Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andy111

  1. Then what's to stop them referring to an original booking to debit a second time (as in this case) after already having accepted the cancellation due to the refund and using that booking to dispute (assuming they have) the charge back?. Surely after the refund on the original booking that contract & agreement is ended and can't be used to debit a second time can it?.
  2. having spoke to my mum over the weekend she said that the original transaction (despite having gone via booking.com) was marked as the hotel (website name at least) as was the original refund. Now here is the thing, the hotel by refunding the money in the first place I would feel would have accepted the cancellation request as was made. is the contract then deemed cancelled and ended by default?. - As otherwise what's to stop any company from refunding a cancelled booking or service, refunding the monies and then re-taking the monies again and referring to the original
  3. I'm going to have to ask my mum to look into this aspect. I'd assume the transaction should say booking.com seeing as it was booked through them and payment went to them. Well, unless the transaction also stated the hotel by their website (as the email from the bank mentions the hotel by its direct website than name), if so its a bit of a long winded entry on the system I'd have thought and are not such transaction entry names kept short?.
  4. I've asked my mum to phone booking.com to ask if they are aware of the charge back from the hotel after they cancelled it. But would the contract not be with booking.com than the original hotel?. And no, the rebooked hotel was not the same or part of a chain.
  5. That does sound a reasonable guess on the face of it. But the received email appears somewhat unclear in just what its saying and offering in way of any form of explanation. It refers to "time constraints" & "retailer" which I assume should be booking.com & not the hotel itself?. Nowhere in the email does it directly say or suggest the charge back was appealed as such except for saying it would only be upheld if its shown the retailer is in breach of contract and as this could not be shown they reversed the charge back. But surely the "contract" was the ori
  6. OK, a little more clarity on the situation having spoken to my mum this morning. She cancelled the original booking (due to wrong dates) with booking.com and as said the money went from pending back into available funds. Then at some point late October her account was debited again for what I assume was the original amount. She disputed this with the bank as she had cancelled and already received the refund to back this up. the bank did a charge back. Then having heard nothing they reversed the payment yesterday and she received the email I posted above.
  7. I'd have thought pretty much the same. Having spoke to my mum last night she did say that she contacted booking.com and that they said they would cancel the booking, with not having heard back from them she, as said, seen the money for the original booking going from pending back into her bank account and only now has it been took again. What's confused things further is the email she received that she forwarded on to me which I can post here: " About your dispute We have no direct contact with individual retailers, although in some instances, investigations
  8. I'm asking about this for my mum. They booked a break through booking.com for this last October, only they got the dates wrong and tried to cancel and re-book. The rebooking was made and payment for that taken. Only when trying to cancel the original booking it was suggested (assumingly by booking.com) they cancel via the hotel directly yet the number provided was a fax machine number and no alternative number was provided. My mum called booking.com who said they would try to call and cancel for her. She heard nothing back but the money for the original booking
  9. As I recall at the time, we used the debit card only to subscribe to Xbox live, though could be wrong. I know since bought no paid games as such were directly bought from the card via the Xbox itself. I guess I'll have to find the original t&c's on the Xbox to see exactly what it says we signed up for and agreed to.
  10. Thanks for the reply dx100uk, trying not to split hairs, surely I can verbally withdraw consent for any such usage of a debit card at any point which I thought I did when requesting the replacement?. The bank has indicated the only reason the transactions were authorised despite being a replaced card was because as you say a continuous payment arrangement. surely this would only apply to individual products or services (games & services like Xbox live) that required an initial payment to receive such services in the first place. In the
  11. Hi, the bank is TSB and they are being of little use in clarifying if these payments should have gone through or not seeing at the card was replaced and them not being continuous payments and simply referring me to Microsoft to dispute and request a refund.
  12. Sorry if this is in the wrong section as not sure where exactly its best suited. We got the bank statement the other day & noticed 23 separate Xbox in game credit debits for Fortnite for £7.99 each over a 4 week period. daughter insists she didn't order anything. most will say "of course she would and just denying it etc" I'm not going to say I believe her even though I'm assuming using real cash to buy in game credit comes with a clear notification that your using real money (and stating the amount each time) to buy such in game credit. I still need to chec
  13. Once again thanks Andyorch, your breakdown makes their letter and claim rather laughable the way you put it to basics. Though they are fully aware of the court order re payments as it was all mentioned and brought to their attention the last time (when they first bought the debt) they tried to suggest a payment plan needed to be negotiated as there wasn't 1 in place. It was pointed out payments are subject to and set via the courts & order. I guess this latest round of futile action is as a result of not taking up their early discount offer and the realisation of h
  14. Ah, I get you Andyorch, so replying as you say aught to be the end of it unless they start refusing payment. Just funny timing after there early settlement offer expired from a few months ago. Still, its a debt they bought that by the court order would take a considerable number of years to settle, think decades than years. So plenty of fun to come over the years and no doubt will be sold on a number of times again.
