Jump to content

buzby

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    14,663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by buzby

  1. I'll tell you what - there is little point you saying is 'completely wrong' whilst not providing proof or indeed any supporting evidence to sustain your PoV. As an ex-customer of Homeserve I'm fully aware of the services they provide and their resolution process, having had a (non similar) complaint. However, your support of court action is misjudged, and a risky tactic that may leave the OP exposed - that is my concern, but strangely doesn't appear cross your mind, even as an afterthought. Meanwhile after five years as a CAGger I recieve notice of 'an infraction', without prior warning or notice, that has some unspecified sanction that remains in place until 10th March 2011 - it also tells me it is worth '1 point'. An interesting adminastrative function - this, and the multiple and sustained removal of reputation, which now stands at 955 points where yesterday it stood at 14,655 - so, for the temerity of my posting something you dislike, I have to lose 13,700 rep points by way of a sustained attack on my reputation - one that that has increased by a minimum of 300 points every month since I have been a member? My posts forwearn what will happen - yours clearly does not, and the manner in what you did - to my mind - is neither fair nor reasonable. But I'm realistic enough to realise it is your playpark and ball, and without balance you'll simply be a consumer glee club. Good luck with that, as it is one I want no part of.
  2. Thanks for closing the earlier thread - no doubt an admin error, and not an effort to prevent a debate. Bankfodder, by all means believe what you think is right - but don't for a minute believe that it has any relevance should an aggrieved customer wish to advance their complaint through the courts. To say that a firm is contractually obliged to 'keep an appointment' is laughable. Kindly show where this is stated in law, or indeed in Homeserve's T&C's? In the latter's case, it does not exist as this would be a service level guarantee. If you are unaware of them, you may find it useful to read up on them. In essence, for an additional fee a visit is arranged within a set timeframe - this is guaranteed, and if not met - penalties accrue. As for the weather which brought the country to it's knees along with the road network are you seriously suggesting a court would find in the OPs favour over something they had no control? If so, I suggest you fund the OPs action if you feel so adamant that the court will uphold your PoV. Where there is a better than 60% chance of success, by all means it is worth a punt in the Courts. As outlined by the OP, agreed they have not excelled themselves, but as they DID turn up as contracted their original failure is mitigated, and an chance of success seriously reduced.
  3. Er, no. That's why they are 'capped'. The whole point of the Small Claims track is to ensure the costs are manageable and reasonable for all - claimant AND defendant. In my action wiry Royal Mail, they didn't attempt to exceed the cap, butvtold the judge their costs were in excess of £3k so had been instructed to seek the full amount available (which was £80). The judge said that as RMs handling of my complaint had been unreasonable, not only was she rejecting their request, but finding that both parties meet their own costs. (So I had nothing more to pay, despite losing).
  4. From memory, Comet's 'insurance' is a warranty (not insurance) so would be useless. Only a policy with accidental damage would cover you, as a screen would not crack unless an external force caused it - and that would be seen as an accident. Better check the wording on the policy before you say anything!
  5. If a Small Claims Action - whist you could genuinely spend 20 hours gainfully preparing your case, a claim of £180 would not be allowed, due to the fact the costs are capped for BOTH parties, leaving the loser to pay the 'capped' cost of the other party.
  6. To find if you are covered, you'll need to look at your Household Insurance (Contents) policy. If you have 'accidental damage cover' they will probably pay out after taking an excess of around £50-60. If you don't have this additional cover, you'll be told you cannot make a claim. As you've discovered, hanging/removing a large screen TV can be very difficullt, and usually needs TWO people to ensure safety. There is a possibility that if you explain you did it yourself, they may cite negligence, so tread warily.
  7. Being treated 'fairly' is an aspiration - not a legal requirement. My point is, if - after exhausting an informal process to achieve compensation the firm does not agree and cites external situations preventing normal service, means your only resort left is to the courts, and hear a 'win' is not guaranteed. Just as snow ia not the problem of the bus company, train drivers, courier firms and the like - only a fool would believe that this is of little consequence, he paid for a service and if he doesn't get it, there will be trouble. As it stands, they DID turn out and do work - later than their promise - but they did do the work. Making a claim of non-compliance dead in the water.
  8. It should usually be in the court local to you (or the address they had). It may well be an invidation to attend court for some action, but if they've been unable to serve, it may have gone back to the client for further advice, which would explain why you've found nothing so far. They will have ourlined to your Mum what they need you to do - but if action has already commenced, you could quite easily accept service, turn up in court and your defence is SB. If OTOH they actually have a judgement of some sort (that you've not been able to find), SB would be your route for a Recall of Decree, but you'd have to pay for this. This would be better than saying you did not have service and have the case re-run/ Until you know what they were trying to serve - you're gonna have to speculate. or contact the firm. A trick a friend of mne did was to borrow a mobile with a foreign (Eire) SIM card, and phone them, complete with the +353 number showing. He explained his mum asked him to call, and he said he rejected the pursuit, but as we was outwith the jurisdiction, he's get round to it if/when he returned.
