Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They couldn't afford to cut the NI level - having to borrow to do it - which breaks common sense rules let alone fiscal rules Unc   .. and thats just based on what we know of their fiscal incompetence, let alone any hidden costs
    • Interesting question regarding what Government accounts opposition parties have access to, before an General Election. From what I understand, Government department accounts that are published are always lagging behind and would not include some amounts which are classified as 'commercially sensitive'.  Therefore opposition parties and Parliamentrary select committees would not have access to accounts which contain real time up to date information. If a new Government have found £20 billion of spending liabilities they did not know about, this could be true, as £20 billion is not that much when you look at total Government expenditure. Government department are making decisions on spending all of the time and it could be the previous Government were planning tax changes and/or spending cuts to balance the books.  Jeremy Hunt has recently said that if the Tories had stayed in Government and held an Autumn budget, it would have been very difficult to cut taxes as some had wanted.
    • Everyone knows the tories were hiding the costs - and even added 4 billion quid to the taxpayers high interest credit card to fund a chunk of the NI tax reduction - prime example - look at how much cost was hidden re the Rwanda dogwhistle -10 Billion quid     and re the handful of rebels on the benefit limit If the disasters (like the Rwanda rubbish) of Tory dogs being wagged by the extremist minority ERG tail doesn't highlight the issues .. Enlighten yourself here .. (fat chance) Sir Keir Starmer is right to show Labour rebels the door WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Editorial: Suspending seven MPs following their rebellion over the two-child benefit cap is more than a prime minister flexing his political muscle. It is a...  
    • Trump instigated that didnt he @theoldrouge despite losing the election - and Biden mitigated as much as he could within his boundaries?   "President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss"   “The order was for an immediate withdrawal, and it would have been catastrophic,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., one of two Republican members of the special panel. “And yet President Trump signed the order.”   Trump ordered rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan after election loss WWW.MILITARYTIMES.COM The memo was among the latest revelations from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building.   Although i agree that Biden should have done more to mitigate Trump driven disasters
    • ok your WS is wrong. Paragraph 16 and 17 says  you did not contract with evri but this is not true - see below  Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency post 251 of occy thread - £844 lost    you should also add a paragraph on donough v Stevenson talking about the fact that even without contract there is still duty of care to goods and by failing to deliver this duty has been breached.   Make those changes and post it back up here and I'll check over things again
  • 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
      • 162 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

AOL and Talk Talk problems


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6096 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

In 2005 I started an dial up internet subsciption with AOL with a free trial period and they requested credit card details in the event that I would carry on with the subscription. I cancelled the suscription with AOL as I wasn't happy with the service and this was done within the agreed time limit, I also told them not to take payments from my card. At the same time I paid off the credit card and that account was closed. Having recently checked through my direct debits going from my bank it has come to my attention that direct debits to the credit card company were going from my account and that AOL were taking payments from the card (even though the card account was closed in Nov 2005). The credit card account now has a balance of £400 on it. I contacted AOL who were extremely rude and unhelpful claiming I had been using the AOL service up to July last year - a complete fabrication on their part, i haven't owned the computer the service was loaded on since Jan 06. They claim to have no record of me contacting them to cancel my account and have offered to refund me 6 months payments which I have declined. I am going to make a formal complaint to AOL and the credit card company - how can they allow money to be taken out of a closed account?? Is this not fraudulant and does it not open up a gateway for any company, who at some time have taken money monthly from a credit card, to do the same?

 

My partner is also having problems with Talk Talk taking direct debits without authorisation and have even taken steps to take him to court claiming he owes them £22!! Talk Talk agreed that they indeed owed him £122 for the direct debit payments they had taken out since the account was closed and promised to send a cheque out to him on 29th October 07. Yesterday he received a letter from a county court specialist to inform him Talk Talk are taking him to court for the £22 they admitted in the October phone call he didn't owe. Heated telephone calls were made to Talk Talk yesterday but no-one there seems to know what they're doing and they have promised to look into it by Monday lunchtime.:evil:

 

Sorry to go on a bit here but it makes my blood boil to think you sign up to these companies in good faith only to get ripped off by them. It seems a lot of other people have had problems with these two companies - any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, you need to put everything in writing to the complaints department of each company. Unfortunately, when you speak on the phone, you are at the whim of whoever answers, so i would be inclined to bypass the whole phoning process completely.

 

Secondly, write to your credit card company explaining that these payments have been taken fraudulently. they should not have allowed the card to be used once cancelled and once you cancelled the contract with them, you were in effect cancelling their right to collect the funds.

 

Do you have any proof that the card was actually cancelled rather than the balance paid off and the card cut up?

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply tiglet. Yes, I kept the paperwork confirming the account was closed. Also, when I spoke to the credit card company to question why the direct debits were still being taken, the customer service advisor confirmed the account was closed and put me on hold to check out what had happened. In her words "I don't understand why a closed account is showing an outstanding balance on it". I've had no correspondance from the card company other than the confirmation the account was closed until I stopped the direct debit - its been non stop text messages from them to my mobile ever since. It's certainly taught me to check my bank statements much more carefully and not to trust the direct debit scheme or ISP's so much.

 

With regards to my partner's problems with Talk Talk, he phoned his bank to ask about his rights under the direct debit guarantee, only to be told that it is an "indemnity" not a "guarantee" and as the payments had been taken by a ISP/mobile phone company the bank wouldn't pay the money back which has been taken since the internet account was closed, all they could do is lodge a "concern" with Talk Talk. She claimed that it is the customer's duty to cancel the DD with the bank - not the company - a total contradiction to what the financial expert on BBC news was saying this morning! Do any of these financial instituations know what they're talking about? Bring back the days when you spoke to people face to face and not to some idiot who's sitting bored rigid in a call centre somewhere and wouldn't know the meaning of customer service if it was written in ten foot high letters in front of them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD guarantee? Wrong - you are entitled to your money back if it has been taken without your permission/should not ahve been taken. the bank needs to refund you and then they claim the money back - however, they don't seem to like customers knowing this and will try to fob you off.

 

Insist upon it - it is your right.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...