I made the mistake of accepting their invite to tell my friends about the redfridays concept and web site, which I initially thought was a good idea. I used a form on their site to write a quick message and send to my friends. Next day I got a reply from one of them, to my gmail account, and was mortified when I saw the cheesy message they'd tagged on to my own words. It hasn't ended there though. They've continued to use my gmail address to spam my friends, and I've asked them to stop several times to no avail. The UK web site seems to be run by an individual called Alan Davies, and does not seem to have experienced much activity for some time. The first time he spammed my friends he apologised and said he would stop, but now he just ignores my complaints. I'm writing this message because yesterday they did it again, and one of my friends has been deeply upset by 'my' spamming at a bad time. I've now got no choice but to shut down my gmail account and create a new one. I don't know if that will stop him using it but at least my friends can mark that address as junk

Thanks for all your advice folks. I'll challenge some of these charges, and let you know how I get on

The details of the accident were that someone collided with the van while it was parked, and didn't leave any contact details. We discovered it with a dent and a scratch when we returned. Not our fault, but our responsibility as the vehicle was in our charge. Hence we were expecting to pay the excess of £1250, as there had not been the option of CDW. The paragraph they are using to charge us the extra is "Fully Comprehensive insurance is included within the hire charge. The vehicle is insured for the period of hire contracted ONLY, thus late return of the vehicle may incur a traffic offence under the road traffic act. Hirers are advised to take out additional personal holiday insurance. A £1250 excess payable per incident by the hirer, is applied to all vehicles if the cost of repairing damages in relation to any given incident should exceed this amount. We reserve the right to any amount up to the insurance excess along with any associated costs against the drivers’ or hirers’ credit/debit card provided. Accepting these Terms indicates authorisation to the Lessor to be able follow this process if required". As stated originally they are charging us for the extra days rental hire while it is off the road (although there are no other bookings), a £200 fee for Insurance claim administration and further costs for taking it to the repairers. We are not disputing our obligation to the excess, and I guess we are stuck with the 2% credit card fee, but we think the other charges should be covered by their insurance, and the the sizable admin fee is unreasonable in relation to the costs incurred by them. We think they are adding these charges so they don't have to go to insurance, and we also wonder if they will fix it at all, since it doesn't affect the use of the vehicle. Thanks for the prompt reply and hope this extra information helps

Hi We recently hired a motorhome through a company specialising in this. We knew there was an excess to pay in the event of damage, and there was no option to take out collision damage waiver insurance. The worst happened while we left the van parked in a car park and we were gutted to realise we had to pay the excess. What we didn't expect was a bill for 50% more than the excess. The invoice is itemised, and includes the excess, loss of income during repair, costs of taking the vehicle to be repaired, a £200 Admin fee for the insurance claim and a credit card fee. The invoice was enclosed with a quote for repair, which was only slightly greater than the excess. Buried in the small print is reference to associated costs. My questions are: Shouldn't their insurance policy include these costs? Isn't there some kind of legislation around what is a reasonable charge (I'm thinking of the 'Admin' charge)? Should we write and say we are prepared to pay the excess only, or we will put the whole amount in dispute? Should we tell them we do not want to pay it by CC; tell the card company not to accept the debit, and send them a cheque for the excess only? We have the policy number and details. Should we make our own representations to the insurance company? I guess we feel that the insurance company has probably not been involved, given the size of the quote for repair, and that the company is using the opportunity to make more money out of us. If we do have to pay the massive admin charge, do we have a right to see the paperwork we are paying for? The van owner told us that there are no imminent bookings, so it galls us that they are also adding on 4 days 'loss of earnings'. Can we ask for proof of this loss? Totally aside to this, we paid an extra amount because we were taking the van to Europe. Although it wasn't pointed out at the time, we were responsible for providing the equipment needed to make it legal in Europe. When we checked the small print it told us to buy it at the ferry port. This feels pretty unreasonable, but while we could just about accept the need to buy a warning triangle, first aid kit and high-vis vests, surely spare headlight bulbs should have been included? They were not. Did they not have a duty of care to point this out to us in time to purchase the bulbs and other items, rather than leave us to wade through a hefty hire agreement? Sorry about the length of the letter. Just trying to give you all the information I can think of at the outset. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the discussion everyone. It was meant to be a doorstep swap-out. I could see both sides of your arguments, but luckily the supplier has gone with the Bookworm approach. The contract is cancelled (although we have lost the first month's payment), and the phone deposit is being refunded. Luckily I married a Rottweiler! Regarding available alternatives, I wrote a list of requirements, and even the Omnia doesn't have it all. Its nearest competitors were more of a compromise, so I don't agree there is an alternative. And to answer Bookworm's final point, I'm not interested in a contract while I continue with my old phone. It's not worth it if I'm not going online and getting mail. After a brief scan of the internet today, it might be worth waiting for the Nokia N97, but I need to research further. Failing that, I would still go back to the Omnia, if I can get one. Thanks again B2B

