Hello all, I hope I've chosen the correct sub-forum for this post, but if not would you move it for me? I have encountered an interesting situation this past week and I wonder if I could have some advice on what, if anything, can be done about it. It's probably clearest if I just bullet point the facts: I have a computer graphics card for sale on Ebay Tuesday 12th June I received an email from a potential buyer by the name of Dorothy Baynham telling me they wanted to buy the card for their son's birthday and would I end the auction early and sell to them. Wednesday 13th June I agree to end the auction once a PayPal payment is received. Later on Wednesday PayPal payment for £360 is received along with the shipping name and address. Thursday 14th of June I sent the graphics card away by Royal Mail Special Delivery. Friday 15th of June it is received and signed for by a Mr *** Saturday 16th of June I received an email from a gentleman, completely unrelated to either earlier person, asking me why I have claimed £360 from his bank account. Saturday 16th of June I emailed back making clear that payment was sent from his account in payment for the item sold via Ebay. Friday 22nd of June I have received an email from PayPal telling me they are reversing the payment. Sure enough, my PayPal balance is now -£360. My belief is that the person I was corresponding with has used stolen/hacked credentials for a PayPal account to pay for the Ebay item. Subsequently, the person whose PayPal account was compromised has initiated a charge back. There is a lesson to be learned here, which is to never believe what anyone tells you on Ebay and to stick to their rules and let auctions run their course. I understand that, lesson learned, apparently the hard way. My question is, on the basis that I know the address the item was delivered to and I know who signed for it, is it possible for me to issue a Letter Before Action or similar with the aim of bringing them to account? I should make it clear, I am located in Scotland (west coast), the item was delivered to an address in Dudley. I may very well have to simply suck this up and chalk it up to "I should have known better", but I thought I'd check first. Ideally I'd rather not be out of pocket by £360!

I realise the thread is a few weeks old and the OP hasn't returned to update us, but a question I had was in relation to the reasonable skill and care the garage should have been expected by any reasonable person to have shown and whether or not they did that. With the EML light illuminated I would have thought the first stage of investigation would have been to connect the car to a diagnostic scanner to ascertain what faults were present. With that information at hand I'd have expected a mechanic with skill and experience to have a reasonably good idea of what was wrong. The OP doesn't mention whether this was done or not, and in my view their description of work done sounds more like parts have been thrown at the car in the hope it'd fix the issue rather than a considered diagnosis. If it can be shown that a diagnostic scan wasn't performed (maybe the garage doesn't own the equipment, I understand it can be very expensive) then does that change or bolster the OP's position that reasonable skill and care wasn't provided and by extension does that improve their chances of recovering their money?

Your friend was offered a test drive, accepted and then decided to buy the car. If a key factor in that decision was the car's performance with 4 people in it, why didn't he test drive it with 4 people in it? As far as I can tell from your post you don't actually allege a technical fault with the car, only that it doesn't have the performance expected. I can't imagine how that's the garage/sales person's fault. There is no way the salesman could know how heavy any potential passengers are anyway, so any comment on how well a car will perform laden with people is pointless. Then there's Ganymede's point; is 'fine' to you different in comparison to my definition of 'fine'?

The issue is primarily that I have never considered it a good idea to pay a tradesman in advance of work being carried out, there is no incentive to complete the work to any particular standard. If I were the one in control of who gets paid and when I would feel like I had some sort of control over the quality of the work being carried out. As it stands, my fear is the decorator knows this is a quick and easy job, turns up, slaps some paint on and then disappears knowing full well he's got his money and has technically done what he's been contracted to do. Thanks both for your comments. I realise it sounds like I'd rather pocket the cash however that is not true, I'd simply rather be in control of who was working in my home and to what standard.

