Thanks. OK. In that case it's even more odd that they are pursuing this.

I don't do Faceache, but regarding my earlier question, was your s172 response (a) unequivocal in naming the driver (eg you didn't say something like "I think it was probably my wife") and (b) you did actually sign it? (I ask because in earlier posts you seemed to be demonstrating what might come across to some people as a bit of an unco-operative attitude to the process, so it would be good to know you have complied fully with the request).

Thanks for letting us know the outcome. Just FYI, if we assume that you had* informed Currys that you were exercising your "change of mind"/cancellation rights under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Information) Regulatios 2013, then your next step would have been to provide evidence that you had returned the item to them and they would have to refund you within 14 days of providing that proof. And when exercising a "change of mind" cancellation, you might be able to open the box and "try it out", but if you're trying it out exceeds "...what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop" then the retailer can reduce the refund to reflect any dimunition in value from you "trying it out". (Section 34 (9) and (12) of the aforementioned Regulations.) *And it reads like you probably did - but always best to make sure. However, if you have tried it out and you are concerned that you may have "diminished its value", then it would be best to exercise the short term right to reject under the 2015 Act and be certain of getting a full refund

@Man in the middle - going back to your comments in #20, if the OP returned an unequivocal and signed s172 response but the police don't believe it, can they really charge him for failing to respond rather than for committing perjury or attempting to PCOJ? I don't see how they could make what looks like such a fundamental error... ?

I think follow the advice given by @Man in the middle at #27. In the meantime, would it be possible for you to post up suitably redacted images in PDF format (not just transcriptions) of these three letters from the police? I'm interested to see what they actually tell you and how they express it. Just one final though important question - and apologies if you've covered it previously and I've overlooked it - but was the original s172 response you returned to the police (a) 100% unequivocal in identifying the driver, and (b) did you sign it?

Is the application of the law to the OP's situation necessarily as straightforward as you suggest though? Yes, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regs 2013 allows a consumer to cancel or to withdraw from a "distance sale" within 14 days of receipt of the goods, and if the consumer does so then the trader generally has to refund within 14 days, either of receiving the goods back or of receiving evidence from the consumer that the goods have been sent back - s34 of the regs. But if the consumer wants to exercise this right, they must clearly tell the trader that they are in fact cancelling or withdrawing, and not just returning the goods for a refund because they are faulty or otherwise don't conform to contract - s32. However, if the consumer is exercising their right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - because the goods are unsatisfactory in some way - then the Act does say that the trader should refund without "undue delay", but it also qualifies that "undue delay" by also saying "and in any event within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees [my bold] that the consumer is entitled to a refund." - s20(15) So without knowing whether the OP clearly told Currys that he was cancelling the contract as a distance sale rather than just returning the item for a refund because it was damaged (or whatever), it might just be possible that Currys are legitimately delaying payment of a refund until 14 days after they have agreed to make one? Of course that wouldn't stop me badgering Currys to pay up now, and the OP shouldn't let it stop them either. But the OP might want to bear in mind that it might not be as clear cut as it appears. And if they try a s75 claim, their card provider might take the same point of view. (And yes - the outcome is bonkers. Blame the law makers... ) The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations implement most provisions of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on... Consumer Rights Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

Apologies for piecemeal posting but just thought of something else. First you need to ascertain what has actually happened. Speak to the council officer again and to your own local councillor. As unclebulgaria noted in #3, the council may have a stautory power/duty to carry out road safety works - although you should be compensated if that is the case and they should leave your property as they found it and reinstate any damage to your property. (And it still might be worth running past your solicitor as well regarding this). If it's clear the council have exceeded their powers and/or or have damaged your property and refuse to compensate you, then make a formal complaint. If not resolved to your satisfaction, take it to the Local Government Ombudsman. If that does not satisfy you, take them to court. But first you need to ascertain exactly what has happened and whether the council has done something they are empowered to do, or have exceeded those powers.

(Too late to edit previous post) Presumably you weren't able to challenge the contractor when they started the work?

If you only bought the property within the last 12 months I think I'd be inclined to have a word with your solicitor who did the conveyancing and ask their advice. If the local council had approached the previous owner for permission to use their land for something, I would have thought that that might be something that you would expect to have been disclosed in pre-contract enquiries. All you seem to have at the moment is village gossip and rumour. You need to find out the true position. And contact your local councillor. And - as BankFodder says - you can always sue them for trespass. (FWIW - I find it very difficult to believe that any council - members and/or employees - in this country is so corrupt or incompetent that they would even try to get away with what you describe... )

Isn't it this guy again? @The old Scotsman - sometimes you need to spell out that you have an issue with somebody that the forum has dealt with before. It isn't always obvious.

