Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by GuidoT

  1. What with this, Durkin and the OFT v Banks, the Supreme Court are not very pro consumer are they?
  2. Lee just phoned me, initially reduced to the cap of £50 and then when I said I did not use it all, he wiped it completely. Did not get to the bottom of the matter in terms of why this occured, but the important thing for me is I do not have to pay it. I wonder how many people just pay an incorrect roaming charge. Clearly something is wrong. Thank you here too Lee.
  3. Okay, I have emailed you confirmation from Apple that the downloads in question never took place on the device.
  4. No such folder, however there is one that tells you the application and download size, but not when downloaded. I have been on the phone to Apple and they have written to me confirming that no downloads of that size occurred on the day in question. Vodafone will not provide the details of what was downloaded. They just say pay it is right. As you can imagine they are impossible to deal with and use the normal big company strategy to deal with you.
  5. I have a bill for circa £1.5K which is comprised of roaming charges whilst I was away in Italy. It is really odd, the bill includes for 9Gb between approximately of data downloaded between 12 and 2 in the morning. I am not even sure such speeds are feasible on a mobile data network. There is no way I downloaded this, I realise that it could have been an automatic update, but then I looked at the Mobile Data Usage on the Ipad the Current Period Roaming is 7.6Gb and that is everything from the 10 November 2013. The device is an Ipad. They have not taken the money yet, I
  6. I forgot about this thread. Various events unfolded, that led to my Business Manager becoming sacked and a whole load of revelations regarding his misconduct then followed, that I then took advantage that improved my negotiating position no end. I just think the bank did not want their dirty laundry washed in public so they settled for £20K (of £150K in the end) a few months ago. A good result by all accounts.
  7. That is then end of this phoned them (knowing the 6 months passed) and they have decided not to prosecute. I do not an advocate of speeding, but 65 MPH on the M1 does not really deserve a fine and points.
  8. So having tempted fate above, I heard from them shortly after wherein they provided a further description of the location. This provision of a further description to my mind amount to an admission that the first description was inadequate and the NIP invalid given that the information needs to be provided within 14 days of the offence. It has been around 5 months since the offence, I have seen a very similar case where they have dropped it, let us see what the next month brings.
  9. Televised handing down of the judgement in the SC: http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-durkin-v-dsg-retail-limited-anor-2014-uksc-21/
  10. Very pleased for Mr Durkin, shame that the findings of facts of the First Division cannot be disturbed, I think all he gets it £8K, not much given the stress this must have caused over the past 15 or so years. A win for consumers though.
  11. Sorry, I did not mean to put pound signs before the '7K and 9K on the clock' in the post above, the car is worth far less than when I bought it. I tried to sell it back to the dealer but they made a low offer and said it was because of the faults! I do not know enough technically, but those with far superior minds at Seat accept there is a fault and who I am to argue with that. I cannot do your test as the car is with Seat. It is a Bocanegra.
  12. No one is even mooting that we have done anything wrong to invalidate the warranty, the car was serviced at the Seat dealer. The repeating issue is as above relating to loss and power. They just do not seem to be able to fix it. I bought the car 1 year old £7k on clock, now 2 years old with £9K on the clock.
  13. Purchased a Seat from a private seller and it has been nothing but problems, these problems were not hidden by the seller but we thought they were resolved, well I did. I do not think I have any redress against the private seller. The original seller had it for a year and I have had it for about the same period. As soon as it is driven with any gusto, there is a loss of power occurred and the EPC (electronic power control) warning light comes on. I have had it back to Seat 9 times. The car is still under the 2 year warranty, and Seat have been trying to res
  14. Without wishing to tempt fate, looks like the vague locus argument worked as I have not heard anything else. I see that they have now changed the description on NIPs to others to something more accurate, e.g. stating the actual junction number.
  15. It is not really for the judiciary to take on the big banks and credit agencies, but our (elected) parliament. Having said that, parliament is not particularly effective at representing those that really need it, i.e. not the rich and powerful. Outcomes of cases can be unfair, but still answer the legal point correctly. We live in a unfair country, where without the sufficient funds it is very difficult to fight your corner fairly in court, in particular when you are against large corporations. Notwithstanding all that, I hope Mr Durkin gets the answer he has foug
  16. This is an interesting paper on decision making in the Supreme Court. http://www.bailii.org/bailii/lecture/02.html
  17. I am going to defend using the vague locus argument and have drafted that below, does anyone have any helpful comments? I am in receipt of the above Notice of Intended Prosecution (‘NIP’) and for ease of reference enclose a copy herewith. As you should be aware, where the driver was not stopped at the time, Section 1(1) c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that in order for a NIP to be valid, the alleged offence locus must be given therein, viz: c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution speci
  18. Ended up with a Notice of Intended Prosecution for doing 65 MPH on the M1. The NIP says the variable speed limit was 50 MPH. Seems a bit unfair given the normal speed limited of 70 MPH on the motorway, but life is unfair. I am 1 MPH over so I am not eligible for the speed awareness course. NIP Details and Circumstances What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - December 2013 Date of the NIP: - 11 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 12 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important
  19. I wish you well with this too. Is the hearing still listed for the 28 January 2014?
  20. I think the last on it. It seems he won at last do not think the banks fancied a Supreme Court showdown. Who knows the position if he really won given costs of £2.5M. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2013/B28.html&query=harrison&method=boolean
  21. I would not get mad about it, the first offer is unlikely to be their best, make your own part 36 offer and that might prompt them into making a higher offer and will also afford you some protection from cost if you use the correct wording.
  22. Thanks TT, getting a bit lost in it all. Do not fancy paying £1K of fee to make him bankrupt, questioning is a good alternative given the potential consequences of not attending. I think if I manage to sucessfully serve the stat demand on him, that could be the next step after the 21 days expires.
  • Create New...