Hi all, About 12 months ago my partner and I bought three ceiling lights from Dunelm and fitted them using the recommended bulbs. Over the past 12 months dark stains have appeared on our ceiling above each bulb. A sample light was sent back to Dunelm who investigated the issue with the supplier and eventually accepted liability, offering to pay to have our ceilings repainted. This is all great and we're happy with the service. We obtained quotes and sent a middle-of-the-road quote to Dunelm for approval, however they refuse to send me the money, instead insisting the money is paid directly to the decorator we contract to do the work. I have a few issues with this. It's not the decorator who has suffered a loss, we have, so why is not us who are compensated for an agreed sum? Second, I have never paid upfront for any work in the past, which appears to be what Dunelm expect me to do in effect. I guess my question is, is there any basis on which to insist it is me who is compensated, leaving me free to contract whomever I wish?

Hi dx, Yes probably and ultimately it's not a big deal, it just seems difficult to justify. To me it seems like a penalty for updating the policy given the insurance company isn't incurring any costs related to it.

Hello all, My car insurance is with Bank of Scotland. BoS insurance operate a paperless system so everything is electronic and accessible online, no paper copy of documents is delivered unless requested. Yesterday I changed the car insured under my policy. A charge for which was levied as was expected due to the difference between the two cars, however I was also charged what appears to be a standard £25 'administration fee'. What's the justification for charging this amount when everything is electronic, with no human intervention (not even to update my policy) and no documents are printed/posted?

Thanks renegadeimp, good idea re the gas and electricity, I'll make sure this happens. Are you convinced about her liability for rent, even in the absence of a valid contract?

Hi all, This post is an extension of events that started under my thread here, although things have moved on to the extent where I felt a new post would be better, if that's not the case could an admin merge them for me please? Background: My partner is currently living in a rented house. At the beginning of the year her rental was due for renewal but at the time we knew we were looking to buy somewhere of our own. Thinking it would give us some breathing space to look, she agreed to extend her rental by 6 months. Fast forward to March, we've found a place. My partner inquired with the letting agent about terminating her lease. She was told she could pay a re-advertising fee and if they could find a new tenant they would terminate my partner's agreement and create a new one with the new tenant. This fee (£180) was paid, however within 24 hours my partner had found a new tenant herself, put them in touch with the letting agent and a deposit was taken from the would-be new tenant. New events: Last week my partner received a telephone call advising that an electrical inspection was required. This was carried out and it was deemed that electrical work was required before a new tenant could be allowed access. I'm not sure what work is required, however the house has never had mains-fed smoke alarms and I believe they are a legal requirement, so it may be this among other things. This is really where the trouble starts. My partner today called the letting agent to inquire when and where she should hand in the keys. It was agreed previously she would leave the property on the 8th April. The letting agent told my partner that she will remain liable for the rent, electricity and gas until all electrical work has been carried out and until the new tenant takes possession, despite moving out on the 8th and that (and this is truly unbelievable to me) the letting agent is under no obligation to do any of this quickly, in fact they have a signed contract from my partner (they don't, see below) stating the rent will be covered until June. In my previous thread I questioned whether she could be held liable for rent after a new tenant has been found, yet the delay is entirely down to the letting agent. The advice I took from the previous thread was that it was in fact true that she could be. Another complication has arisen though. Knowing we didn't know how long we'd want to be in the rented house, my partner did not sign or return a contract for the rental period January-June this year. That wasn't actually deliberate, she just forgot to do it and was never reminded by the agent. The agent was advised of this fact today but alleges that doesn't matter, the previous contract remains valid and simply renews. If that is the case, what would the point be in sending her a new contract at the beginning of this year? All her contract specifically mention rental date periods, e.g. 8th January 2016 to 8th June 2016. If pressed to provide a contract covering the period January-June this year the letting agent could not provide one. On that basis, could that be our way out? I'm sorry for the huge post, we are both very worried about it and appreciate your help. I must also mention this is taking place in Scotland.

