Jump to content

Intrepid

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Intrepid

  1. Hi BF, thank you for your reply. I do have irrefutable evidence as I am in receipt of copies of my credit card statement which show the transactions that took place on and after 7th October and thus the data they have not disclosed. I move for concealment as for some inexplicable reason they have disclosed data after 7th October 2021 such as a payment to settle the account, as well as correspondence. However I accept your point regarding the high burden of proof and thus will not present it in any proposed particulars of claim which I will post up here for review prior to bringing a claim. There is an inexplicable gap in their disclosure regarding transactions on the account between 7th October and 14th October 2021. The reason for the disclosure is I also wanted Lloyds to produce data on transactions that may have been attempted by a customer or requested by a retailer but failed, however no such data has been forthcoming. I do have additional evidence of failed payments but Lloyds may be able to claim they never received a payment request from the retailer. I do not know enough about the inner workings of card payment services to know if this would be a truthful explanation or not.
  2. @BankFodder Not withstanding the transaction dispute, I believe there is a substantial claim for distress regarding Lloyds Bank PLCs (Lloyds) incomplete data disclosure. Ordinarily I understand the reasoning to bring a claim for £100 for distress regarding an incomplete disclosure, however given the circumstances below I believe a higher quantum should be sought, perhaps in the region of £250. 1. Myself and Lloyds are in dispute over transactions that took place on 7th October 2021. 2. Lloyds were sent a SAR on 13th October for data concerning the account. 3. Lloyds provided an incomplete disclosure of data including transactions only up to 28th September. 4. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete. 5. Lloyds responded saying information was not available as my credit card statement had not been published however they included in their reply data up to the 6th October 2021. 6. Lloyds were informed their disclosure was incomplete and that they should hand over data beyond this date. 7. Lloyds responded saying they had no further data to disclose. I think the above timeline of events indicates that this is not simply some oversight but an active concealment of data hence why I propose a claim for £250. A LBC has already been sent and Lloyd's deadline to respond is 5th December 2021. Grateful for any comments/suggestions as always.
  3. Ok thank you I had not considered the aspect of abandoning the contract. Ordinarily there should be no issues obtaining a refund to my credit card but I must say I do not hold out much faith. I have had to sue Lloyds Bank in order to get them to return an £84 payment. They seem to prefer to work against their customers and argue against them in Court rather than carry out their obligations as a card services provider. There is a risk that Lloyds Bank take the position that I choose to pay for the item twice. I have no doubt once a suitable claim is raised I will eventually be made whole but I don't expect Lloyds to facilitate a section 75 claim whatsoever should it become necessary.
  4. Pay for the item twice? That's pretty shaky ground to simply make a money transfer to them when I have already paid.
  5. Ok thank you for your reply, I will arrange for the courier to collect the item. I will see if they deny them a right of access to collect the item then if it all comes to a head on the day I guess I can revert to a refund, followed by a bank transfer then as you state a claim for the cost of the courier.
  6. I raise it because this is what Fitness Superstore stated in their reply to my e-mail indicating I would arrange for a courier to collec the item. ""Fitness superstore are unable to facilitate 3rd party collections due to GDPR regulations We are able to allow a 3rd party collection if you are able to pay via bank transfer" I anticipate that far from any GDPR complaince concerns they are instead trying to ensure they cannot be subject to a section 75 claim in the event I do not receive the goods. It cannot be the case that these "GDPR regulations" they refer to only apply to credit card transactions and not bank transfers.
  7. I agree that is the plan I formed, do you have any thoughts on how to handle a hypotherical scenario where they are turning away a courier I have arranged to collect the goods. Collection in person isn't an option, I can give a reasonable explanation as to why but I don't think it really matters why, it is simply that I cannot. I can only think if I receive such a phone call that I simply explain that if they refuse entry I will submit an immediate claim for the expenses incurred for the courier service they are preventing from entering, re-book the collection and try again. I could give them advanced warning but this may entrench their position and result in them issuing a refund - which I have not asked for or accepted. Their request that I pay by bank transfer is in my opinion unreasonable and for such a retailer refusing certain forms of payment may be unlawful. Either they accept credit card as a form of payment for all their items or none of them. I've never known a shop to differentiate payment methods based on the item for sale.
  8. I have not received a refund, I have not requested a refund, my preference is to take posession of the goods. No I have checked for other retailers, no other availability exists and I believe the model is being discontinued by the manufacturer.
  9. Uploaded copy of order confirmation stating delivery + their amended? invoice. FS - Order Confirmation 20.11.21 - Redacted.pdf FS - Invoice 20.11.21 - Redacted.pdf
  10. Standby while I upload my confirmation e-mail where it clearly states the item will be delivered. The next day Fitness Superstore re-created their own invoice which is ambigious, it has my "delivery details" but also states collection only. I will post up redacted copies so that they can be reviewed.
  11. Yes that is correct they had/have a few for sale that were listed as such not on the one I purchased, which I can evidence plus the fact I selected delivery at checkout as above.
  12. Would you mind explaining how you managed to recreate that purchasing process so that I can download a copy of the terms and conditions for reference?
  13. Thank you that is excellent, that is exactly what I saw and I have been trying to reproduce it as evidence. The model is a Bowflex Series BXT326 Folding Treadmill. I have a copy of the listing as advertised and unlike the majority of other items it does not have "collection only" written in the title which is why I went ahead and purchased it and also saw that delivery was available at checkout. The problem I have is that they are refusing entirely to deliver the item but I fully expected that they would come to an arrangement with their courier and offer me a price. As they refuse to deliver I am forced into a position to arrange my own courier which they are attempting to state they will deny access to the premises based on GDPR.
  14. Alternatively they are happy to sell me a treatmill collected by a third party provided I pay by bank transfer due to some bogus claim under GDPR. Essentially what they are acusing me of is arranging the theft of a treadmill. The link has been removed as it has been purchased by me.