  15. Thanks Andyorch will do first thing tomorrow, though difficult to know how to deal with this issue without knowing the nature of the what the "issue" is that they felt is worthy to cancel it. I made a payment a week ago at the post office without issue (though late but brings things up to date. I could try another payment this week to see if that gets accepted?. If it does then they are still accepting payment of sorts whilst I enquire on the issue. But out of interest can they legally just cancel the repayment plan without applying to the courts?.
  16. Well more development & turn from Intrum. Having heard from Intrum back in June offering up to a 70% reduction (off the outstanding monies due) if I paid it by the end of July, reducing to a lower discount for the next 3 months were I to settle early etc. Well of cause I never took them up on the offer as never had the funds and said offer now expired. Now this morning I receive the following letter saying "Our records indicate there is an issue with the repayment plan, which as resulted in your plan being cancelled". With the invitation to call contact them in the next 10 da
  17. As I recall at the time of sign up (90% certain) it was a single multi service offer (which also included the pre paid credit card) covered by a single price & single contract. At no point did we ever sign for just broadband and phone line and then add the TV as an extra service during sign up. 6 months in (June 2018) the usual price rise notification and confirmation we could quit our entire contract penalty free due to said price rise period. We called, BT reduced the cost by £0.50 in return for resetting the minimum term, all content and conditions remained the same. This
  18. Hmm, BT look to to indicating the broadband and phone line is the main contracted service and the TV package is more an add-on!. Well that's the feeling I'm getting from there response, and thus altering the price of the add-on does not affect the main core contract. Though they still insist that each service is covered by an individual agreement. Even if this was the case, begs the question why are providers only trying this trick now when previously its been a 100% service right to walk penalty free, and what happens to the remaining elements (broadband & phone line) that
  19. Nope, they are all as bad as each other trying to give false information & impressions when they want to rise prices. Though the small print of the email states "separate contracts apply". Think I aught to ask BT for those 3 separate contracts & bills then lol.
  20. That's what I thought, but the wording of the email and from what's been mentioned in an article in an email from money saving expert, is suggesting because BT is only increasing the TV element of the 3 element package (which is within a single contract) this time that BT can still keep customers tied to the other 2 elements (broadband & phone line) as the prices for those have not been touched. Meaning they would let's customers cancel the TV part penalty free but not the rest. Surely this can be right, because said a single contract for all 3.
  21. Surprised this has not been directly addressed any were that I can see (except merely mentioned in an article elsewhere) but is BT (and assumingly other providers now) trying to circumnavigate what has previously been a right to walk away from mid contract services when they rise prices?. Because I had the email a couple of days ago telling me about a £4 price rise for the TV part of our package (TV, broadband & phone line). Great I thought, the right to walk away from contract penalty free or negotiate a better deal. The email even mentions about being able to leave penalt
  22. So, I get a reply of sorts off Intrum this week and I'm still non the wiser and had nothing directly clarified on my points and questions asked at all. As they say they have completed a review of the account and can see the (correctly stated payment amount) payments have been paid directly to Ind on a monthly basis and even thanked me for continuing to make payments. They also say they have now setup the repayment plan on their systems and to prevent any unnecessary letters from them to pay Intrum directly from now on instead of Ind. I've included the letter here for
  23. I just get the impression & feeling they will, like ind, try foul play to try and impose a default of sorts on this. As said, they look to have totally ignored my letter to them instead inviting me to make a payment arrangement with them for a second time citing it would reduce the risk of judgement. For clarification, seeing as I've not heard anything from ind regarding this sale, where do I stand legally regarding payments?. These are still going to and being accepted by ind at the post office, so legally Intrum can't ever accuse me of
  24. I got a reply from Intrum today, and looks like they are choosing to ignore my previous letter asking for some form of evidence of ownership or management of this debt from them and IND seeing as they claim to have acquired IND. I also pointed out to Intrum that this is a matter that has been before the courts and a payment plan has been set by the courts and has been kept to. Their reply is shorter saying about being aware that IND have been working with me in relation to the matter (though not heard from IND since they agreed to the court set payment plan 2017). And
  25. letters went off last week pretty much questioning clarification from them stating as this is a debt that's been before the court and an order to pay IND themselves that I can't and won't stop payments to IND and instead pay this Intrum company unless I get something from IND themselves or clarification to confirm the arrangement they have with Intrum as I've had nothing from IND. But also made it clear I've continued to comply with the court arrangement and paid in the usual method as per IND offer for which has been accepted. But in reading over the
  • Create New...