I have a query relating to a situation my partner finds herself in. This is happening in Scotland if it makes a difference. A little background first to let you know why we find ourselves in this position: My partner rents a house at the moment and the tenancy is managed by a letting agency. She has lived in the property for around 6 years, slightly more, and in January this year renewed her tenancy for a further 6 months. She did this knowing we were about to begin looking for our first home together, however we both felt it was a good idea to give ourselves some time without having to worry about a roof over her head. At the time of renewing she inquired with the letting agency whether a shorter-term lease might be available but was told 6 months was the minimum they would offer. She agreed to that, however she was told that at any time she could pay them £180 to readvertise the house. If they found another suitable tenant the tenancy would transfer and she would no longer be liable for the remaining rental period. We thought that seemed a bit steep but agreed. Move forward a month and we have quite unexpectedly found a house we love, we've bought it and get the keys in a few weeks time. As a consequence my partner popped into the letting agency, paid the £180 and they readvertised the house. Within a day they found someone who wanted the house and paid a holding deposit. As far as we know they haven't signed any formal agreement yet, however the letting agency are no longer advertising the house. I'm finally getting to my question you'll be delighted to hear. We checked with the letting agency about what would happen if this new tenant pulled out. We were more than a little shocked to hear that they plan to hold my partner liable for the rent up to the end of the 6 month period. That probably seems quite reasonable, except that she paid her £180, they readvertised for less than 24 hours and found a new tenant. Can they really take her money, essentially not readvertise the house, yet continue to hold her liable?

I'm sorry to tack a reply onto a thread from last year, but I have some additional questions around the technical aspects of this. In the majority of cases consumer internet connection equipment makes use of dynamic IP addressing, in other words each time your router is restarted you may be issued with a different IP address from your ISP. This is in contrast with the majority of commercial equipment that uses static IP addressing. The former means your ISP would need to establish not who's currently using the IP address used to download the content, but who was using at the time of the alleged offense. I gather ISPs are now required to keep records of that, so it's not impossible, but certainly more difficult and time-consuming to establish. Do ISPs have the right to make a charge to the solicitor attempting to gain this information which could in theory be passed on to the alleged offende r should the matter come to court? My second question is around WiFi. It's never responsible to operate an 'open' wireless network onto which anyone within range could connect , but would doing so bolster a defense of not knowing who downloaded the content? For example, if the consumer were to have realized that their wireless network was 'open' and then closed it at a later date, would it be more difficult to appoint blame for anything that was downloaded in that time frame, after all it seems the 'owner' of the connection cannot be held responsible for what's downloaded using it. Finally, if a firm chasing a consumer must prove specifically who downloaded copyrighted content and in a dynamic IP environment your ISP will only ever hold the IP address of your gateway (in other words your router) and not that of any equipment inside your network, how could they ever prove who actually downloaded it? All they could ever prove is that your connection was used to do it, no?

Hi all, In the next few months I'm going to order a new car that I'll finance through Hire Purchase, arranged through the manufacturer (BMW). That decision is based on having discounted PCP as a viable option for me given the mileage I cover. My question is what pitfalls are out there to watch for when arranging HP, for example, is it possible for a manufacturer (or their credit partner if they do things that way) to write into their terms and conditions anything that would make VT impossible? Or, is is possible for some alternative form of finance to be sugar-coated as HP when in fact it's some form of loan? I have read a fair amount of material on HP and in fact I've VTd a car myself in the past, however this time round I plan on entering into the HP knowing full well that I intend to VT at 50% and given the value of the car I intend to buy, it's pretty important I don't run into any situations that would stop me from doing so. Please accept my apologies if this should be in the General section, I wasn't sure.

Thanks unclebulgaria, I did reject the friend request, and I see what you mean about it being a grey area. In my view, even if I gave them permission to contact me, which I didn't, they should be doing so via email, not using my address for a completely different purpose, which I see it as.

Hi all, I ran into an interesting situation today that I'd like some help with. An email address of mine is associated with both my Ebay account and my Facebook account. Yesterday I purchased goods from a company via Ebay who have today used my email address to look for me and 'friend' me on Facebook. I don't wish to sound like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill but in my view they've used my email address in a manner other than intended. Are they doing anything wrong? I suspect not, at least legally, but I don't think it's acceptable.

