Jump to content

Manxman in exile

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Manxman in exile

  1. I've been away for a few days. Has this thread been altered ex post? Something seems to be missing... And why hasn't the OP returned?
  2. What makes you think that is the reason? Is that what your MP has told you? If so, ask him again! As unclebulgaria has said, it'll be Stan Laurel Keir Starmer who'll know the answer... EDIT: If you are a Labour voter there's nothing to stop Keir Starmer supporting it himself...
  3. I think Margaret Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition when she put forward an EDM censuring JimCallaghan's govt in March 1979, and all those who signed it were on the Opposition front bench, weren't they? "22 March 1979 – A Motion put down by Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher, the then Leader of the Opposition, censuring the Government. When this Motion was debated on 28 March, it was agreed to, leading to a General Election. 351 NO CONFIDENCE IN HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT Mrs Margaret Thatcher Mr William Whitelaw Sir Keith Joseph Sir Geoffrey Howe Mr James Prior Mr Francis Pym That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" Example 3 from Appendix C of this: p03.pdf (parliament.uk) Whether that would still be the case I do not know. Why do you ask?
  4. Yay - Sophie McKinna! And Gt Yarmouth is my nearest seaside town. It's a great pity she didn't get through qualifying into the final but I think it's just too difficult. I was hoping she'd make it to the last 12 but it wasn't to be. Even so she's had a tremendously impressive couple of years. The problem is that the athletic throwing events are not popular in this country and even less so for women. I think girls who want to throw weights (or lift them for that matter) are considered a bit odd. It's a great pity and very unfair. As you say, she had to crowd fund to support herself. I've got nothing against track cycling or rowing (in fact I'm an avid fan of both those sports) but if the relative failure of rowing at this Olympics makes UK sport reconsider how they fund different sports, it'll be a good thing. If you only fund sports where you are successful - which is what we do - we'll never improve in the ones that we need to improve in. Maybe weightlifting will get some money now... Good luck to Sophie for future games - I hope she keeps going!
  5. Well - this afternoon at the Olympics I saw what must be one of the most surprising and astonishing feats by a British sportswoman that I've ever seen. Emily Campbell won a weightlifting silver medal in the Women's +87kg category. She is the first British woman ever to do so. And the last British male to win a weightlifting medal was David Mercer and that was in 1984 (37 years ago) at the LA games. It may not mean much to people who don't know a lot about weightlifting, but it's an almost unbelievable feat. Unlike GB rowing (which gets about £20+ million funding per annum with virtually nothing to show for it this time round) and GB cycling, I don't think GB weightlifting gets any central funding. She's 27 years old and only started lifting 5 years ago. WELL DONE EMILY CAMPBELL!
  6. Wait and see what they offer you then. As I said above, if they have made a mistake it is possible that they might decide not to proceed out of embarrassment, even if the error is not such as to disadvantage you. They did in SpeedyCBR1100's case. You might get lucky too.
  7. You can point it out but I wouldn't expect it to achieve anything unless the error is so gross that they decide to drop it out of embarrassment. I think the general rule is that this sort of error only helps you if you are put at a disadvantage as a result of it. But as you say: You seem to know exactly what has happened and have not been disadvantaged. So I think you are stuck - but see if anybody else has any better ideas. And it doesn't help you if they were "hiding". Make sure you return your nomination in time. (Just to check - if you are the Registered Keeper, was it served within 14 days?)
  8. CRIPES! I could just about understand a 140mph nineteen year-old on a 'bike, but in a car! Wow... Taking as a given that your son will not be able to drive for a long time, his biggest problem is going to be finding affordable insurance once he gets his licence back. I'm not sure if prospective insurers would know the speed he was being prosecuted for, but at twice the legal limit I wouldn't be surprised if insurance was virtually unobtainable except at extremely exorbitant premiums. (Even more so if he has an expensive or extremely fast car - which I presume it is for a teenager to be caught doing 140mph). He may have to be very careful in future to avoid the temptation to drive without insurance. Not saying he would, but people do do that... Also - and I appreciate that this may come across as judgmental but it's said with the best intention - what does this mean? Personally I would find that the most concerning aspect (and I think I wouldn't broadcast the fact). He has only been charged with speeding - yes? Sorry - but he sounds like he needs a rocket up the proverbial. Yeah! I didn't think the parental advice was particularly sound either!