Buzby 1. The CD ROM was devoid of any user manual, and I'm not the only one to report this. 2. I have had 4 different versions of the User manual sent to me but none of them are detailed enough 3. I've asked on several forums how you use the touch player. There are some unexplained, undocumented buttons, and no-one has been able to tell me how to add a new track to an existing play list. No-one can tell me how to make the slide player show the whole photo, not just the middle. This is stuff that should be in the manual 4. The fault was known by Samsung cos they told me to send the handset back. It is documented in several places on the internet. Basically my 8gb disk insisted it was full when I tried to add 3 more tracks to 2 gb of existing data. The only cure is a hard reset and reloading all your data. I could go on at length about the things I've laboured hours over to understand. They are not in any of the manuals I've seen. I've not used Windows mobile before and things like the X in the top right hand corner not closing the app are a revelation. A techie user explained why today - pity Samsung didn't. All that said, I was prepared to persevere with the phone, but it now looks as if I will have to pay for a contract that I can't use. The supplier couldn't give any timeframe, even when we asked if it could be months. I'm concerned about affecting my credit, but I think there's some mileage in going a way down that road. Thanks to everyone for the feedback and any further thoughts would be most welcome B2B

After research I asked for a Samsung Omnia for Xmas. (The purchase date was about 7 days earlier). It was bought from an internet company with a T-Mobile web and walk contract. I was previously payg on another network. I've had 12 days of stress since. It's got masses of functionality but its not intuitive and there was no manual included. Every step forward involved phone calls to Samsung, whose service was not good, or searches on the internet. The manuals provided online are too basic for most of my problems That's by the by, but Samsung finally confirmed the phone had a fault and we arranged with the vendor for it to be replaced today. My partner took a day off to receive the new one and return the old one, but was called at 11am to say the phone was out of stock. It's the final straw. I've had it with this phone. We have a wasted days holiday, no confirmed delivery date for a new phone, a contract ticking away that we haven't been able to use yet and even if I get another one there is still a lot of pain to be gone through to get all the functionality working. Deep breath! We are waiting for the suppliers to get back to us, but frankly we are expecting to have to chase them some more. They have said we are too late for a refund because of the 7 day rule, and that they won't reimburse us for the lost day or the unused contract time. Q1. My ideal solution now would be to give up on this phone and accept the reduced functionality of the i-phone. That is not available on T-Mobile. Where do I stand with the contract? Q2. Next possibility is to get an ipod touch and a phone with less functionaility. I could then have the T-Mobile contract but I would not want the web and walk bit. Is that a possibility? Q3. If you don't think either of the above are viable, what's my next best bet? Sorry for the waffle and thanks in advance

Thanks for that, Lively Lad. I've been thinking about my situation in the light of the previous posts, and that's pretty much the conclusion I had come to. That's me, then. 700 beer tokens the richer.

