Why don't you ask the solicitor whom you found so helpful back in 2017? (You remember. The one who asked you to take your shirt off so she could take photos of you. And called you a cuddly bear...)

Were you seriously suggesting that if the claimant hadn't "kept the cat under control" that the claimant could be contributorily negligent? I'm not aware that the law requires cats to be under control. But I think dogs are meant to be under control?

I hadn't said that the level of insurance cover was relevant. I was confused that you had responded to my earlier post with a "Sad Face" . I had only asked the OP for confirmation of what service they had bought. I wouldn't disagree with you. But can you point out where the OP has said that they did declare the value of the package to be £375? (I certainly would have done if I had been sending it, but the OP has not said that they did. I would prefer to go by what the OP has actually said rather than make assumptions about what they haven't said... )

Wouldn't it only be irrelevant if (1) the OP had accurately declared the value* of the laptop to Royal Mail when posting it, and if (2) he hadn't used just standard 1st class post? Standard 1st class isn't intended for the carriage of "valuable" items as the maximum compensation is £20. RM's T&Cs make this clear and suggest that "valuable" items should instead be sent Special Delivery Guaranteed. While I'm all in favour of carriers being held to account when they don't provide their services with reasonable care and skill, I also think it's a two way street and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If RM specifically states that 1st class post is not appropriate for high value items and that Special Delivery Guaranteed should be used instead, I'm not sure that RM should be held responsible if consumers make a deliberate choice not to follow RM's advice and instead decide to use 1st class rather than Special Delivery Guaranteed. Also, to allow purchasers of 1st class post to get compensation beyond that which they are entitled to under the T&Cs only rewards freeloading behaviour and means that people like the OP benefit unfairly from being subsidised by those other consumers who do "play by the rules". In the long term encouraging that sort of behaviour is to the disadvantage and detriment of consumers as a whole, and not in the interests of anyone. *It's not clear from what the OP has said if he did or not. He may have done so but he hasn't said. If I were the OP and I had done so, I would certainly have mentioned it in my post, so I suspect he didn't. If he was asked at the PO counter what the value was and he correctly declared it, it would be interesting to know how that conversation continued...

So you just used ordinary first class post and not tracked or special delivery guaranteed? I don't think ordinary first class gives you an option to increase cover above the standard £20...

What country's law has jurisdiction over this ticket purchase? Chile? Spain? England and Wales?

Hi @Stay calm. Drink Tea. - I don't have any expertise in the area of insurance law but I'm afraid that I (and I believe @unclebulgaria67 ) think that what you say above is correct. Whether that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the law, I simply don't know. It's a pity nobody else seems to want to contribute, but I think you should wait to see what other posters suggest before committing to any particular course of action. As @BankFodder said, don't be in a hurry to sign anything or accept any settlement. However, I do think that if I were you I'd check the terms and conditions of both my insurance policy and the taxi hire agreement (if you have one) to check what happens if your insurer/hire firm can't recover the hire fees from the third party. Have you actually asked your insurer what would happen in that case? As I say, see what help others can contribute

@BankFodder - have you read the case? I read it before I replied yesterday because I also thought that what the third party insurers were saying must be wrong. But having read it, I can see why they would want to try and rely on it and that's why I asked the OP if the taxi was solely used for business purposes and also pointed out that he might have been better off buying insurance cover for loss of income rather than for a replacement vehicle. My take on that case is that where the vehicle in question is a taxi used for trade, the third party is usually only liable to pay for loss of profit and not for the hire of a replacement vehicle. And I suppose if you think about it, that makes sense. If the taxi is only used for business then the owner's only quantifiable loss is loss of profit. An exception to that general rule might be where the vehicle is also used for non-business purposes (as here) but that doesn't seem to be so clearcut since a subsequent case developed that argument. (See link below) Another exception might be where the taxi owner's finances are such that he simply can't afford not to work, and is entitled to a hire vehicle and not just loss of profit. But even that doesn't seem straightforward and courts seem to have looked in detail at financial standing This analysis explains the situation better than I can: Assessment of damages in taxi credit hire cases - building on Hussain v EUI - Lexology If this accurately reflects the true position of the law (and I don't know if it does or not) then I can understand why the third party insurers think it relevant. If their view is correct and the OP's insurance company is not entitled to claim the hire charges back from the third party, I suppose it comes back to what the OP's policy says about hire charges incurred by the insurer, but which are irrecoverable from the third party. I think it used to be the case that insurers could try to recover the charges from their insured, but I'm not sure if that still holds.