  9. Easier than you woukd believe. Write to the company, asking for the requirement to have made a call on the day a theft is reported. Advise, than in the absence of evidence of this condition being provided, you give them 28 days to meet your claim in full. If a settlement is not agreed within this timeframe, you will arrange to source your own replacement handset of a similar make/model. The invoice for this purchase will be forwarded to them, and, if full payment not made in respect of this expense, will raise a Small Claims Action for your costs in restoring your insurable loss. You hope this action will not be necessary. Send it by Recorded Delivery.
  10. Only you seem to think this £9 is in tablets of stone. You can come up with any figure you like as part of your negotiation/settlement and it is up to the firm to decide (usually without any liability) whether they will accept or not. If they tell you they're not interested and you pursue through the courts, you'd be wrung out to dry - and I've seen it happen countless times. Call it the 'compo culture' if you like. I've negotiated rates in excess of this based on my time, effort and inconvenience as part of a settlement and they are free to agree or reject. It is when they reject, you;re left holding the baby, and have to puyt up or shut up. As for British Gas - I got £1,200 out of them and my last Bill waived (at £180) but to get to this I exposed their in-house Solicitor as a fraud, their inability to respond to 8 letters (ficticious people were writing to me), and I involved my MP. The difference is, it would have cost BG much more to deal with me in court, than settle. If it went to court, I'd only have got around £500. As for your ongoing insults, shame you cannot have a debate without resorting to dissing folk you don't agree with - but then, it makes you look unhinged and I've no argument with that.
  11. A Writ of Service is a document authorised by the Court, but served by the Pursuer advising of impending court action - usually when a previous postal attempt has been returned. They can also serve intimation, jusgements, arrestments, nothing that is really comforting.... Have a look at these; https://nextstep.direct.gov.uk/PlanningYourCareer/JobProfiles/JobProfile1059/Pages/default.aspx http://www.smaso.org/memdir.php
  12. Good to hear - but DO check your Credit File in case they've neen naughty and you need something corrected!
  13. The only way to resolve trhis is to have your OWN loss adjuster asess the vehicle. His figure would be disclosed to you, and you could then decide whether to pass this on to the Insurer. If there's around a £500+ difference, you;ve got room to negotiate and complain if they do not agree to compromise. If under this, they'll probably not be interested in modifying it. The cost of the asessor would have to be paid by you, usually around £120-£150 plus VAT.
  14. SO's & MaA have to be licenced by the courts, so (for example) a Hamilton-based MaA has a right to issue service anywhere else in Scotland - the fact they themselves are not local to you is of no real consequence. The Court Service has a link to the list of individuals able to service court documents. Actions in Scotland are statute barred after 5 years, but they hang on for 6 in credit file records. I'd be wary of sending any SB correspondence if these guys are/were genuinely there to issue a Writ of Service as this would have got under the wire, leaving them free to pursue.
  15. Whilst I agree DCAs are along there with the bottom feeders, the 'legal requirement' argument is a bit nonsensical. There's no 'legal requirement' to stamp the letter you plan to send either - it's not advised, but many do it. A letter without a signature it not qualified as originating from the sender. DCAs send out unsigned circulars, I usually respond in a similar manner, however for those requesting information (like a SAR) and the release of information that is personal to them, too right a signature is required to prove who THEY say they are. (Especially when, if the application is fraudulent there may be a requirement to investigate). Look at DCAs calling by phone wanting the answerer to confirm their name and DoB. If you don;t they're not permitted to continue with the call. If they did, that's a DPA breach of the first order - so they need reporting! As to Victoria's points - agreed, it can be a useful tactic to add some delay to the process, but only if it is you that requires it. From what I;ve see the writer is actually requireing the data, so in cases like these it would not be sensible to create problems where none would previously exist.