In my view anyone who has paid good money for a car has every right to be attached to it and concerned that its condition remain as good as possible. The £85 quote will be from one of these paintless dent removal companies, which is fine, but I'd be surprised if they gave you a quote having not seen the car, more like an estimate. The success of these fellows depends entirely on the severity of the dent and whether there is any cracking to the paint. The other quotes are much higher because the work they propose is very different. When a dent is introduced into a metal panel the metal itself stretches. To repair that your whole door needs dismantled so the repairer can get to the back side of the panel, then it needs metalworked back out, then skim filled, primed and painted. Depending on how close to the edge of the panel the dent is, the paintwork may also need blended into the adjoining panel so you don't see the difference in colour between original and new paint. Given the work involved, £350+VAT actually sounds like a reasonably good price.

You should follow Ebay's standard procedure, which (providing it hasn't changed recently) is to make contact with the seller yourself and give them the opportunity to resolve the situation. If the seller is not cooperating you can raise a case against them via Ebay. When you raise a case in Ebay you can choose what resolution you're looking for, one of the options being "partial refund". The trouble you'll have is having not gone through PayPal, Ebay will be powerless to enforce a full or partial refund. However, you're relying on the seller not wishing to gain a 'strike' against his account and give you the refund. If they still don't play ball, personally, and despite the principle of the thing, I'd chalk it up to a bad experience.

It seems like the elderly are treated the same way most new teenage drivers are. I always imagined these quotes, like jumping from £400 to £1500, was really their veiled way of saying "we don't really want your business anymore" rather than a true attempt to fleece them.

By way of an overview in case you're not too computer-savvy: Normal hard drives like the one most likely fitted to your laptop contain spinning platters that contain the data you store. By virtue of their need to spin they include a motor that makes noise, usually fairly high-pitched because the drive spins very quickly, usually at either 5400, 7200 or in some cases 10000rpm. Solid State Drives (SSDs) by comparison have no moving parts at all, consequently they're entirely silent. That's a great benefit to them but their primary benefit is performance. While a normal drive relies on a mechanical seeker head moving to the correct location on the disc and reading the data from it, which takes time (and causes noise), an SSD works similarly to your computer's memory, working silently and extremely quickly. It doesn't work quite as quickly as your computer's memory but nearly, and certainly much quicker than a conventional drive would. As the others have already said, the 'problem' is most likely to be the fan. Laptop cooling systems use heat pipes to transfer heat from the components in your system that need cooling to a heat sink. The fan then draws cool air from outside the laptop in, blows it over the heat sink and then exhausts it out the side or back, but, there's a catch-22 situation going on. To make a laptop compact the heat pipes and heat sinks need to be small, but to make them cool efficiently that relies on a fan that can shift a lot of air. To make a small fan shift a lot of air it needs to spin quickly, hence the noise. So, you either have a laptop that's thicker, but runs more quietly, or a thinner one that runs noisier. Obviously that's a very general statement; components, performance, quality, workload, all these and more affect the size and noise of your laptop, but as a general guide it's close enough to give you an idea of what's going on. You could, as a test, install a program called SpeedFan. That will give you control over your laptop's fan speed and will show you what rpm it's spinning at. You could, temporarily, and while keeping an eye on temperatures (which SpeedFan will also tell you), lower the fan speed and ascertain once and for all if it's the fan that's causing your noise problem.

Contact the clerk of the court and outline your reasons for wishing to have your jury service deferred. They'll either deny your request or grant it, in which case you'll be excused for the time being. In Scotland (i'm not sure about England) you can apply for expenses to cover childcare you wouldn't normally require in addition to traveling expenses and loss of earnings if that's applicable. Hopefully the clerk will be reasonable about it, however should you have to make childcare arrangements, one caveat to remember is the carer needs to be registered with the Childcare Commission. If they are you can claim £6/hr for each child. If they're not registered, e.g. you get a family member to do it, you can only claim £1/hr.