Proceed with what? If it's in the hands of Direct Line - which I presume is your insurance company - and they are dealing with it, why would you feel the need to leave a note on the car or to interfere in any other way? Leave it to your insurer. That's what you pay them for. All you need to do is to cooperate with them.

If goods fail within the first 6 months of delivery the fault (or whatever it is) is deemed to have been present at the time of sale unless the seller can establish otherwise. If the seller cannot do so they must either replace or repair. They only have one opportunity to replace or repair. If the fault remains you can reject the goods for a full refund. (But if after 6 months, the seller can deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item) See sections 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) So can the seller establish that the "fault" has been caused by your misuse or handling of the machine, and that it was not present at sale?

This might seem a stupid question, but can you confirm how you used your "hackney plated vehicle" that was written off? Was it used solely for hire in plying your trade, or was it also used for personal use as a family car/or runaround/or for non-business social, domestic and pleasure use? Did you have another vehicle available to you for family or other non-business use? ) With hindsight, if the hackney was only used for trade, you might have been better off with insurance that provided cover for loss of income or profit rather than providing a replacement vehicle. (Of course such cover might not be available as I suspect insurance companies make much more money by providing cedit hire vehicles rather than covering lost income or profit...

@hemz 1. If you only renewed your parking permit after you got a PCN then of course the PCN still stands. If your old permit had expired before the PCN was issued then the PCN is valid. But if you have evidence that you had renewed the permit before the PCN was issued, you might have a case. 2. As per dx100uk you are confusing the issue by apparently talking about both the council and a separate(?) parking corporation. Is this (a) a council parking permit and a council PCN issued by a separate company on behalf of the council, or (b) a private parking permit and ticket and nothing whatsoever to do with the council? What council or parking company is it?

But that has happened to me on more then one occasion when the amount of cabin baggage has exceeded the space available for it. What should happen is that the ground crew explain what they're doing and give the passenger an opportunity to retrieve anything they need during the flight. If they don't do that tha passenger needs to be assertive and clearly say "Wait! I need to get something out of the bag" and not stay silent. @SueRyanAir - as everyone else has said you have no grounds for a claim against Ryanair on the basis of negligence or distress or for you worrying that something might happen that didn't actually happen. The courts are generally only interested in things that did happen, not things that could have happened but didn't. This sort of "less than ideal" situation happens all the time and if its going to cause you such distress and anxiety you ought perhaps to reconsider whether you should be flying at all

Can somebody explain to me why GDPR prevents the OP from knowing the vehicle registration number, but permits his insurer to know it? Why is the OP's insurance company in a more privileged position vis a vis GDPR then he is himself? Surely the insurance company is simply representing their customer and have no better legal standing than he does. Or is the correct position that the police, the CCTV company and even the ICO (according to what the OP tells us) are all wrong? I find it a rather bizarre notion that if this damage had occurred in front of an eye-witness there would be nothing to prevent them passing the vehicle reg no. on to the OP, but because it has only been captured on CCTV it's not allowed. Even stranger when you consider most reg nos. are on public display 24/7.

But who is it addressed to? Or is it just The Occupier? Insurers are not in the habit of paying out on false claims. If the driver can't prove on the balance of probabilties that your dog bit him, I doubt they would pay out. If you don't want to involve insurance you'll have the hassle of dealing with the claim yourself. (If this happened at your parents' house I don't know if your own home or pet insurance would cover it. Does your pet insurance cover biting third parties?)

@Halfwaythere - just to clarify, when Ethel Street refers to "your insurers" I think she means whoever insures your house and its contents (assuming you have such cover). If you have separate contents and buildings cover it will be whichever one provides cover for occupier's liability (or it might be called something like your legal liability for injury to third parties arising from your ownership or occupation of the property). If you do have separate cover for contents and buildings it will probably be your buildings policy. Of course it might be confused somewhat by it being your dog but your parents' house. Who is the letter addressed to?

Is the seller a business or a private individual?

