Jump to content

dixon2094

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

22 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Brill, thanks Slick. All sent across! Will keep you updated. HMRC now have 28 days to respond, in preparation for the next hearing date on 10 August 2022 at 2pm
  2. Hi all, is this good to go do you think? Just want to ensure I submit at least a few days before deadline.
  3. Please see attached - I've changed a few bits in other areas too... Directions Response v2.pdf
  4. Great, thanks Slick - i'll make amendments and send back
  5. Hi, please see attached my first draft response. I'm finding it difficult to make it relevant in that HMRC's argument is that FTT don't have jurisdiction... but I've tried to include everything I deem relevant in that; a) I was a victim of fraud in that investments were made in my name without my knowledge. b) It's a nationwide scam (even HMRC confirmed it was a "scam"). c) As a result, I can't be responsible for the repayment of monies awarded, for something claimed for that I was not entitled to, nor did I give permission for the claims to be submitted - if that makes sense? I would really appreciate any input/amendments - no doubt i've probably missed something crucial. I've formatted similar to the template given to Schipoo. Thanks! Directions Response v1.pdf
  6. Hi Homer, there are no outstanding payments due to TT - no arrears, my account's DD have all been paid on time. The £70 i'm claiming is for the 3/4 months DD's i've paid for a service I'm not receiving. It's costed me 3x what they're offering to have booked time from work for the engineer visits, time take on the Live Chat dealing with agents who weren't listening and just following a script. My complaint was in relation to mis-selling of a contract including speeds I could never have received, yet they spent hours "testing" my line, booking engineers, etc... all of which were a waste of time and pointless. There is no actual way for my speed to increase and I had no service/line faults/issues (which I told them at the beginning), yet they still wanted to keep investigating the line. This was my response, either way: Hi XXX, Many thanks for getting in touch and for providing me with yours and TalkTalk’s response to my case. Unfortunately, I am unwilling to accept the settlement offer of £270 (effectively £200, as £70 is reimbursement of monies I have already previously paid to TalkTalk – there is now an additional £28 which I’ve just recently paid via DD too). I do not feel it is sufficient after considering the time taken to get to this stage, the significant loss of income due to missing work several times (I’m self-employed so it wasn’t a case of simply booking a holiday request/day off with an employer and still being paid), and the stress of dealing with TalkTalk agents and the matter in general. I understand you have presented me with TalkTalk’s liabilities and due to them, are unable to provide the requested compensation of £720.00 for loss of my time and other miscellaneous costs. However, I feel an exception should be considered given the nature of this case, and for the way in which I’ve been treated by the agents I’ve been dealing with. The fact TalkTalk cannot simply provide compensation for this based on just referencing T&Cs, without looking deeper into the issue, is reminiscent of the “robot-like” communication I was receiving from agents. I do not feel an empathetic approach has been taken. I would like to thank you for accepting fault and for recognising that I am not being provided with my minimum guaranteed speed of 104.2mbps, with my line achieving 90mbps. I would also like to thank you for providing a goodwill gesture for the customer service shortfalls. However, my complaint is in relation to the original mis- selling, and the customer service issues were additional problems layered on top, which stemmed from the original complaint. In my original case, I requested TalkTalk to issue feedback on the following: • Retraining of agents to act more like people i.e., why did they try ringing my landline when I dont have one, etc. • Provide reasoning behind why I was offered this package in the first place. • Provide reasoning behind why I was promised callbacks which I did not receive - I had to set time aside from work during the allocated timeslots. However, I can’t seem to locate any response to these at all in your reply. I hope this helps clarify my position. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to comment further, or simply speak with me regarding the above. Yours sincerely, XXXX
  7. Hi, I recently opened a complaint against TalkTalk ("TT") to CISAS (CEDR) who accepted my case and requested TT to respond before 14th June. TT responded a moment ago with a settlement figure, and I would just like to know if it's reasonable and whether I should accept or move to adjudication. Pasted below are the details. Of course, it will be my final decision and I'll be liable for whatever decision I make, but I would just like some external eyes to take a look to see if I'm not missing anything obvious and if it's worth moving forward/accepting. To me, it seems okay-ish, but I would like a little more. Especially in relation to booking days off work for unnecessary engineer visits after I'd pointed out they wouldn't help - however, not sure whether this is irrelevant due to their T&Cs. I don't mind staying with TT moving forward. Please note: the ADR rep mentions keeping my landline in their response (again - this means nothing to me). I have until 00:00 9th June (TOMORROW) to respond - they've given me less than 10 hours to decide. My original complaint to CISAS: Service type: Broadband Dispute Type: Mis-sell The Contract: Fibre 150 Package with minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps. Issues in Dispute: I joined Talk Talk ("TT") back in June 2021 on a Fibre 65 package. On 4th March 2022, I upgraded to Fibre 150 after being promised minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps. Since upgrading, I raised multiple issues with them, I believe first on 14th March 2022, explaining how I was only receiving ~90mbps, and not the minimum guaranteed download speeds. After multiple engineer visits and incredibly unhelpful agent conversations via Live Chat (agents that acted like robots following a script and not acknowledging my unique issue), I was eventually told by one engineer that it was "impossible" for me to receive their minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps due to my distance from the exchange cabinet. I was advised TT should not have sold me this package upgrade as they would know this. During the complaint process (reference XXXX), I was promised manager callbacks on my mobile, which I never received. I was also told by TT that they tried to call my landline too... but I don't have a landline installed, again, something they should have known. After raising this, I was promised a callback from "higher support" at a certain date and time. Again... I received no such call. I have all chat logs relating to my issue and have documented all correspondence. Was a claim raised with the company?: Yes Date claim was raised with the company: Mon Mar 14 2022 Have you received a deadlock letter?: No Date on the deadlock letter (if received)?: Reference number on the deadlock letter?: Did the deadlock letter mention CISAS? How did you find out about CISAS? My telecoms company Information about the remedies sought: Does the filer seek a product or a service?: No Does the filer seek an action?: Yes Description of the action sought: Retraining of the agents to act more like people. Why did they try ringing my landline when I dont have one, etc. Provide reasoning behind why I was offered this package in the first place. Provide reasoning behind why I was promised callbacks which I did not receive - I had to set time aside from work during the allocated timeslots. Compensation (to be calculated fairly) for my time taken to discuss on live chat, booking time off work for the engineer visits, reimbursement for paying for a service Im not receiving, etc. I've worked off the duration (hours) taken x hourly rate. Usual action relating to this type of complaint. Does the filer seek an apology?: No Does the filer seek compensation?: Yes Total of the compensation sought: £790.00 # Claim Amount 1 Time taken on Live Chat £180.00 2 Time booked from work for engineer visits £390.00 3 Reimbursement of monthly payments made for a service I'm not receiving £70.00 4 Other miscellaneous £150.00 TT response: Dear Mr XXXX, My name is XXXX and my role, in TalkTalk’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Team, is to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues you have in reference to your recent CISAS case. I would like to offer my apologies that you have had to contact CISAS in relation to your complaint with TalkTalk but hope that we can now work together to enable a speedy, and satisfactory outcome. Thank you for taking the time to speak to me, where you advised of being busy and not able to speak for a negotiated offer to be made verbally to you. With regards to your CISAS application, you are seeking £790.00 broken down as £70.00 for payments made for your service and £720.00 for time loss. I would firstly like to refer you to the following TalkTalk terms and conditions which outline our liability to you, including that we are not liable for loss of time, income or business; - 13 OUR LIABILITY TO YOU 13.1 We’re only liable for losses that could reasonably be expected to occur when we entered into this agreement. 13.2 We’re not liable for: (a) loss of data or information; (b) business losses; (c) loss of income; (d) loss of your time; (e) problems caused by other network operators/providers of telecommunications services; (f) losses caused by third party services or goods, content or viruses that you access through the services; or (g) the failure of any alarm system that you try to run over our network or services. In light of the terms and conditions above, we would be unable to provide the requested compensation of £720.00 for loss of your time and other miscellaneous costs. Following a review of the case file information and the account details, I can confirm that you are not being provided with your minimum guaranteed speed of 104.2mbps, with your line achieving 90mbps. From the information reviewed, we will waive the contract breakage fee penalty of £155.27 which allows you to leave TalkTalk. There are two ways to do this. Should you wish to retain your landline number, an order just needs to be placed by you with the new provider you have chosen. They will then arrange for the transfer of the service, usually within 10 working days. We’ll send you a letter with all the details once your new provider has contacted us to ask to take over your service. If you do not plan on keeping your number, then we can place a disconnection for you and terminate the account within 30 days. Once we disconnect your service, you won’t be able to take your telephone number elsewhere. In resolution to your CISAS case, we would like to propose a compensation