Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FruitSalad1010

  1. If you have confirmed the debt is in line with the back billing code and you are in agreement with your energy company as to the amount, despite the issues you state regarding the boiler, then there is no risk of an adverse decision regarding the amount owed. In this case bringing the case to the Ombudsman is the next step as your disagreement is simply over the repayment timescale. This is something the Ombudsman can decide upon and is binding. If you are able I suggest calling the Ombudsman so they can assist you with setting up the account over the phone.
  2. I count approximately 10 letters in this thread demanding payment with no court claim issued. Has it ever been discussed whether or not to send a cease and desist thus laying the ground work for a claim for harassment. I.e. put up or shut up... Perhaps this is not advised so as not to bait the claim. I wonder whether the fact the demands for payment come from different "companies" each time is by design in order to circumvent any cease and desist request, and whether this would actually be effective in doing so.
  3. It appears I may have confused the claim agains P2G with the claim against Interparcel. In which case the default judgement you received was predicated on your claim that the service advertised by Interparcel was mis-sold. Out of interest how did you reach your claim figure of £260?
  4. Upon further review I consider that the sum of your loss is actually made up of two separate issues contained within a single claim. The first for the loss of the item. The second for the mis-selling of the service. You did not post up your particulars of claim. Is it the case that you made a detailed breakdown of the claim in such a way in the particulars or witness statement? They will likely take no issue receiving a judgement against them concerning the lost item however the mis-selling of the service has further ramifications they may wish to defend (or rather settle to prevent judgement) and the court may at their discretion offer the defendant the opportunity to defend that part of the claim. I am slightly confused as the original issue presented in the thread was for the late delivery of the item. Can it be understood that a single claim was submitted for both the late delivery and the lost item? As obviously the award of £260 for the late delivery is perhaps on the high side.
  5. It may but it is not unknown for the courts in the interest of justice to forgive such discretions even when made by learned professionals. Although we may personally find it difficult to justify in this instance what is to be gained by allowing the defendant to proceed to court a judge reviewing the case may see it differently. Hopefully the overseeing judge has a good understanding of the way the postal service operates and its tenacity to consistantly deny making restitutional payment for its failures until compelled and thus will oblige that the end result would be the same even if the case were to be argued perfectly by the defendant and incoherently by the claimant.
  6. Are you in receipt of evidence that you notified Interparcel of the issued claim including the reference number? I find their claim that they did not receive a copy of the claim somewhat odd and wonder if it is a tactic to further frustrate your claim. As the claimant presumably you received a written copy of the claim. Perhaps you could highlight, if it is the case, that you received your copy of the claim without issue and therefore the error perhaps lies not with the court but with their ability to receive and process their mail?
  7. I would await BF's input but there is no need for you to submit their defence for them or indicate how you will argue against their defence before it is necessary, save this for the witness statement. I know too many cooks and all that... and I expect you will receive a response but if not consider the following:
  8. Althogh you have not specificied it is implied from the information you expected to receive the results within a certain time frame. If this is the case and the timeline has been missed then simply put you paid for a service, and you did not receive the service as advertised. As the whole point of the service is to receive the results on time allowing you to travel or no longer follow the guidelines as laid out by the Government, the service is effectively useless if this is not carried out on time. The service provider may argue they provided some of the service, or may provide you with your results well outside of the advertised timeline. Based on the information you have provided this may be considered to be in breach of contract and is the wording you need to use should they attempt to challenge or negotiate on the chargeback. It would be useful to you, if you have a copy of the terms and conditions set out when purchasing the service, or a copy of how the service was advertised. As you mentioned a chargeback it is worth confirming you paid for the service by debit card?
  9. You want to be cautious involving the Ombudsman, it may be that the Ombudsman makes a decision that attempts to validate the debt on the account that is over 12 months old where the back billing code would nullify it, provided the mistake is Bulb's. The case resolution system by the Ombudsman leaves a lot to be desired, is very inconsistent and depends on the quality of the case officer investigating your case, which generally speaking is poor. It would not be helpful to you if the Ombudsman makes a decision stating you have to pay back the debt in full, should you reject the decision and proceed to court in order to enforce the back billing code. The Ombudsman cannot be relied upon to make the correct decision as they by and large operate as an industry concubine. If you choose to involve the Ombudsman, review their decision very carefully or post it here before accepting it. What do you intend to do about Bulbs failure to respond to your SAR? If nothing it is unlikely Bulb will take you seriously when it comes to addressing your complaint in full. With regards to the faulty boiler contributing to the debt on the account, perhaps you could make a best estimate of how much it contributed to your bills given your normal expected usage and how much your usage increased after having the boiler installed.