I haven't read all of the draft letter yet, but can I ask if there's any particular reason why the fraudster is not identified as the OP's brother? Wouldn't it look a little odd if that information came out later and the OP had never mentioned it? Doesn't it also help to explain how this came about? (eg the fraudster would hardly be likely to pick a victim at random). Or does it potentially raise more awkward questions? (Also - in the ombudsman's decision wasn't it quite clear that they had reached the conclusion - based on some evidence I presume - that Aviva had written directly to the OP so she must have known about it? Is that covered in the letter together with an explanation as to why it's wrong? Apologies if the letter does cover it but I've only just come back to this thread and I've no time st the moment to read it all. It seems to have got more complicated now... )

@BankFodder - I'm thinking about how long this has been dragging on for and the fact that the OP still has this alleged "debt" hanging over her head. Would you see any problem in the OP's family paying off the debt now (so long as she is assured by her family that it will not be coming out of her inheritance and that she will in no way be responsible to her family for the payment - if she trusts them on this ...) but continuing to proceed to the ICO with the data handling claim against Aviva? To me that provides the OP with a "win / win" situation - so long as she does not end up funding the payment made by her family. (Her family may end up out of pocket but, to be honest, I think they deserve to lose out because of the appalling manner in which they have treated the OP). Apart from that, I agree with your #39, especially:

I think you are probably right it was magoogy's doorstep, but it's posts like this: that make me want to scream "Yes. But whose doorstep? His or the neighbour's???"

What is not clear to me (and apparently isn't clear to magoogy or their brother or sister either) is whose doorstep was the parcel left on. Was it left on magoogy's doorstep or the neighbour's doorstep? What concerns me - and magoogy did not make this clear in the OP - is that the instuction to leave with the neighbour appears to have been given directly to DPD, and not to Game when placing the order. My concern is that by not giving that delivery instruction to Game, then if the parcel was left on the neighbour's doorstep, it becomes more arguable whether Game are liable - which normally they would be. I fear magoogy might have muddied the waters by giving DPD different delivery instructions from those given to Game. But we won't know until magoogy or their brother/sister comes back with answers... Certainly I suggested claiming against Game in #7, but I'd be happier now if I understood better what happened.

BankFodder has already said it would not be an admission of liability for this alleged "debt". It then comes down to how far you think you can trust your family and brothers. (Honestly - words fail me... )

How long has this been dragging on for now and how much longer do you want it to drag on for? If your family (or brothers or whoever) are willing to pay it at absolutely no cost to you (ie you do not end up paying it yourself whether it be from your share of an inheritance or somewhere else) then I'd certainly consider taking their offer up just put an end to this. (If I trusted them that is!) Whether paying it off is in some way an admission that you are liable for the debt, I don't know. But I'm sure others here can advise. You spent New Year in a hospital bed in Pakistan, didn't you? I can't see any personal benefit to you in prolonging this any longer than necessary - I think you've been through enough in the last 8 months or so. I'm afraid I think your problem is rather more with your family than with Aviva. I feel really sorry for you. (Oh - one other thought. What's to stop your brother doing this again? He's done it before hasn't he? Your other brother(s) really need to have a word with him... )

Hold on. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's not what you said on your other thread: Unfair treatement by Aviva in fraudulent application. On your other thread I posted at #76: "I don't wish to ask what may be a tactless or insensitive question, but if your extended family are willing to pay £3k to Aviva to get them off your back (which is something I can fully understand from your point of view, even if I might not recommend it) why doesn't your extended family just put pressure on Mr Z (isn't he your brother?) to pay the £3k? Or the family treats the £3k as a loan to Mr Z? Or is this an awkward family issue best left alone? (Apologies if I'm causing any unintended offence - but I have to ask. The person at fault here is your brother but nobody in your family seems willing to take issue with him. They seem to blame you if I recall correctly)". To which you responded at #77: "... They [your family I presume] have all asked him to pay the 3k back, he wont pay it so now the eldest 2 brothers are having the money knocked off from their inheritance share to pay this off... " Now I can fully understand why you would be quite happy to have your family (or preferably Mr Z) pay off the alleged debt to Aviva because you've been through an awful lot lately including being hospitalised in (I presume) Pakistan for a couple of months with a broken knee. So if your family were to pay it off for you I could understand you accepting that just to draw a line under this whole sorry affair. But... to me that would only be acceptable either if that payment was treated as a debt owed by Mr Z to the family to be taken out of his inheritance, or a debt owed by your brother(s) to be taken out of his (their) inheritance as he (they) appear to have assisted Mr Z to some extent in committing this fraud. Are you now saying your family would pay this off, but instead of treating it as a debt owed by Mr Z, they would treat it as a debt owed by you?!?! The reason I'm making this post is because I can fully understand why you would be happy to draw a line under this if your family paid off the debt, but only if there is no detriment to you. So if your family pay and it's treated as a debt owed by your brother(s), then fine. But not if your family pay it off and then treat it as owed by you! If I were you I would want to understand fully my position vis a vis my family before deciding if I wanted to pursue Aviva further.