offer of £270.00 broken down as; - • £70.00 to be applied to the TalkTalk account to be refunded by BACs. This is for the payments made to TalkTalk as you have not received the minimum guaranteed speeds for your contract. • TalkTalk will allow your services to be ceased with no contract breakage fee’s applicable or alternatively should you wish to remain a TalkTalk customer, a colleague will contact you to provide the most suitable package available for your line. • Goodwill gesture for the customer service shortfalls encountered - £200.00. The total amount to be sent via BACS payment is £200.00, the additional amount will be applied as a credit to the TalkTalk account to waive the balance outstanding. Please could you kindly confirm if you accept the proposed settlement offer outlined above in resolution to your CISAS case? We would like to advise if no response is received to the proposed settlement offer by 09/06/2022, the offer will be withdrawn, and we will proceed to defence on the case. We can confirm once the settlement offer is withdrawn, and the case proceeds to adjudication their decision is final, therefore the adjudicator can offer less than the offer TalkTalk have proposed. Kind regards, XXXX ADR Team TalkTalk Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
  8. Please see attached for the Directions. No, the Judge was a different Judge. Directions.pdf
  9. Hi - sorry - I set an alert to update you all 12pm today, but i'll do it now. Essentially, the purpose of the hearing was a case management hearing, I believe, and in relation to HMRC's application for a strike out. Apparently, I didn't officially "argue" or "dispute" HMRC's application for a strike out (I sent emails when advised earlier in this thread, but they may not have treated them as official "disputes") and so this was a hearing for the Judge to see what was going on, be updated with the case, and decided on future directions. You'll already know, but HMRC's standing is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and by law needs to take the appropriate action. My argument re anything to do with a scam, or FTR, etc, isn't really a direct response to their application for strike out as their POV is that I am not disputing the fact a rebate was made incorrectly. I presume, my only argument is to further prove and clarify I had NO IDEA and gave NO AUTHORITY to FTR to claim EIS relief. I think maybe the legislation would help here... I would imagine I need to get past this strike out request, and then can dive deeper into the scam/fraud, etc, avenues. The McCumskey and Huntly cases did help me somewhat in that I predict without them the Judge would've accepted HMRC's application for strike out is this very hearing - along the same lines of Slick's posts #115, more specifically #183. The fact I brought them those cases up and said although they have differences (HMRC is well aware of these two cases - almost like they expected me to bring them up) i.e. one of them is a late appeal hearing, and the other is a discovery appeal (mine is re a final closure), they do have little-some relevance given the Judge's decisions on them and they mention EIS. In summary, I have 28 days from yesterday to draft an official reply to HMRC strike out, in which they then have 28 days to reply. A next hearing is already booked for 10 August. There was a lot talked about in the hearing so apologies if I've missed something (I've tried to remember as much as I can) - happy to clarify any questions.
  10. Thanks Slick. Looking back at #206, "Please note that the Tribunal has confirmed that this is not a hearing of the appeal. As stated in the Tribunal email of 14 April 2022 the purpose of this hearing is solely to enable the Tribunal to issue further directions" Not sure what this means and how this would compare to a hearing of the appeal - just want to ensure I don't waste time this morning preparing information if it's not relevant, and would rather focus on something that's useful today.
  11. Hi Rob, yes it seems that way! PS: my hearing is tomorrow. I'll be taking a look at the Tribunal rulings tonight in preparation
  12. Hi, Thought this email may be of interest from HMRC's side in relation to the hearing on 24th: "Mr XXX On 09 May 2022 I sent you an email with an electronic copy of the bundle of documents which I will refer to during the Case Management hearing on 24 May 2022. Can you please confirm that you have received the email and are able to access the bundle? I have included within the bundle copies of all documents and communications submitted thus far in order to give the Tribunal a detailed overview of the case. Please note that the Tribunal has confirmed that this is not a hearing of the appeal. As stated in the Tribunal email of 14 April 2022 the purpose of this hearing is solely to enable the Tribunal to issue further directions."
  13. Thanks Slick. I'll take a look this evening. Further update from local MP office: "Good afternoon XXXX, After a frustrating back and forth with HMRC this morning, I'm afraid they are unwilling to disclose whether or not they are investigating Fast Tax Rebates due to confidentiality. This is because the fraud in question is related to taxation and so is covered by confidentiality legislation. Unfortunately, other than lobbying ministers, I don't think there is more our office can do to be of assistance. I'm very sorry we could not be more helpful in the run up to your tribunal. I wish you the best of luck and please keep us updated as to how the matter progresses. Kind regards, XXXX"
×
×
  • Create New...