Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'loses'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 20 results

  1. Please advise Parcel2Go have lost a laptop I was returning to Argos for a full refund, They have lead me a merry dance with lots of excuses and won't compensate. What now please?
  2. Hi, before Christmas I sent a laptop through Parcel2Go. I did not buy insurance because I usually think it's a waste of time dealing with claims if something goes wrong - and it has never gone wrong. Until now. They lost the parcel which I had to open a claim for, after which they found the parcel to my relief. Hermes who was the carrier, then tried to attempt delivery to the recipient and found that they were out (I have been in communication with the person I sold the laptop to the whole time). Hermes left a note ( I have a picture of this note) saying it was unsafe to leave the parcel anywhere - IE. the front garden . On the second delivery attempt, Hermes decided to leave it in the front garden ( I had to penetrate through Parcel2Go's chat system to gleam this information, as they did not leave a note this time!) of the recipient which happens to be in a dodgy London area on a main street (my recipient tells me, and sends me a photo too). The parcel goes missing, and I've had to refund my buyer for £240. I have already sent a 'Signed For' letter before action via Royal Mail to Parcel2Go and am counting down the 14 days. I would just like a bit of advice on what sort of grounds I have to go against them - I know that they have broken the contract by not delivering the parcel. And if it goes as far as court - some idea of what I need to go into court - ie an argument etc..
  3. This is a useful High Court judgment and one that should serve as a reminder to anyone considering litigation, that an error by an enforcement agent is not automatically trespass and most importantly, that any claims for loss/damages etc must be proved to arise directly from the agents misconduct -which very often will be difficult to prove. There is also the matter of the need to provide evidence to support any claims (something that was seriously lacking in this case). Background to claim: On 12th March 2015, a writ of control was issued against Mr Miller for £408,00. This related to a judgment from March 2010 for £330,000. I am assuming that the difference between both figures relates to interest on the debt. The Creditor passed the writ of control to a High Court enforcement company to enforce. Of significance, was that the address on the writ was ‘Sunnyview’. In 2014, Mr Miller had moved from that address to a rented property (called Yew Tree). On 26th March 2015, the enforcement agent visited an airfield*where Mr Miller had a business.The purpose of the visit had been to locate two small aircrafts (a Pitts and a De Havilland Chipmunk owned by Miller). The enforcement agent met with Mr Miller and took control of the vehicle that he had been driving (a Jeep), and one of the aircraft (the Pitt). The claimant made payment of £1,600 towards the judgment.Goods were not removed that day. Following the meeting, Mr Miller claimed that the enforcement agent went around the airfield ‘questioning everyone’before gaining peaceful entry into an airfield building where he looked for documents. He left, taking documents and keys to the aircrafts. The Enforcement Agent then went to an alternative address (xxxxx Mills) to make enquiries. Mr Miller had told the enforcement agent that this location was connected to his business. There he was allowed access to the property to search for the second plane; (the De Havilland Chipmunk). The plane was there, together with other aeronautical parts belonging to Mr Miller. A short while later, Mr Miller removed the plane to a friend’s barn in Cirencester. The following day, (27th March 2015) Mr Miller visited the High Court and made an application for a temporary 'stay’ of the writ. The stay was lifted 2 months later (on 27th May 2015) and re-imposed on 5th June 2015 (it was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 after he failed in an application to ‘set aside’ the judgment). Mr Miller's arrest and charge of ‘interfering with controlled goods. Despite a ‘stay’ being imposed, and despite his Jeep and one of the aircrafts being ‘taken into control’, Mr Miller removed the aircraft and aeronautical parts to various locations including his rented property (‘Yew Tree’). *He parked the PITTS on his driveway under a tarpaulin. The enforcement agent became aware that the seized items had been moved and accordingly, on 20th June 2015, he