Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello I've got a parking ticket, see here... https://ibb.co/DfHqg9F https://ibb.co/QvqH52m https://ibb.co/pbPPdDg https://ibb.co/X2F1X25 I've been parking at a particular corner in a small Tesco car park for years. Recently they put two electric charging plugs, one where that spot is and one at the bay next door, so I stopped using them out of courtesy in case they need to be used (I use that Tesco every day and drive past every day but have yet to see anyone use them). Recently I went back to Tesco when it was reasonably dark. All the bays were full, including the three blue badge bays. I have one but none of the cars parked in the bays did, I noticed as I walked past them (nobody ever gets pulled for that because Tesco have never policed this small car park before). Since there was two free electric bay spaces, and since I wasn't going to be long (just one product), I parked into my former 'regular' spot. There was a notice on the wall but if I'm honest I didn't read it because (a) I'm thick, and (b) I honestly thought it was just telling people how to use the device (like I said, I'm thick) rather than this being a parking fine. I went back during daylight and the sign is very obvious (as you can see from the picture), although not so obvious at night, although probably still obvious enough for you to tell me "tough luck, pal". Now they want £100 or £60 if I pay quickly. Am I doomed?
    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Me vs TalkTalk


Derfel
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5951 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Here is a letter I sent them a few days ago:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like the following complaint elevated to the highest level, so that if it is not resolved within 14 days I can take appropriate legal action as a matter of principle.

As this letter is rather lengthy, I offer the following summary of my complaint in the hope it might lead to it being addressed more appropriately:

·You failed to provide the service I signed up for.

·You caused me to incur expenses as a result of this breach of contract.

·You took money out of my bank account with no contract in force.

·You persisted in maintaining incorrect data about me.

·You passed this incorrect data to a debt collection agency, again without contractual justification.

·You promised compensation which was not forthcoming.

On 15 April 2006 I signed up for the TalkTalk package with separate telephone and broadband totalling £30 per month. We received neither the service nor any correspondence such as a welcome pack or terms and conditions. At no time was any information volunteered by you to me in the event of problems stopping the account being set up, instead I had to phone your inadequate call centre on numerous occasions. On five occasions altogether, staff at the call centre told me that it is necessary to re-provision the account, but each time after a two week wait, the service was not forthcoming.

When I signed up I was not told that we had to be with BT to transfer the line, and it was not until mid-May when someone at your call centre told me this. I transferred our line to BT, and instructed someone at your call centre that we were willing to pay BT's disconnection fee. By mid-June nothing had happened, and your company started blaming a non-descript BT product on the line which your company could not remove. BT confirmed there was no such product, and we relayed this information to you and we waited again.

In August, I sent two recorded delivery letters terminating the contract as no services had been forthcoming. I tried to transfer to Tiscali but they were unable to transfer us as your company had placed a blocking marker on our line. BT confirmed that the marker was placed by TalkTalk and gave me the cease code XXX. On 5 September I emailed Charles Dunstone (after resorting to searching for CPW Plc directors’ email addresses on the Internet) and repudiated the contract as no services had been forthcoming for over four months, and instructed him to remove the marker from our line. Fortunately, after this, the marker was removed and we were duly able to transfer to Tiscali.

Although out of pocket, I hoped this was the end of having to deal with your company. No such luck! From October onwards I started receiving TalkTalk bills, for services your company was not providing us with and never had. Each time I phoned your company, seeking for this anomaly on your billing system to be corrected, after much cumulative time wasted on hold, I was assured that the balance was reset to zero and there would be no more bills. Each time these turned out to be false assurances. After the first bill, you succeeded in taking money out of my account through Direct Debit, before my bank reversed this. There was not a contract in force therefore you were without reason to take money from my bank account. Eventually I received a letter from your company stating that the account should have a zero balance.

On 4 January 2007 I received a rudely worded creditor’s notice demand for an ‘outstanding balance’ of £76.99 from Corporate Credit Media Ltd. The letter left no room for error on your part, and the fact it was printed on red paper with mostly bold and capitalised text did not make it any more correct. I telephoned CCMedia and was rudely told that they are “not interested in disputes between clients and their customers” and that I would “just have to argue [my] case in court”. This behaviour does not follow OFT guidelines on debt collection. Again, with no contract, there was no reason for you to pass my details to a third party. This is a breach of the Data Protection Act of 1988. Furthermore, you persisted in keeping false data about me, another breach, despite being told on numerous occasions that it was incorrect.