  10. The policy of whether to offer a DAC is a local decision for each regional police force, although the majority offer the course there are a few exceptions and the offence may have taken place in such a region. There are also limits on when a DAC can be offered, these are easily searchable on the internet. It may be that the difference in speed was above this threshold.
  11. A disappointing result no doubt. For the benefit of others in future, could more have been made of the requirement for offer and consideration when forming a contract? Turning around and/or stopping in a petrol station for a period of time under 5 minutes is unlikely to afford someone the opportunity to consider and accept the terms of a contract they are then sued for breaching. It may not have made a difference in this case but could form another string to the bow in future.
  12. If this was in England and not Scotland, under what legislation would it possible to bring a claim for mis-use of the credit file. Unless it has a material impact on an application for credit it will be difficult to demonstrate any actual loss for the purposes of a claim. Could an option perhaps be to bring a claim for the distress of having a credit file incorrectly marked?
  13. Hi Alaska, who took the photos attached in section 2 from page 14 onwards? The reason I ask, although it may be mute, is that part of the defence is predicated on the fact that stopping doesn't consitute parking, then in the witness statement there are photo's of what could be a parked car. I wondered what the learned thought of introducing such evidence.
  14. Have you received a response to the SAR you sent?
  15. This needs to be taken to the Energy Ombudsman, while the Energy Ombudsman is an industry sock puppet it is almost certain that your complaint will be upheld against BGE who will be found against for not having provided you with a final bill within 6 weeks. This failure comes with automatic compensation which no doubt they have failed to provide and as a result you will be entitled to further compensation for them not having compensated you automatically. Bring your case against BGE for having failed to meet one of the Guaranteed Standards.
  16. In order for fraud to take place it must be designed to cause a deliberate financial loss to yourself and deliberate financial gain for themselves. I don't think any court will see that Interparcel have deliberately set out to cause you financial loss as if the parcel had been delivered as expected you would have received the service you paid for. Althought many of these commercial practices can feel like a scam, it has been stated by the site team on a few occassions that the court sets the bar very high to make any such ruling with regards to fraud. I would imagine because fraud is a criminal offence as opposed to the usual use of the small claims court being to resolve civil disputes. For this reason in this instance, I personally wouldn't make any reference to it in any claim or ws.
  17. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Prohibition of unfair commercial practices 3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited. (2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair. (3) A commercial practice is unfair if— (a)it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and (b)it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product. Did not being made aware of the contractual differences distort your behaviour, had you known there were differences would you have instead elected to purchase PF48 using parcelforce. (4) A commercial practice is unfair if— (a)it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5; (b)it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6; (c)it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or (d)it is listed in Schedule 1.
  18. Presumably the part they do not wish to defend is in relation to the refund as they have already offered to settle for that amount. I believe I have read elsewhere in other threads on CAG that it is not uncommon to see a full defence filed when only partly defending the claim, it is askin to buying a second lottery ticket. The judge may see it their way and if they are to attend a hearing in any case, they may as well attempt the argument. I don't think it could ever be argued one action cancels out another, it could simply be pointed out that the defendant has also made errors but I do not believe this is one of them, a brief read of PAP appears that there are no provisions set between filing a part defence or a full defence.
  19. The human robot in a faraway land is simply following their script/procedures. They will be quite content if the issue gets moved on to somewhere else. I have proceeded through their website to send a parcel using PF48, at no point is it mentioned that the terms of the agreement vary in any way from the service you would expect if you booked PF48 through the PF website. I would run through this process and collect screenshots as evidence. I think, as you also predict, if a letter before claim is sent this doesn't go near a court door as they are essentially running a bait and switch scheme and will have no desire to have this examined by a judge. It's all too common for these intermediaries to basically form their business plan by accepting the liability for the contract and simply fob off their "customers" until they receive the commensurate amount of pressure. If this were to proceed to a hearing, I would be more interested to know whether any issue is made as to whether the final message you sent was considered sufficiently in keeping with PAP as opposed to the more common practice of sending a letter. The PAP sets no condition as to the format of the communication but does then say this usually includes sending a letter. I have checked the Act you referred to, it does allow for damages. I agree that bringing a claim for the cost of postage is somewhat diminutive however what is substantive is the stress and inconvenience you have undergone when finding out the service you thought you were buying has been misrepresented or rather changed without informing you or without having the option to disagree to the changes. I would be tempted to send a letter before claim citing a claim for damages to be assessed by the court for having misrepresented the contract and see if an offer is made. You could later fix the amount when raising the claim, and if they fail to respond at all may have a greater chance of being successful. Two interesting avenues to explore. I have been through a similar experience before regarding a purchase not related to shipping and chose to make a claim under section 75 which was successful.