attended ‘Yew Tree’ . Nothing was removed on that day. Instead, the police were called and Mr Miller was arrested and charged with ‘inferring with controlled goods’. The court stay was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 and the following day, the enforcement agent removed goods. Further items were removed a couple of days later. According to Mr Miller, he had a number of hearings for the criminal charge, the final one being in January 2016 at Swindon Magistrates Court where he claimed that he had been acquitted. No details appeared to have been provided for the acquittal (more on this shortly). He claimed that the Magistrates Court had supposedly been satisfied that he had moved from ‘Sunnyview’ to ‘Yew Tree’ in April 2014. It would appear that he had been assisted in court by an internet sourced ‘Mc Kenzie Friend’. Removal of goods and sale. The goods were eventually removed by the enforcement agent at the end of July 2015 and sold at public auction for £34,000. The auction was advertised. (Continued in following post):
  4. Looks like Jon Platt has been found guilty https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/23/school-holidays-row-isle-of-wight-man-loses-legal-fight-over-daughters-absence
  5. Some time ago my partner and myself received a letter from HMRC stating that we were no longer entitled to claim working tax credit due to information from Concentrix, we had never heard of Concentrix at this point. Apparently the information that was disallowing us from claiming was that on the forms submitted it states I worked just 5 hours per week last year 2015. The forms we submitted did not state 5 hours / week but rather 30 plus hours per week, concerned by this I got in touch with HMRC through the HMRC website online chat system and an employee at HMRC informed us that Concentrix in Belfast had made the alteration to the form The action taken by Concentrix is clearly fraudulent, so that information has been passed on to the serious fraud office in London. I spoke to a solicitor who said yes I did have a case and yes he would pursue that case when I could get the £200/hour fee he would charge for handleing the case, sadly I do have that kind of money at this time mostly due to being off work with a serious gastric disorder, and as I am no longer entitled to work tax credit due to Concentrix fraudulent action I am also no longer allowed free prescriptions which meant last week I had to go without medication as we could not afford to get the precription filled at that time. The solicitor suggested I get a group of people together who have also been mis-treated by Concentrix in order to begin a class action lawsuit against them but I have no idea how to go about that currently so am looking around for advise on how I can either get enough people together to get that underway or alternatively find a kind wealthy person to support a private case. If you think that Concentrix have mis-used information to make a case against you or outright changed information you sent them the number for the serious fraud office is... 02072397272. The more people who kick up a fuss about this company and the methods they use then the sooner these issues can be dealt with properly and this company brought to rights.
  6. I contacted a freight forwarding agent(FFA) to ship a car oversea. But on booking the car at Port, I noticed car is not road worthy, I bought said car in the evening so I didn't observe its true condition. So next day after booking I ring seller requesting for full refund, he accepted. I then ring FFA to cancel booking, he hesitated, I then ring shipping company, Grimaldi directly they said I could cancel it as my request is early and ship will depart in about 12 days. I ring back FFA and insisted he said ok but did nothing. After a couple of days I rang FFA repeatedly he neither answered nor return my calls. The following week I rang his office tel, he answered and said my cargo was mistakenly shipped by Grimaldi, which was all lies. When I refuse to pay shipping cost, company withheld Bill of lading so that I risk losing my wife belongings inside the booth of the car; my wife complained, so I was compelled to pay for shipping a car I didn't like/want; pay clearing cost at the other end, demurrage, etc amounting to about £2000. And on top of that the car would need so much work done such as new dashboard, tyres, gearbox, handbrake repaired, body work, paints, etc which will cost me a fortune! I have sent text messages, emails and 3 letters to this company but no reply. I will appreciate with thanks any advice or suggestion.