On 5 January I emailed Charles Dunstone with a 14 day deadline to determine a fair resolution to my complaint. This was 7 days more than the letter from the debt collection agency gave me! I received a phone call from XXX, who did not seem aware of all the details and offered £75 compensation, and assured me the account was closed. I declined this as it wasn't a fair reflection of our costs and gave him until the 14 day deadline ran out on my letter to come up with something more reasonable.

The DCA soon afterwards assured me that it was the end of the matter. However, on 16 January I received a second letter from them entitled "PENDING LEGAL ACTION". I phoned XXX about this misleading letter and he upped the offer to £160. Still, this was not a worthwhile offer. A week later, XXX emailed to say that he had arranged for this cheque to be sent, that I would receive it 'in around 5 days', and that the matter was now closed. Needless to say we have not received a cheque.

Here is what I would consider a fair resolution to this complaint.

·I would like the cost of my BT bills for the period between transferring to BT and you removing the marker from our line, minus what TalkTalk would have charged for same period. The BT costs were two bills, the first dated 10 July 2006 at £73.55, the second dated 9 October 2006 at £139.11. TalkTalk would have cost £20 per calendar month, which is £80 in total. The whole difference is therefore £132.66.

·Five hours of my time spent on this issue at £20 per hour. £100 in total.

·The original £160 I was promised solely as compensation.

This totals £392.66.

If you had been prompt and upfront in your initial dealings with me, or acted on my first letters cancelling your attempts at provisioning my account in August, I would not have incurred such large bills with BT.

I believe that the provision in the Data Protection Act of 1988 to compensate for distress and inconvenience would cover the total amount I am asking for.

Again, I would like to reiterate that if this complaint is not resolved in 14 days then I reserve the right to take legal action without further notice, and this will likely incur small claims court costs added to that total.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

What do you think? A customer services rep offered £220 but still doesn't seem aware of all the facts (i.e. thought it was a guesture of good will that they cancelled the debts, but how can you actually cancel debts that don't exist?), and £220 doesn't cover my out of pocket expenses anyway. I hope I can get my expenses and a little compensation for their organisational incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

We got a call from a "high level complaints officer", who really didn't understand that they broke the Data Protection Act, he thought companies are entitled to recover debts and they only deleted these debts as a guesture of good will. Whatever. He sent a letter of deadlock, which emphasised that they don't understand the complaint.

 

So we're sending this:

 

Thank you for your letter dated 4 October 2007, your ref xxxxxxxx. From your summary of my complaint, it appears that TalkTalk still do not understand my complaint. In July 2006 I sent two recorded delivery letters cancelling the contract. If a broadband service was live on my line at any point up to cancelling the contract, TalkTalk could have written to me, or your call centre staff could have told me so during any of my numerous phone calls enquiring about my account.

I emailed Charles Dunstone on 5 September 2006 for a MAC code, which I was subsequently provided with. That this was necessary implies that our cancellation letters of July 2006 went unheeded.

For reasons unknown to me, and after three written communications informing TalkTalk that the contract was repudiated, our ‘account’ was placed in your billing system, and it appears that this ultimately caused TalkTalk to provide (inaccurate) data about me to a debt collection agency (a third party) without permission, despite TalkTalk being informed by me on numerous occasions about these fictitious bills. I feel this negligence was a flagrant breach of the Data Protection Act (1988).

Since the bills were fictitious, it comes as no surprise that the figures in your letter (being one bill of £39.99 on 18 September, and three bills of £13.50 each in October, November, and December) do not add up to the £76.99 demanded of me by the debt collection agency in January 2007.

You can find the rest of the details of my complaint, and my suggested resolution totalling £392.66, in my previous letter. I feel this resolution is more than reasonable. I would like to offer you another chance to consider this, so I ask that you respond positively within 14 days, otherwise I will begin a small claims court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...