Search the Community
Showing results for tags 't&cs'.
Found 4 results
I recently had a package mailed to me by a third party from overseas. They used my FeEx account number and billed all charges to me. They did not check with me I was happy with the price before sending it, and since the charges were extremely high, I would not have accepted them and asked the package not be mailed to me. According to FedEx's T&Cs just giving my account number is sufficient for me to be charged - the money was directly taken from my credit card - however I feel that since I did not agree to the transaction I should not be liable to pay. I'd like advice on whether if this matter went to court, would I win or lose the case? I can give more information if you require. Many thanks.
Hi there, first time forumite so please be gentle. I have an extremely long running case with HSBC over our credit card bill and I now find myself in a very specific situation and I'm not sure where to go for help. As a very brief summary; I tried over the phone to pay a sum from the outstanding balance that was over the minimum payment I was told I could only make the minimum payment over the phone and for anything greater than that, I'd need to go into the branch I went to the branch and the only way they'd let me pay was with cash, not card When I complained, I was told that this was in the T&Cs that I signed, 12 years ago when I opened the account I asked for a copy, under the relevant Civil Procedure Rules and they wouldn't provide me with them I've complained to the Ombudsmen, they've ruled in HSBCs favour My argument is that if they are imposing practices that they say that I agreed to when I signed the agreement, they should be able to demonstrate that I have indeed agreed to it. Without this evidence, their practices are unfair and they should have let me make a payment, for any amount I liked, via any channel available. I have experience of working in the Financial Services Industry and I know that Credit Card companies will (and do) make it as difficult as possible to clear down balances (ask your card company to explain residual interest for example, it's great fun listening to them try). But given that the FOS has ruled against me, I'm not sure where to go with this now. I've been fighting the good fight since January 2012, I don't want to give up.
Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller. I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour). My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?
A number of us (150+) were TUPE transferred to a new employer in January last year and kept our T&Cs as required under TUPE. Well most of them - IMHO they have already changed things they are not allowed to change. Our new employer is now saying that as we have worked for them a 'reasonable length of time' TUPE no longer applies and they are at liberty to change our T&Cs as they are setting about 'harmonising' them company-wide. Apparently they are also saying that even if anyone DOES object, if the majority accept the change that gives them the right to impose changes on the objectors. I don't believe this is anything like legal. As far as I know :- There is no specific time limit in TUPE regs, nor has a definition of 'reasonable' ever been arrived at in case law. Certainly, last time I was TUPE'd (this is my 4th time round the TUPE loop) there was no attempt to impose new T&Cs in 5 years - although they did keep asking ;-) Any imposition of changes to T&Cs for 'harmonisation' purposes is never legal as it is de facto connected to the transfer by way of our retained T&Cs TUPE applies individually not collectively, so what anyone else chooses to do has no bearing on my rights under TUPE Although they are doing this at the same time as some sort of management restructuring, they can't use that as an excuse either as in practical terms we'll all still be in the same place doing the same jobs, just reporting to different people. I think they are relying on a recent employment appeals tribunal decision that overturned TUPE retained T&C provisions, but that was in a very specific case where the people concerned were in fact being paid full-time rates even though they were part-time. Well, relying on that and being able to bully everyone into submission by 'divide and rule' tactics. Our union are going to be no help in this, they pretty much keeled over in no time when we were TUPE'd in the first place and from what I've heard 3rd-hand they are highly likely to do so again. Can anyone confirm that my view is correct and that they have no right to do what they are proposing? And if so, what can I do about it? The options seem to be either to claim constructive dismissal or to stay put and sue them for the difference in income between current and imposed contracts. Not that we've seen the new contracts yet but you can bet they won't be making these changes for the employees' benefit And by the way - this isn't some fly-by-night operation, it's a FTSE employer with 3000+ employees. If there's any employment law experts in England reading this, you may have a job - they have a track record of intransigence when it comes to anything like negotiating with their employees!