  9. OK - thanks So what was the outcome with the iPhone attachment and the thermal camera? Are these still outstanding refund claims or have they been resolved?
  10. I don't wish to derail this thread but I am totally confused and I'm seriously concerned that everybody is talking at cross-purposes to one another and that nobody is (quite literally!) on the same page. This particular thread started off in June last year and seemed to be about the return to Amazon of a drinks bottle and an iPhone attachment that both went astray. It then deteriorated into a discussion about how to get an SAR out of Amazon, and then went quiet for a long time. The OP then started a separate thread which appeared to be about the return to Amazon of something entirely different - a drone - that also went missing. After some further discussion the OP agreed to have the two threads merged. (#95?) So is this thread about a water bottle, an iPhone attchment and a drone, or just about a drone? If it's just the drone, what happened to the missing iPhone attachment that was worth over £300? I only started reading this thread (admittedly a couple of months ago) because I had a weird sense of deja vu about it. That was because it was strangely similar to another thread from the OP (to which I had contributed) concerning the return of a thermal camera and an iPhone attachment to Amazon. But apparently Amazon had only received one of the items (not clear which) plus a drinks bottle which the OP initially denied returning but subsequently agreed that they had. (Or at least I think that is what happened, I note that this thread seems to have started off with an intentionally returned drinks bottle!). In that thread I think(?) it was concluded that the OP had mixed up two returns labels and had mistakenly returned the water bottle instead of either the thermal camera or the iPhone attachment, but the thread never came to a conclusion. In this thread, of course, the OP seems to have intentionally returned a water bottle, but it's not clear to me if a water bottle is still an issue in this thread or whether this thread is just about a drone. (See why I'm confused?). Perhaps that thread needs to be combined with this one? There is also a third and very short "orphan" thread about returning items to Amazon. I don't know if that should be part of this thread or not... There's also a fourth separate thread about Amazon closing the OP's account - presumably because of the amount of returns the OP makes if the Amazon defence posted above is anything to go by. To cut to the chase, what is concening me (because I honestly cannot follow what has happened here and I don't see how a court would) is that the OP is putting themselves at a massive disadvantage against Amazon because there is so much confusion about what the OP has said has happened. At least that is how it seems to me. It also worries me that looking at the defence from Amazon, they seem to have a pretty comprehensive and clear understanding of all that has happened. I'm afraid their version of events makes more sense to me than the OP's. If the OP is discontinuing this claim and is starting again from scratch, perhaps they need to make sure they've got all their ducks in a row from the start? (And apologies to the OP - I'm not seeking to be personally critical - I just think it needs to be clearer what you are claiming for in order to get the best advice from the forum. The story is just far too muddled for me to follow...)
  11. Well in those circumstances I would argue that it is no longer possible for the solicitor to provide the contracted service and I would have thought the agreement was frustrated. In which case I would have thought you should be able to get a refund from them. If you are unable to provide the evidence they are asking for, have you discussed it with them? (It may well be that providing them with the date that they did your will and with your address at the time is not sufficient for them to trace either your payment or what it was for. It may seem unlikely but it may be entirely possible. Do you not have any other official documentation from them accompanying your will or referring to what any payment was for that would assist them in tracing it? Not even a receipt or an invoice from them?)
  12. My apologies and condolences. That was very crass of me not knowing the circumstances.
  13. Not being funny, but is that your solicitor's fault? Have they actually refused to draft your wife's will when she asked them to do so, or is it she who has refused (I presume) your request to make a will? If you pay someone in advance to draft a will for a third party, you can't really blame them if the third party refuses to comply by not asking them to do so. So long as the solicitors continue to provide a will writing service to your wife but she refuses to comply, you have no complaint against the solicitors. They can provide the service you have requested - not their fault if your wife refuses to use that service! I have to ask - who would purchase a will writing service on behalf of a third party without the third party's agreement that they would comply? [Apologies if the above might offend people who hold certain cultural, social or religious beliefs - but we live in 21st century UK]
  14. Is there any particular reason why you took your 12 year old Kuga to a Ford dealership when you say you have a mechanic of your own? What was the problem your usual mechanic could not deal with?