Hi all, I have a query relating to my overall score on Noddle. I understand that score can be all but ignored because it has no relevance to financial institutions, but still I wondered if anyone could offer any insight on why my score is what it is: 4/5. Here's an overview of my situation: I have a monthly after-tax income in excess of £2000. I have two credit cards, one with the BoS that isn't used, ever. The other is with Tesco Bank and is used infrequently for modest amounts and always paid off in full each month. I have a loan with Tesco Bank for circa £160/month. I have a mobile phone contract for circa £25/month. From my, admittedly layman's, perspective, it seems to me like I ought to represent a prime candidate for credit-worthiness, yet Noddle assess me as being only 4/5. My thoughts on why that might be are that having two credit cards means I have a large amount of credit available that I could theoretically get myself into trouble with (but never have). Do you suppose getting rid of the credit card I never use would have a positive effect?

Those more knowledgeable will correct me I'm sure, but at 105,000 miles the major mechanical components are approaching or have reached the end of their designed lifespan, it therefore seems likely the warranty company are well placed to argue any failure is age/wear related and therefore not covered, in fact by most accounts they do this anyway. My own experience, backed up by what I've read on CAG, would suggest these warranties are not worth the paper they're written on.

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable in the law so please look out for others contributing, but on the basis they haven't so far I'll point out the following: The warranty (even if it were worth the paper it was written on) has no part to play here, you bought the car less than 6 months ago therefore I understand the Sale of Goods Act applies - the car must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose - neither of which it is. I would write to the dealer now, sending recorded delivery, detailing the faults you understand to be present (include the report from your mechanic if he's given you one) and outlining how you expect the issue to be resolved. Give him a reasonable time to respond. I understand from reading previous similar threads it would be helpful to know how you paid for the car, e.g. credit card, finance etc. Personally I'd be wary of throwing accusations around at the moment with regard to the service you suspect he hasn't performed. On what basis does your mechanic make that statement? Are filters and other consumable parts visibly dirty and unchanged? My basis for saying 'be wary' is because it's often better to avoid getting the dealer's back up if you want him to respond in a helpful way. Jumping in with both feet risks having him clam up and forcing you down the legal route.

By way of a further (and hopefully final) update: I received an email from Lee this morning informing me he has arranged for our account to be cancelled and any outstanding charges (charges made after we cancelled our Direct Debit) to be credited. So, I hope that is an end to the matter. Thank you for the advice and also to Lee for resolving the situation.

Hi all, I thought it may be useful to provide an update on how things are progressing here. The issue was picked up by Lee. He and I spoke on the phone and hit the same data protection issues I had with the Vodafone call centre, namely, none of the information available to me passed data protection so the status quo remained. It was later decided the only way to resolve the issue was to provide Vodafone with our previous employees personal details such that Lee could make contact with him and obtain the necessary authorisation to cancel. Fortunately our former employee was accepting of his mobile phone number and address being given to Vodafone and so Lee was able to make contact with him on Wednesday 4th February (I know that because our former employee contacted me to tell me). I'm currently waiting on Lee following this up with me.

I have no knowledge of the legalities of your situation, but as a mere observer I find the part of your post where you say "The installers are now saying that there was no provision for a cooker in the first place" quite ambiguous and leads me to ask the following question, the answer to which might aid those who do have the knowledge to assist you. You seem to be taking the existence of pipework in your kitchen as evidence of there being provision for a cooker, but do you know what the installer is actually arguing? Does he deny the pipework existed at all, or does he accept that it did, but denies it was connected to a supply and therefore didn't see the point of replacing it? I also wonder if there remains physical evidence of the pipework in your kitchen? For example, the wall mount brackets or at least the holes left behind after their removal, either of which would enhance your argument.