  15. I do not understand either, however it is outlined in their reply in the quote above which for your convenience I have reproduced below. "Fitness superstore are unable to facilitate 3rd party collections due to GDPR regulations We are able to allow a 3rd party collection if you are able to pay via bank transfer" How I pay in my opinion has no bearing on how I collect my goods, especially when I am forced to do so as a result of their breach of contract. What they are attempting is a subtle transfer of liability without the protections afforded by credit card payment. Fitness Superstore are refusing to deliver or produce a cost to do so which is where I thought this would sensibly lead.
  16. Thank you BF, I have obtained an internet quote which is approximately £182.50 I have checked the terms and conditions and there is no reference to execution of contract. It is my understanding that when terms are not expressly agreed that in the absence of the agreement then disputes will favour the beneficiary of the contract i.e. me the purchaser. What do you think of organising the delivery myself in the face of their threat that they will not allow my couriers on site due to "GDPR regulations" (sic). I find this claim bogus and while they may have a legal right to control right of access to their store, in this case I deem it would be be unreasonable to deny access. I also consider that the "threat" is made by a manager further up the chain and that the sales team at the store may not be as bothered if someone turns up to collect goods and is able to produce a courier contract for the purchased item.
  17. Shell Energy have filed an AOS for both claims including a claim for the incomplete disclosure and the other for harassment. I have received approximately 10 text messages so far from Shell Energy to my personal mobile phone, and as of today (25th November 2021) Shell Energy have breached the advice as outlined on Citizens Advice website where even if (which it is denied) a creditor has the right to contact a debtor they may not do so several times per day. Today I received two text messages.
  18. On 20th November I ordered a BTX 326 treadmill online at Fitness Superstore. At checkout I had two available options 1. Collect in person £0.00 and 2. Delivery £0.00. I chose delivery and paid or the item using my Lloyds credit card. Later that day I received an e-mail stating the item was collection only. Below are the two latest communications outlining both mine and Fitness Superstores' position on the matter. My last e-mail: Fitness Superstore reply (my comments are highlighted in red): The part highlighted in bold appears to be a very poor excuse for what they are attempting to achieve which is a transfer of liability and removal of the protections assued to me by paying by credit card. As usual I am grateful for any input on how it may be best to proceed. Essentially what I am seeking is the deliery of the item I purchased and if we cannot reach an amicable resolution then a full reimbursement of the additonal costs I incur as a result. Thanks for reading and any comments. Intrepid. Also what are the commands to Quote? [Quote]test[/Quote] appears not to work.
  19. Lloyds responded to my query regarding their incomplete disclosure by providing transaction data up to and including 5th October 2021. This is conveniently for them, up until the day before payments where made to Shell Energy. Lloyds have disclosed transaction data beyond this date for example a payment to settle the account on 14th October as well as correspondence that goes beyond the date of the disclosure request. I appreciate that normally claims for distress are made for £100 but in this instance it appears Lloyds are deliberately concealing transaction data between the 6th October and 14th October on my account. The period in which payments were made which are in dispute and currently subject to a legal claim. I will be bringing a claim against Lloyds in 14 days for their incomplete disclosure, right now I simply have to decide on the amount of quantum before bringing the claim.
  20. Good news regarding the claim issued against Ombudsman Services. It has been allocated to my local court. While I currently have a slam dunk case against Ombudsman Services which will become apparent to them when I issue my witness statement, I suspect the location may induce them to settle the claim rather than send two employees far away from Warrington for the day. The case in my opinion is so clear that they should in reality not aim to defend the claim once they receive my witness statement and should they choose to I will request costs for unreasonable behaviour. Only yesterday did I first learn that Ombudsman Services is reviewed on Trust Pilot. It reveals clearly how they systematially work against apellants in favour of industry and had I not experienced reasonable outcomes in the past I would certainly not have bothered with their "service". The veil has been lifted, County Court is where your case is more likely to receive a fairly adjudicated decision from a learned professional and no doubt it is more troublesome and costly for the defendant than their paid up subscription service that repeatedly decides in their favour.
  21. The combined particulars were in excess of the 1080 character limit when using the MCOL interface. In order that I can complete the claims online I decided to separate them and have issued them both accordingly. I decided to lower the amount claimed per message received to my phone to £30 per message and therefore issued a claim for £90.
  22. Thank you I understand this. I will continue to update this thread with the progress and gratefully receive any pointers along the way, especially with regards to particulars or witness statements if you see any glaring errors of fact or misconstruing of the law.
  23. I am considering whether to amend point 7 of the particulars to the following:
  24. I have just now received a 3rd text message from Shell Energy after e-mailing them last week that they have breached their instruction. I now consider A to be my preferred course of action and will issue at end of day. As an aside it is noteworthy that Shell Energy didn't disclose any of the data concerning how they communicate with customers for an alleged debt.
  25. I appreciate the input from the site team, as you can see there are differing opinions on how to proceed. I understand that focusing on the disclosure issue helps keep the issue consistent. I have considered I may run the risk of being accused of being vexatious. This shouldn't matter if the cause for action is sufficient however in the real world I can see how it may prejudice - even though it shouldn't - the outcome. The options at the moment are: A. Issue a combined claim. B. Issue two claims, one for the incomplete disclosure and another for their harassment. C. Issue the claim for disclosure and instead send a LBC regarding their harassment. I consider that C means I will have now sent 4 LBC to Shell Energy, on the other hand I think sending a second LBC regarding their harassment gives them a reasonable opportunity to respond rather than simply launching a claim against them following a LBC that was sent approximately 6 months ago. I think C is the most reasonable course of action.
×
×
  • Create New...