  15. Are you saying that the fault that the dealer spent four years failing to identify - let alone fix - was something that they were "covering up" all along? And was something as simple as a fault in the rear brake calipers? How (and why) have they admitted this? Why were they covering it up? Have they offered anything in compensation - like fixing it for free and a payment in recognition of the unacceptable delay etc? Have you actually taken any steps to sue them yet? If they have now admitted their error I'd have thought they would prefer to reach a settlement that was acceptable to you rather than have you take them to court and win! It'll be cheaper for them so you might get a better deal out of them...
  16. Do you mean you appealed against the charges to the London Parking (etc) Tribunals, and the Adjudicator rejected your appeals? Doesn't the notification you received about the Tribunal decision tell you what options - if any - you have left? I thought the only steps you had left were either to ask for the decision to be reviewed by a senior adjudicator or you could ask for a (very expensive) judicial review by a judge. I think if the Tribunal found against you then you may be stuck. What does the paperwork you received actually tell you? That is the key. London Tribunals | WWW.LONDONTRIBUNALS.GOV.UK
  17. I think the answer to this question is "Yes - it is legal", just like some online sellers not delivering to places like the Isle of Man or the more far flung parts of the Scottish Highlands - and islands - is legal. The problem is that I don't think being resident in Northern Ireland (or the Isle of Man or Highlands of Scotland) is a protected characteristic.
  18. Did you do a chargeback rather than the s75 claim Kyosanto suggested on the original thread? The way I understand it (and I may be mistaken) with a chargeback the money is actually taken from Ryanair by your bank and returned to you. But with a s75 claim your bank is basically funding your repayment themselves, not Ryanair. If your bank did it by way of chargeback then Ryanair will probably consider that you still owe them the money that your bank took back from them, irrespective of whether they challenged the chargeback or not. This is a major flaw in the chargeback procedure and one of the reasons* it's always better to make s75 claim if you paid by credit card and if you satisfy the other s75 conditions (or just sue the supplier). Obviously - if what I say above is correct - banks have a vested interest in doing chargebacks rather than s75 claims. If you asked your bank to do a s75 claim but they chose to do a chargeback - I think however your current problem is sorted out, you should complain to your bank... *I have read that people who have have successfully made a chargeback claim are then pursued through the courts by disgruntled suppliers who believe they are still owed money. Whether this is true or not I do not know, but it cannot happen with s75 which is a stautory right. Chargeback, of course, is not a statutory right - it's just a generous service provided by banks out of the goodness of their hearts... [Sorry I can't suggest anything useful but it might help you understand how this may have happened.]
  19. I think Stormy has got confused. She's defending the claim. It's her former solicitors who are claiming against her for breach of contract. (I think she unilaterally discontinued a NWNF agreement with them, and they are trying to recover costs and expenses for work they had done - if I recall correctly - I can't remember exactly).
  20. Right. So I was mistaken, and that confirmation that the Aviva call handler referred your brother's application to a supervisor or manager comes to you via the ombudsman from Aviva's contemporaneous notes, but the info that the call handler did not need to do that came direct to you from Stephen Stuart (who I assume is an Aviva employee)? Sorry - just trying to ensure it is clear what info came from whom.
  21. Maybe I've missed it - and apologies if I have - but that "valuable piece of information" isn't in any way connected to anything from the ombudsman, is it? I thought that information had come directly to the OP from somebody at Aviva who telephoned her and said that the call handler to whom her brother originally spoke had never needed to refer the call to a supervisor/manager for approval in the first place? Unless Aviva recorded it I'm sure it's deniable...
  22. Yeah - but that one looked a bit difficult... So... one more to beat Mercx's stage wins record. Eight stages to go and a win on the Champs d'Elysee? If he can get through the Pyrenees...
  23. Depends. We have a path/alley at the back of our terraced house that gives access to the back garden. If there were a fire in our property and we could not get out the front door, our only escape route off the property is to the rear down that path/alley. I don't think it matters if the fire service can access or not.
  24. That's OK - we'll accept British! (I went to school with his dad you know... )
  25. The point of my suggestion above is that you are not asking the FOS to review the decision or re-investigate or anything like that. You are simply asking for confirmation that you have correctly understood the FOS decision. I can see no objection from the FOS in you asking for that confirmation as a layman. Hopefully, if somebody actually reads your account it might raise a question mark in somebody's head about the decision they (appear) to have made. Or, they might come back to you and explain why you have misunderstood. Good luck!
×
×
  • Create New...