  20. You can expect that Shell Energy will respond to the SAR close to the 1 month statutory deadline and by sticking to the SAR format outlined on this website can expect a comprehensive response including recorded phone calls. I'm sorry to hear about your daughters mental health, while it may seem overwhelming to enter into dispute with these companies it can end up being a very rewarding experience and can be considered an accomplishment. If your daughter feels overwhelmed by their communication send them an e-mail/letter or complaint indicating how and when she is willing to be communicated with, I suggest requesting written communication only. Shell Energy (read as First Utility) have a nasty habit of sending harassing messages by mobile phone, a mention of a possible claim for harassment provided the threat is serious and would be action should see an end to this fairly sharply. If payments are to be reduced make it very clear that the account balance is in dispute and that Shell Energy will be strictly put to proof to substantiate any claim for payment. Shell Energy are obliged to agree a payment plan if there are difficulties in paying an invoice. As to whether Shell Energy have to accept the payment amount, quite simply if they do not they will be in a position where they have to bring a claim against your daughter to enforce another form of agreement. How likely they are to be successful in demanding higher payments and being awarded this by a judge against a defendant already making efforts to make payments with a reasonable explanation as to the amount remains to be considered. Dx100 has a lot of experience regarding debt or rather speculative invoice collection and may answer this question more comprehensively. It is industry practice that dunning proceedings are halted in the event that an account balance is disputed. However as Shell Energy regularly and arrogantly flaunt their obligations as a licensed gas supplier there is no guarantee they will follow industry practice. Don't forget this is a company that was previously under a provisional order to prevent them from disconnecting the gas supply of vulnerable customers. I would be wary of agreeing to set up a direct debit, as your daughter and many other Shell Energy customers have experienced they will vary the direct debit amount at short notice in an attempt to take substantially larger sums. By making card payments your daughter will be in control of how much and when money leaves her account. Report back when the SAR has been responded too or if there are any issues in gaining a response.
  21. Does your daughter agree with the billing of the account? Does your daughter have evidence of meter readings covering the period Shell Energy are billing for? It is not unknown for energy companies to demand payment for inflated invoices using estimated bills which could be very different from the actual usage.
  22. What I don't understand is that the judge's ruling refers to contracts as they are constructed and very little of the ruling is to do with the fact it was a contract for specific use of a gym. I am unclear as to why this ruling can't be applied to all contracts of a similar nature, it is easy to understand that a utility company could not reasonably pursue an individual for payment for electricity or gas they did not use despite being under contract. What is not so easy to understand is why the majority of people agree that a tv/phone/internet providers can successfully pursue an individual should they terminate a contract early. Is it simply because should these cases ever go to court they are invariably decided in favour of the claimant? Perhaps it depends on whether the agreement is regarded as forming a credit agreement. The ruling in the case linked above indicated that contracts to use gym facilities were explicitly not credit agreements, but I fail to see how paying for a contract with for example sky tv could be considered a credit agreement. Thus any departure from the contract could be defended using the ruling from OFT v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd??
  23. What is the reason that this differs from other contracts entered into, for example tv/internet/phone contracts. Is it due to the ruling made regarding unfair terms resulting from - OFT v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 1237 ?
  24. Without wishing for any divulgence of any personal family affairs, I would have thought that if it could be firmly established that your Uncle was perhaps not of entirely sound mind during the tenure of the contracts then he could not reasonably be expected to report on any issues with the services being provided or cancel a renewing contract if the services are no longer required/in use. Personally if I were persuing such action I would explore arguing that the contract was frustrated as a result of any unfortunate debilitations.
  25. Has your energy company indicated how much they wish to set up the direct debit for and on what basis this is calculated? I agree with your position to decline to set up a direct debit, this keeps you in control of your money. I think this is important considering it is widely reported that energy companies may adjust direct debits substantially in their favour with little notice.
  • Create New...