  7. In 2015 there was a important and high profile Judicial Review regarding the serious matter of summons costs in relation to a Liability Order for council tax arrears. The case was that of the Reverend Paul Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey. In short, the court rules that Tottenham Magistrate's should not have allowed London Borough of Haringey to claim summons costs of £125 for each Liability Order given that the court did not have sufficient information before them to reach a proper judicial determination as to whether or not the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; 
The court found that Tottenham Magistrates Court erred in law by failing to make further inquiries into how the £125 was calculated. Accordingly, J Andrews ruled that the costs claimed were unlawful. Following Reverend Nicholson's court success, there have been a lot of developments. Firstly, Haringey's Council's external auditors; Grant Thornton reviewed the level of costs, and, unlike the position before the Judicial Review where Haringey charged a fee of £125, the auditors instructed the council to charge separate costs of £102 for a summons and to reduce the charge for a liability order issued by Tottenham Magistrates to £110 from £125. Most importantly, Haringey Council have refused to make Grant Thornton's report public. The judgement made clear that it related only to London Borough of Haringey and was specific only to Reverend Nicholson's case. Accordingly, whist it may allow him to claim a refund for any earlier years, it did not assist the many thousands (approx 20,000) of Haringey residents who had been overcharged every year since 2008. It was with this in mind, that the Reverend made a further application to the High Court. The basis of this new application being that he wished to challenge Grant Thornton's decision not to apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998. The Reverend considers that an audit is a public interest activity. Secondly, the Reverend wanted everyone who has been overcharged since 2008 to be repaid. His appeal was heard in the Divisional Court last Thursday (24th February). A copy of the press release and background to his dispute with Haringey Council is below. I will address the outcome of the appeal in a separate post. http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.o...paul-nicolson/
  8. I have been starting up stock trading with an expert mentor whose made millions doing it. I clocked up some loses £20k and despite some success loses are increasing. When at £20k he told me "I guarantee you will get that back", in a message (we are in contact continuously). I'm guessing this would not be sufficient to pursue legal means to recover loses should it become an issue? If its possible at all, what would be required for a guarantee written in a message to be legally enforceable? Can I have an example of such a message in this context? Thanks!
  9. Six years ago (in 2009) a Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) supporter by the name of Mike Dobson (Mike:of the clan Dobson) drafted a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice which he used to ‘scare off bailiffs’. He advised on the Freeman Ireland website that the notice should be put up at the boundary of the ‘private estate’ and the ‘public access way/street’ and that if a bailiff came to the door of the house they should be politley told that they would be trespassing and that they would have just 60 seconds to leave before a call would be made to the Police. Due entirely to the internet, the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice drafted by Mike Dobson went 'viral' and appeared on the Freeman on the Land’s favorite media outlet; YouTube. In 2010, the notice first appeared on the popular FMoTL forum; Get out Of Debt Free. Within a short time all popular Freeman on the Land websites carried the notice with many of them making their own changes to the wording. In March 2014 I researched the background to these silly notices and started a thread on this subject which to date has received over 12,000 visitors (link below): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from PS: Unfortunately, the internet sites that recommended using this notice were unaware that the notice proved to be a complete and utter failure for it’s author; Mike Dobson (see link below) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from&p=4664219&viewfull=1#post4664219
  10. Sophie Jones, 19, lost her battle with cancer on Saturday morning - her family say it should never have happened The parents have set up a petition in order that other young girls are not let down as Sophie was - you can sign HERE
  11. Police are warning people to be on the alert after an 89-year-old woman was conned out of £100,000 when she was persuaded to transfer it from her account. The [problematic] were posing as bank officials and police when they told the victim in Atherstone, Warwickshire, that there was a problem with her bank. She was told it would be wise to transfer the money to a different account "to be safe". Officers say people should be on the alert to similar scams being carried out elsewhere in the country. Detective Chief Inspector Sean Paley said: "While people are generally aware of such scams, these criminals target vulnerable members of the community. "I would urge people to talk to close friends and relatives who they think could be at risk." Anyone who suspects they have been targeted should call police on 101. For further information, call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111, or visit http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org or www.actionfraud.police.uk https://uk.news.yahoo.com/warning-woman-loses-100k-bank-[problem]-102913060.html#oZGB2Hv
  12. Iain Duncan Smith's latest effort to prevent the publication of documents warning of the dangers of universal credit has been dismissed by a judge. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/06/26/ids-loses-legal-appeal-to-keep-universal-credit-problems-sec
  13. I thought I might share this news:- The OFT has refused to renew the consumer credit licences of debt purchaser HFO Capital Limited, and two associated debt collectors, HFO Services Limited and Roxburghe (UK) Limited. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2014/08-14#.UvM2NIUZNRq.
