dry transparent, but with a cloudy white effect - the floor looks like a glazed doughnut. All materials were highest quality major brand and all bought retail on-line from same UK supplier (nearly £400). I am now in discussion with the supplier about this, and working through the predictable excuses ("you can't have mixed it properly", "no-one else has complained" etc). I am absolutely confident that it was correctly mixed and applied, using scrupulously clean tools etc. I had successfully applied 5 previous coats, this wasn't my first rodeo. The topcoat has set hard, and can't be removed. My only option is to paint over it all again, and this will probably need two coats of epoxy paint to reinstate the deep, rich colour. The materials for that will be around £100. I am hoping that the supplier will provide this additional paint without charge, and if so I'm happy to settle. If they won't offer a reasonable solution, then I will buy the necessary paint from another supplier and pursue it through the small claims procedure). What I'm not sure about is the basis for the court claim, should that be necessary. The supplied topcoat was materially defective, but I can't realistically return it for a refund because it's stuck to the floor. Also a simple refund of one can of topcoat sealant would only be about £40, leaving me well out of pocket. So I think this is maybe a "consequential damages" situation, or a tort? Would I pursue that in the ordinary way by reference to Consumer Rights Act 2015, or is a different model of claim necessary? Grateful for any advice, and especially for links to relevant information. Thanks
  4. The critical thing is to find a copy of the court's reply to your 2015 email. It would be very unusual for a court to administratively discontinue a case on the basis of email representations from one party, this won't be believed without evidence.
  5. Might be useful to contact the Police and get the crime number etc for when you reported this theft. Contemporaneous supporting evidence is really helpful for credibility.
  6. We are of a mind on this. Sorry about the FMOTL links - here's a more responsible discussion of the problem. http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11307
  7. Unfortunately the direct debit guarantee is now being abused by dishonest customers to instigate fraudulent clawbacks. This [problem] is encouraged by various websites and social media groups They exploit the pro-consumer terms of the direct debit guarantee to falsely clawback large sums of money and then evade recovery by various "Freeman on the Land" tactics. The recommended method is to assert that there are errors in all the charged payments, but to refuse to give any details or discuss further. Just keep repeating "there are errors, refund my account" and threaten to complain or take legal action if they don't. for example someone has clawed back £26,000 of mortgage payments Another thread, discussing how to fraudulently recover water and energy bills, TV licence, mortgages, rent etc - packed with helpful tips about abusing the direct debit guarantee for wrongful gain - I think it's a good thing that the banks are now approaching this more cautiously. The direct debit guarantee is a good thing for honest customers, and should be defended against fraud. Obviously I'm not referring to the OP here.
  8. And of course Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 - A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/3
  9. I've noticed this sign displayed in a few petrol stations recently, and would be interested in other member's views. Although I appreciate the problem of no-pay drive-aways, I don't think this is a proper or lawful way to address it. The purported 'contract' is badly written in a google-translate legal style, and in parts makes no sense at all. I dislike the hectoring tone, and the use of a Police image to imply official endorsement. And I don't think that the display of this notice creates a contract with effect or enforceability anyway. Firstly because there is no acceptance. I do not believe they can foist a contractual duty upon customers by simply displaying a sign. I could put a sign in my car window say "any fuel I buy will be priced at 1p per litre, please do not supply fuel if you do not accept these terms", but no court would uphold it. Secondly, the alleged parties to the alleged contract are not clearly stated (at the bottom of the notice there is a bizarre, rambling phrase which amounts to nothing). Who exactly am I contracting with here? They appear to imply that this is a separate contract to the retail purchase of fuel, but the terms are wholly unclear. And following from above, if this is separate to my purchase of fuel then there is no consideration involved. The author of the poster appears to dimly perceive that problem, and purports that the customer receives value by being granted various options for payment (astonishing nonsense). The end purpose of this exercise is that if one day I forget my wallet, or my credit card won't work in the POS terminal, they want me to pay a penalty. This has happened to me twice in nearly 40yrs of driving, and on both occasions I have left my name and address and returned later to pay the cost of the drawn fuel 'over the counter'. I have no intention of accepting any other arrangement, and I would not accept this process being foisted upon me. So that's my opinion, would be interested in what others think?
  10. Insulting me doesn't really answer the point. Is Colin11 correct above, when he refers to you being an admin member of the irresponsible, inaccurate and harmful group? Is that why you are making excuses for them?
  11. Most of the recklessly stupid advice on the social media site is posted by their regular members and admins. This tsunami of idiocy dwarfs any influence by alleged "professional trolls and rogue elements" on the fringes. And of course, one ironic effect of the social media site etc encouraging people to defy and obstruct ordinary bailiffs is that creditors may now more frequently feel it is necessary to transfer recovery to the High Court. Good luck with your "steps are being taken" but I see no reason why they should not do so. If a debtor will not engage in any reasonable attempt to meet their liabilities, the law rightly provides a method of escalation.
  12. Good result. Often people spend too much time arguing in circles with retail workers who can only apply company rules. Once they've said no a few times, in writing, go directly to a Letter Before Action and then commence the MCOL. It will automatically go to their legal department, and if it's a fair grievance they will automatically say "we'll lose, pay it".
  13. Not necessary for a small claim. Especially where the vendor states "..ADR is voluntary and it is not a procedure to which we subscribe.". LBA, then sue. Note my post above though - check that you are entitled to retail consumer protections.
  14. Does that protection apply to a business-to-business purchase?
  15. Stop asking their permission, Janie. You're humiliating yourself by giving them power. You are the customer. You can choose to spend your money somewhere else, where you will feel welcome and safe. If you really want to shop in Arcadia stores, then go in by yourself one day and see what happens. It isn't a crime, the very worst thing that can happen is that they ask you to leave. 99.9% that won't happen, you won't be recognised, it will be fine. You need to draw a line. You apologised and paid, you were embarrassed. Now it's over, lift your head up and get on with your life.
×
×
  • Create New...