I entered my charges into the MSE calculator. I've since looked at the one on this site and notice it is more specific about balances at interest charge date, etc. I entered these details and the amount was significantly less so I guess this means I've gone for the statutory interest and not the overdraft interest. I guess that also means I'm too late to go for the overdraft interest, although it wasn't huge so not a big issue. I'm sure the bank know what I've done as well, so that's why they've put the comment in the letter. I'm still left with the same 3 options though. Take the refund of the charges only, go for the compromise, or hold out for the full 8%. Have I made things more difficult by including statutory interest when I did?

I sent a claim for refund of charges and overdraft interest to FD at the beginning of the year. The total was £850. They sent the standard waffle with an offer for approx two thirds of that, which I rejected with the LBA. They are now offering just the charges only, without interest. They say the reason for this is that additional interest is only awarded in a successful court case. As I understand it, the interest awarded in court is on top of the interest that they have charged for my being overdrawn by the amount of their charges. It is, in effect, a credit interest in respect of my loss of funds during the time they have unlawfully withheld the charges. At first I was minded to accept the current offer for peace of mind. Then I realised my account is overdrawn by a sum equivalent of the total charges plus half of the interest I am claiming. I considered going back with a counter offer to reduce my account to zero and close it with no further charges. The attempt to deceive me over the interest has annoyed me though and I am now wondering whether to continue after all. OK. Now. Who thinks I should accept, who thinks I should compromise, and who thinks I should go the distance?

Robin Spend some time looking through this forum and the pepipoo forum. Without knowing more details I can't say what you should do but if you look around you will find the answer. I doubt you will have to pay, though you will have to put up with threatening letters, etc. Private operators in private car parks cannot fine someone. That is for the police or the local authority. The only way they make money is by issuing a charge. This is in effect an invoice, and the basis of the claim is that by parking there, the driver has agreed to the terms of parking there, and thereby agreed to the charge for doing so. Regrettably they can write to the DVLA and the DVLA will sell them the details of the Registered Keeper. Sadly, this is no longer "Great" Britain, but a banana republic where laws like the Data Protection Act seemingly do not apply to government or its agencies. However, a charge for goods or services has to be reasonable in relation to what is provided and it £40 is not a reaonable charge for parking. Added to this you may be able to challenge the way a ticket is formatted, or the placing or wording of signs. Don't panic. Take time out and research these forums. It's all there B2B

That's if you can find out who the land owner is of course. ASSG, who are currently harrassing me, smugly informed me that the Data Protection Act requires them to protect the identity of the land owner. Of course, the same act did not protect me from them. The DVLA happily took their money for my name and address. Oh for the days when governments and their agencies did not consider themselves above the law.

Hi Popsy Who are you trying to tell? If it's the debt collection agency you last wrote about, you need to tell them that the payment they are claiming is in dispute with the parking company, and the company should never have passed your details to them. When you do this, the only correct course of action for the agency is to hand the problem back to the parking co. If they do anything else, like stepping up the pressure or arriving on your doorstep making demands they are acting illegally and you should call the police. Do not let them in. They have no authority to take anything from you. If it's the parking company, I think you've probably already told them enough. Any further correspondence by you will be futile and will only encourage them to pile on the pressure. I haven't tracked back through the entire thread to see what you did say, but they know they've gone as far as they can. Like others on this thread, I do not believe they will take you to court as their claim in unenforceable. I've read through hundreds of stories on this forum and the pepipoo parking ticket forum, and I've yet to hear of anyone being taken to court. Knowing my luck, I may be the first! Keep fighting B2B

Just got back from my hols to find, amongst the welter of junk mail, 3 missives regarding my case. Although the parking company have been told to get off my case or they will be regarded as harrassing me they have sent another letter telling me to cough up by 12 December or go to court. Looks like I'll be taking them to court for harrassment then! The second letter was from the DVLA, following my initial complaint. I got the standard waffle about reasonable cause that everyone else gets. That's OK. I was expecting that. It was just the initial stage one has to go through before stage 2, which is to complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. They sent me a photocopy of the letter the company had sent them, which was more interesting. It covered a request sheet and there is no copy of this, presumably because the "client" has greater rights to Data Protection than me. The letter does not give a reason for making the request. Who knows what the request sheet says. I have learned some valuable backup information from this though. They talk about "clients" in the plural so imply they have contracts with each individual trader on the estate where they operate. However, not all traders have their signs up so they would have to prove my car was parked in a space where they have a sign. The other interesting thing is they waited 9 days to write to DVLA for this information. Was this to accumulate a whole list of victims and put all their registrations on one request sheet? Would that explain the multiple clients? Third letter was from my MP. He had passed my issue on to the DoT and sent me a copy of the reply from them. It is the same standard waffle that the DVLA gave me, but he has asked me to contact him if he can be of any further service. I've got much more information about the whole thing than when I first wrote to him, so I will be writing again. I'll post again when I know more but if anyone knows what one of these request sheets looks like please post a picture. B2B