  14. Embattled lender says reputational damage caused by financial woes and Rev Paul Flowers scandal could be behind rise in customers switching to rivals The Co-operative Bank, which has seen its reputation battered by financial woes and scandal involving former chairman Rev Paul Flowers, is losing current account customers. In an update within a statement outlining technical changes to its rescue fundraising deal, the lender mentioned "recent events" as one reason behind a rise in customers switching accounts. "Recent events may have caused some brand and reputational damage but it is too early to form a definitive view as to the extent of such damage," the Co-op said. "The regulatory and other investigations that have been recently announced are likely to subject the Bank to greater scrutiny from regulators, will take management time and result in the Bank incurring costs not currently included in its business plan which cannot be quantified at this time," the bank said. However, the Co-op said savers are remaining with the bank and its liquidity position is stable. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10481020/Co-op-Bank-loses-current-account-customers.html
  15. Corporate loans acquired with Co-op Bank's disastrous takeover of Britannia Building Society in 2009 continue to deteriorate The Co-operative Group has plunged to a £559m first-half loss as bad debts in its banking arm wiped out profits from its supermarkets.The group said there would be no quick fixes as it embarked on a four-year turnaround plan, after reporting pre-tax losses of £709.4m in the Co-operative Bank in the six months to the end of June.The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the City regulator, said the scale of the losses did not alter its demand that the Co-op plug the £1.5bn hole in its balance sheet. The Co-op, which employs more than 100,000 people, warned of job losses as it restructures the wider group as well as the bank - but did not say how many staff will go.New boss Euan Sutherland said: "It's inevitable in a restructuring of this size that there will be some jobs at risk." He said the Co-op has "no plan B" for rescuing its bank, as it finalises plans to inject £1.5bn into the embattled division. Bondholders ranging from pensioners to hedge funds will have to take a loss on their investment under plans for a "bail-in" in coming months. They will be forced to contribute £500 m through an "exchange offer", which will result in a stock market listing for the bank. The Co-op will inject £1bn itself into the bank.The bank, which employs about 10,000 staff, slashed the value of its loans by £496m, as corporate loans acquired with its disastrous takeover of Britannia Building Society in 2009 continue to deteriorate. It also wrote down almost £150m on a new IT system, which had been planned by former management. And the bank booked another £61m to cover the cost of previous misconduct – including £25m for mis-sold payment protection insurance, £26m for credit card and identity theft protection and £10m for mis-sold interest rate swaps. The bank's £709.4m losses compare with £59m losses a year earlier, while at group level, the losses compare with £18m of profits in the first half of 2012. Sutherland, who replaced former boss Peter Marks in May, said: "We are sorry but we are a new team and grasping the nettle and getting on with fixing the situation." He said while there has been a small trickle of deposits leaving the bank, customers have largely been loyal. The PRA said it factored in the scale of the losses when it signed off the Co-op's turnaround plan in June. It said: "The Prudential Regulation Authority anticipated the likely scale and source of these losses when it made its assessment of the bank's capital position in June. "Consequently, the announcement today does not affect the PRA's assessment that the Co-operative Bank has a capital shortfall of £1.5bn relative to 7% core equity capital after adjustments." Profits in the food arm, which is the UK's fifth-biggest grocer with more than 2,700 supermarkets and convenience stores, dipped to £117.4m from £119m a year earlier in a "challenging market". The Co-op said it expects a better second half from the retailer, as a turnaround focusing on better stock availability and store refits gathers pace. Operating profits in its pharmacy business dipped to £14.3m from £16.1m a year earlier as it was hit by government funding cuts to medicines. But profits in its funeralcare arm advanced 15% to £41.8m. Link: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/29/co-operative-bank-loses-709m
  16. The firm of debt collectors featured in "The Repo Man" has been stripped of its credit licence by the OFT. The debt collecting firm featured in the Channel Four hit series "The Repo Man" has been stripped of its credit licence by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) "in order to protect consumers". It is the first time that the OFT has exercised new powers, which give it the ability to suspend a credit licence with immediate effect if there is the potential for serious consumer detriment. The firm, Donegal Finance Limited, was licensed to offer consumer credit, credit brokerage and debt collecting services. It was its debt collecting business that featured in the recent two-part Channel Four documentary, screened in May this year. This followed the owner of the company, Sean James, and his employees as they repossessed cars and other assets from those who had not kept up with their loans or finance agreements. This included one couple who had bought their car second hand, without realising there were still outstanding debts secured on it. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/10125304/Channel-4s-Repo-Man-loses-licence.html