  16. The reasoning is flawed, and all you need do is refer to the requirements of the DPA to see why. I'm afraid I don't faff around the subject when I have seen consumers being seriously disadvantaged in court actions BECAUSE of the advice given that no signature should ever be provided. It was your qualification that 'we don't...' certain individuals may not, and that is their decision - however to turn this into the equivalent of a 'gold standard' that no signature could be provided without any explanation or qualification'. To be fair, you did qualify it, using the weakest of arguments (that 'it might be copied') perpetuating an urban myth that simply will not go away whilst people (like yourself?) continue with this stance. I have to ask, how many cases are you personally aware of that signatures have been misused in this way? I'm only aware of one, in 1985 - there may be more, but would you not think that the issue of rampant fraud would be centre stage, rather than the urban myth so often trotted out here (no doubt by well-meaning individuals). As to CAG advice, so we have an inconsistency - one says don't sign, print - and the other says sign but 'put crosses through it'? Hardly a ringing endorsement for your position of do not sign! By all means, digital signatures, or modified signatures (with Xs) all fine, when they are accepted by the recipient as proving that the writer has provided enough identification to permit the release of information. A blanket No Signature suggestion - as advice - is laughable, as the DPA requires adequate checks and without a signature, you will not get far. So suggesting that a 'no signature' is even considered I'd suggest is negligent in the extreme, expecially if the person accepting the advice isn't provided with the full picture (as to the reasons why). The 'Site Team' supposedly monitor these boards, and it would be up to them to amend their advice based on feedback and comment. My stance is well known, should they differ, it is up to them to justify it, not me to get them to change. As for the comment 'being rude' - I'm afraid if the truth hurts, there is little point in sugar-coating it. The DPA is not an opinion, but legislation that places an obligation on data controllers. I'd suggest that if your position was valid, then no consumer would have any difficulty in getting their required info by not signing, yet I've lost count of the threads where people have not and the data has been refused. Wouldn't you agree that the aim is to make it easier for CAGgers, rather than put needless hurdles in their path, simply because someone has not thought it through?
  17. Wrong, I'm afraid. Your signature is your exclusive identifier. Your are dsealing with a body corporate and not an individual. Their letterhead will prove who they are, and the fact they are corresponding with you. On the other hand, anyone can assert they are you, not sign - and you expect them to disclose data about you? That's just asking for an ICO fine for not taking all reasonable stepsa to ensure the writer was indeedd the data subject. Even if they never knew what the signature was like in the first place, it protects both parties, because lets say a false signature was provided, you have the added protection of providing your own to prove that it is not your 'normal' signature. So much nonsense is talked of not providing a signature, yet it is a common courtesy - and even if this is irrelevant in the eyes of a complainant - no Data Controller will happily ignore their DPA responsibilities because the letter writer hasn;t the common sense to see why they should confirm who they are.
  18. I don't believe they have to prove 'harm' - only that their details are recorded and no permission has been provided to do so.
  19. Talk about the icing on the cake! I bet they never thought of that when the whole thing started - yet people are happy to sign up for 'free' trials, aparrently happy to disclose additional data freely (as part of their application) and for this volunteered data to be added to the file!
  20. Yes - there's no central issuing authority, like in England. Of course, these 'Sheriff Officers' could be just debt collectors, but if they did not leave the Writ, it may only have been a piece of paper - and not worth pursuing.
  21. If you don't sign, they'll refuse to provide the information and justifdiably so. I've no idea which 'we' Elsa is referring to - but her reasoning is flawed. A firm attempting to photocopy a signature would be guilty of a criminal act (fraud/forgery) and it would be so easy to prove as to be a welcome development in any dispute.
  22. Irrelevant - and I can assure you if there's any back-peddling, it is in your own mind. The £9 rate - is not set in stone, it is a guide for a 'reasonable' appreciation of costs. Be both know the actual cost is considerably less - time taken isn't chargeable and apart from a few pence to print and post, that's it. It is this that makes the suggested charges of £20-£50 per letter laughable in the extreme. The danger - which you fail to appreciate - is that it is foolish to be shown to issue unreasonable demands IF it does end up in court, and you attempt to quantify your 'losses' with these inflated figures an an action, you'll be destroyed by the other party, if not the judge. I can only assume you see nothing wrong in charging (say) £25 for 5 letters, then suing them for £125 because your claim was not met? Or perhaps when they start dealing with the complaint, forgetting to pursue the £125 because the matter has been dealt with? The reality is all credibility is lost. Apart from not being able to ENFORCE these charges makes them a point of negotiation only. So providing you don;t mind coming across as a nutter with no hope, by all means - but lets not fool others who want to ensure their actions are reasonable and will be supported by the courts if need be.
  23. Actually, I don't buy into that. That exemption was for 'lawful authorities', not some get-rich-quick outfit that skates along the edges. THis would mean (in the interest of competition) that any firm can hold your personal details without your permission without your consent. The CRB is one of these exemptions, the Insurance Hunter database (despite supossedly being used for crime detection and prevention) is not. How do I know. Elephant sent me a letter as a third-party (I wasn't their customer)). A disclaimer at the bottom of the letter stated that my details would be passed to IH. I told them they couldn't and we disagreed. The ICO called them to a meeting to discuss the issue, and hey were told in no uncertain terms that they could NOT use this exemption to get round the act. My details were then removed.
×
×
  • Create New...