It's First Direct. I don't have the original letter I sent. I did it electronically from within the online banking pages, and there are no "Sent Items", so no copy. My main complaint was that charging £30 for going £6 overdrawn was bad enough, but then to authorise a cash withdrawal of £20 and charge another £25 for that was inexcusable. I think I had a general rant about charges after that, but that was it. The letter I sent later, requesting information about charges was separate, and simply a request, with no complaint. To my first letter, complaining about the charges, they originally sent an electronic reply, effectively saying "Tough". Later they sent the written offer and the second electronic message. These last 2 items don't refer to my request for charge information, but I bet they connected them. So I just can't work out if I'm signing away my right to claim the rest of my charges back

I finally lost it about charges when, having gone £6 over the limit, they let us withdraw another £20 without warning we didn't have the funds. This gave them the excuse to whack 2 lots of charges on, and they gave us a bill for £58. I wrote and complained, but next day I discovered the consumer action group. After reading up on the matter, a couple of days later I began the process to get a full refund, by asking them to summarise our charges for the last 6 years. Meanwhile, I had an online message saying "No deal, your account is still overdrawn". I then had a written letter saying they would be forwarding statements, followed by a separate letter saying an electronic message had been sent but "here is an offer of a refund". On a separate letter I was asked to sign in acceptance of the following statement: "I accept the sum of £60 in full and final settlement of my complaint against the bank and I understand the funds will be credited to my above numbered account". The electronic message is 2 pages of mind-numbing waffle about how goo they are and how concerned for their customers, etc. My original complaint was partly against the specific charge at the time, but also against the unreasonableness of their practices and charges in general. My question is, if I sign this am I stopping myself from getting back the much larger sum they've clocked up over the last 6 years? I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find anything similar. B2B

I've just read through this thread and it's all too familiar - I'm in a similar boat. Here's my observations for what it's worth. Sending a ticket, not issuing, is against 3.2 of the DVLA code of conduct. This is voluntary but I feel it helps to weigh against them. In my case we really can't remember who was driving because it took 4 weeks for the ticket to arrive. I told them their contract was with driver not RK and they wrote back insisting the RK had a contract even if it was formed in their absence - they know they can't go to court on this one. I'm now giving them a final warning about harrassment and am taking the case up with the Trading Standards, DVLA, parliamentary ombudsman and my MP for starters. Someone else mentioned pepipoo threads. They are a mine of information about legalities of parking charge notices, validity of signs (very few of them comply with rules about signs) and the whole process. I was going to pay up until I found them. People on this thread still seem to have a basic faith in the DVLA as far as it is involved in these kinds of disputes. Don't. Please. They are justifying breaking the Data Protection Act on the grounds of reasonable cause. Their reasonable cause seems to be that they have previously allowed the parking company to register with them and that company has since written that it is suing someone. In my case the DVLA have on their file the name of a parking company whose status on Companies House register is "Proposal to strike off". Apparently they have never submitted any accounts and are regarded as not trading. I've decided to rename my house "B2B Car Park Solutions". Then I can get on the register and charge everyone who parks outside my house! If the parking company told them they were suing me they were lying and the DVLA has not done enough to ensure that it has reasonable cause. This is the issue I will be taking up with my MP, the parliamentary ombudsman and even europe, if necessary. Our human rights are being violated and our government is responsible.