  17. 23/13 19 March 2013 Online payday lender, MCO Capital Limited ('MCO'), has had its consumer credit licence revoked by the OFT and from today is no longer permitted to make regulated loans to UK consumers. Today's news follows the recent OFT payday lending review report, which uncovered evidence of widespread unfair business practices in the sector. In August 2012, the OFT found that MCO had failed to put in place adequate identity checks for loan applicants. It is thought that this failure led to MCO being targeted by fraudsters who used the personal details of over 7,000 individuals to apply successfully for loans totalling millions of pounds. The OFT also found that MCO had engaged in unfair business practices by writing to people who it was aware may not have taken out loans, asking unequivocally for repayment. MCO ignored OFT requests to stop this practice. Additionally, the OFT found that MCO lacked the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to run a consumer credit business. For all these reasons, the OFT decided to revoke MCO's consumer credit licence. MCO appealed the OFT's decision, but with effect from today withdrew its appeal. MCO is continuing to appeal the OFT's decision to impose a financial penalty of £544,505 for breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. David Fisher, OFT Director of Credit, said: 'Removing MCO's licence is a timely reminder that payday and other lenders risk losing their licences if they engage in unfair business practices. The way MCO chased consumers for debts they did not owe was unacceptable and caused unnecessary distress to many people.' Consumers who are pursued by a lender for a debt they do not owe should write to the lender and, where appropriate, the debt collection agency, making it clear why payment is being refused. Further information on what consumers can do is available in this Consumer Fact Sheet and Advice Guide, produced by the Credit Services Association. NOTES 1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires most businesses that lend money to consumers or offer goods or services on credit or engage in certain ancillary credit activities to be licensed by the OFT. A licence is not required to provide certain types of credit such as that to high net worth individuals in specified circumstances. 2.The OFT has a statutory duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to administer the consumer credit licensing regime, and must be satisfied that a licensee is fit to hold a consumer credit licence. 3.Trading without a licence in such cases is a criminal offence and can result in a fine and/or imprisonment. 4.The First-tier Tribunal (Consumer Credit) forms part of the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. It is administered by the Tribunals Service, an agency of the Ministry of Justice. The role of the First-tier Tribunal (Consumer Credit) is to hear and decide appeals against decisions of the Office of Fair Trading relating to: Licensing decisions of the Office of Fair Trading made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the imposition of requirements or a civil penalty on licensees under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the refusal to register, cancellation of registration, or imposition of a penalty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. 5.See press release OFT revokes payday lender's licence and imposes penalty of over half a million pounds (9 August 2012) when the OFT originally announced the action against MCO. 6.The findings of the OFT's review of the payday lending sector can be found in its final report. Link: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/23-13 .
  18. Whose going to paint the trains? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9476445/Virgin-Trains-loses-contract-for-West-Coast-rail-line-to-FirstGroup.html#
  19. My ex husband walked out 3 yrs ago leaving me to pay a hefty joint loan on my own. The payments per month are £298. per month. I have just received a court order with a financial settlement of me paying the rest of the loan off in exchange for the family home. I must get his name off the Sainsburys loan within 28 days otherwise I could go to prison (scary when you have 2 children). I rang up Sainsburys to get apply for a loan and was refused on the basis of my credit score which incidently is 999 with experian. I have never missed a payment with any of my finance/mortgage. The new loan I was offered on application was £82 per month. I was told to put a report together, a copy of my credit report/bank statements/decree absolute etc and send it to the underwriter which I did. The underwriter has refused it again on the basis of my £200,000 mortgage even though I am selling the property next year and I have £160,000 equity in my home. So Sainsburys would rather I go to prison and not be able to pay anything whilst in there and struggle paying £298 per month, than pay £82 per month and get all of there money next year!!! Something very wrong somewhere!! Oh and the help they give is absolutely zero.... Do not go near them with a barge pole.....
  20. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100018627/taxman-gets-a-bloody-nose-in-court-but-630000-people-face-deadline-this-month/
  • Create New...