Is it the case that the mail you mention can't be redirected by the RM redirection service? I needed to arrange a redirection for an acquaintance a few months ago and I don't recall it being clear that the items you refer to couldn't be redirected?

Well this gets even more complicated as it seems you are replying to a post that has been deleted(!). (Not your fault, by the way). Not sure if you have understood the point I was trying to make... At the moment your brother appears to be the sole owner of the property because your dad left it to him. Any "ownership interest" you have in it is solely as a trustee for him and is what is called a "legal" as opposed to a "beneficial" ownership. What that means is that any interest you have in the property is held by you solely on behalf of your brother. You have no meaningful ownership of it at all. (Apologies if this sounds complicated and makes little sense, but that is where you are - as I understand it). If what you and your brother want is to share the beneficial and legal ownership of the property equally, then normally your brother could execute a DoV to do this. But you say he has a learning difficulty, so the issue arises as to whether he has sufficient capacity to execute a DoV which will have the effect of taking a share of his property and giving it to you for nothing. There may be issues around undue influence etc and whether he really understood what was happening. That's why your brother needs independent legal advice to ensure he understands what is happening. The fact you say he agrees to give you a share of the house is irrelevant. Hope that helps but its difficult when posts have been deleted - for whatever reason...

@Yorky55 - apologies for might have looked like a rather unkind post in #63 but I wasn't aware of the background to your query. I've now read the combined three(?) threads but am still a bit confused as to the context of your question. Am I to take it that since your last post prior to today that your father has died, and that your father is "Gilbert"? (If that is the case please accept my condolences). Are you "Fred" and is "Flora" your brother(?) - who has a learning disability? (It's confusing understanding who is who because in #61 you say that "Fred" is the main executor but also that "Fred" has learning disabilities, but that "Flora" is sole beneficiary??? I'm afraid your use of names - which may not be real names - when names were not mentioned in your two earlier threads - but your brother was mentioned - have made things very confusing... ????). If your father has died after your mother and his will leaves everything to your brother, with you and your brother as executors, then your brother has been left everything - if I've understood your question correctly. It's always possible for a beneficiary to execute a Deed of Variation which has the effect of changing the bequests in a will, but in this case your brother would be executing the DoV, and the question would be: does he have capacity to understand what he is doing when executing the DoV? I'd suggest he would need independent* legal advice to ensure that any DoV will be valid - or not possible given his learning disability. Of course I might be completely mistaken because I've misunderstood your situation. It might help if you could clarify exactly what that situation is? Hope that is of some help. Once again, commiserations for your loss. *Independent from you, that is

Perfectly understandable as you spend a lot of your time explaining to posters how to get satisfaction from crap couriers like Hermes etc. But in this case - happily - I think that the legislation makes it clear that Game are in straightforward breach and there's no need to pursue DPD for this - no matter how useless they are. Until consumers start suing traders - when those traders are in clear breach of the legislation - , traders won't use better couriers...

Just write to or email Game telling them that s29(2)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it perfectly clear that the trader (in this case Game) is solely responsible for the goods until they are delivered into "the physical possession" of the consumer. Consumer Rights Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK Tell them that, for example, a photograph from DPD of a parcel on a doorstep in front of a closed door is clearly NOT evidence that Game have fulfilled their statutory obligation to deliver the goods into your "physical possession". In fact it proves that they did not do so! Tell them that you want either a full refund or a replacement console, and that if they do not comply you will start court proceedings and also claim from them your additional costs in having to do so. If they don't fold at that stage - and they may not as they are clearly idiots - you need to research how to make a court claim and letters before action etc. [Edit: If they tell you to complain to DPD, tell them that DPD is their problem, not yours!]

Why bother with the uncertainty and hassle of suing DPD? Isn't Game simply liable under s29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015? All the OP needs to point out - again - to Game is: 29 Passing of risk (1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms. (2)The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of— (a)the consumer, or...

OK - it's entirely up to you how you handle it and what you do. (At least you got an admission that the bill should not have been sent to you!) What would be interesting to know is if your letter has the effect of keeping the other side quiet in respect of all their questions etc. Let us know.

See what others say. I'm not convinced that you have an argument but I'm sure others might disagree with me. Certainly the finance arm of TTR lending you money to pay the course-providing arm of TTR and charging you interest for it seems open to abuse to me, and as others above have suggested might have involved mis-selling the loan. Also - like you - I'm not sure what point stu007 was getting at. And I'm also not sure of the reference to the "trainline" scam referred to in #14 by lenny100...