1. Too late to do anything about the parking ticket if you've paid it. 2. Regarding the watch, first thing I'd do is get your deposit back. Presuming the seller won't pay it back voluntarily you need to try a chargeback with your card provider, but be aware that the seller will almost certainly challenge the chargeback. If they do, it's up to you if you think it's worth suing them for £30. Second, have you withdrawn your ill-considered offer to pay them one third of the purchase price? If you actually offered to pay that I think I'd withdraw it before they charge your card with another £60 (or £90). If you are confident that you can demonstrate (in court if necessary) that you could never have taken physical possession of the watch because you can prove you were elsewhere at the time it was supposedly delivered, then just ignore the seller asking for payment. You only need to take notice and take prompt action if they issue a court claim against you. BankFodder and dx100 probably won't agree with this, but I'd also let the seller know now that if they do decide to take further action against you to recover the money they claim you owe them, that you are confident you can provide proof that would satisfy a court that you could never have taken delivery of the watch and could never have had it in your physical possession. I say that because I presume you would prefer to encourage them to stop bothering you sooner rather than later, and you certainly want to avoid the unwanted hassle of being sued...

Why on earth would you offer to pay them £90 for nothing? Rather than making you look conscientious it makes you look like you have something to hide. As @BankFodder and @dx100uk have said, what you ought to be doing is taking action to recover your deposit from them, not offering them more money. Personally I'd let them know upfront that you have more than ample evidence to prove that you were nnn miles away when you allegedly took delivery of the watch, and that if they attempt any action to recover the money that they allege you owe them, you will defend it vigorously. I don't see the point in trying to hold that back. It can't advantage them to know you can prove you weren't there when the watch was supposedly delivered. I'd also point out to them that as the watch wasn't my property and as they have acknowledged that they sent it to me in error, then it's their responsibility to report it to the police and not mine.

I think you should keep your fingers crossed that Robert Dyas don't come back to you wanting the return of their equipment or fair value for it.

OK. So can you clarify what you mean by Who owns goods that have been subject to a successful chargeback? The seller or the consumer?

My understanding of a chargeback is that the money paid by the consumer to the seller is recovered from the seller and returned to the consumer. That suggests to me that ownership of the goods would revert back to the seller, and the consumer is left in the position of being an involuntary bailee of the seller's property. Are you suggesting that the consumer can dispose of the seller's property in any way they like (eg scrap it) and they wouldn't be accountable to the seller for its reasonable market value? I don't think this has anything to do with the chargeback process or how banks decide disputes, it's a legal question about who owns goods that have been subject to a chargeback. I don't think any agreement with or between Mastercard and Visa overrides the law of the land. Like @dx100uk at #12, I'm thinking your advice might be mistaken... I think I'd advise @Salford lass to see what others think about this before disposing of the gym.

Are you 100% certain of that?!?!?! I don't believe the OP can just dispose of it - he can't just send it to the "scrappers", which I think he wants to do(?). If he wants to "dispose" of it he will need to sell it, and to do so he will have to give appropriate notice to Robert Dyas of his intention to do so, as prescribed in the relevant legislation. He will also have to adopt the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and pay the proceeds (less any costs of sale) over to Robert Dyas. He can't just sell it at "mate's rates" - it has to be a fair price in the circumstances. I suspect that might not be strightforward. See s12 "Bailee's power of sale" here: Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (legislation.gov.uk What the OP needs to do is get Robert Dyas to collect it pronto. Whether threatening to charge them storage would (1) speed them up or (2) be enforceable, I don't know...

Sorry if I've missed it but have you answered @BankFodder's question at #12? If you paid by credit card you might have s75 claim if each item cost over £100. (You say total cost was around £100?) So far as I'm aware s75 applies to purchases from abroad just as it does the UK. If you paid by debit card you may have a chargeback claim. If either of those two applies, that would be my first resort. If you paid by some other method I'd go back to them and say you don't have a passport or a driving licence, but you can provide a copy of a utility bill (as suggested by @Andyorch in #4). Personally I'd only try issuing a court claim against DHL under the rights of third parties legislation as a last resort. I'd have thought it was the one most likely to involve the most hassle and effort on your part...

@dx100uk - So the answer to my question is...?