Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • TECHZONE BUXTON LTD overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK TECHZONE BUXTON LTD - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual... thread title updated. dx
    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
  • 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

Reclaimed money for premium rate text messages


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5894 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

I recently received over £80 back from a communications network that have been charging me £1.50 every time they sent me a text message- from a service I didn't sign up for.

 

I noticed over the period of a year that my mobile phone bill was steadily increasing although I was still within my tariff.

 

I was also receiving, on a regular basis, text messages from 8---- numbers. Some had url links to websites and others were 'chat' messages- all very annoying!

 

I tried texting STOP and STOP ALL, neither worked. Eventually, my phone company 02 gave me the telephone numbers of the companies sending me the messages (these were on my bill next to the charge).

 

One company I phoned and spoke to someone who immediately offered me my money back - grand total £7. I promptly received a cheque in the post.

 

The other company wasn't so easy. They had a recorded message which cut you off after a couple of minutes. Phone Pay Plus (the regulatory body) gave me another number for the same company- this line was also unavailable.

I googled the company and found there address, wrote to them demanding my money back or court proceedings. They quickly got in touch with a different contact number.

 

The guy I spoke to at the company was very polite and helpful, didn't even question whether I had signed up for the service. When he looked on his system he found that I had actually received more texts than I originally thought.

Within a week I had a cheque through the post for £75.

 

Do not ignore these costly text messages and don't bother trying to get the money back from your own phone company.

 

I can only assume that these companies make so much money and don't want to be investigated, so quite happily give you your money back, if you can get through to them!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not ignore these costly text messages and don't bother trying to get the money back from your own phone company.

 

I can only assume that these companies make so much money and don't want to be investigated, so quite happily give you your money back, if you can get through to them!!!

That's exactly how it works! And our regulators know this. Providing a difficult route to obtain a refund is par for the course, many just give up - so congratulations!

@buzby: are you sitting down? I absolutely agree with you and well done jodilauren.

 

re: reverse billed premium rate 'services'

 

The mobile networks take 20% to %50 of the revenue although they all claim the problem is nothing to do with them.

The EU Commission attempted to have mobile phone accounts protected by the same laws that bank/credit card accounts are subject to.

The mobile operators and premium rate industry successfully lobbied the UK Government to be exempted from those regulations.

 

Here's a list of the PhonePayPlus (Icstis) adjudications and 'fines' from Feb 2004 to March 2008.

A FINE record. It takes a minute or two to down load.

PhonepayPlus - adjudications

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont know how they got my number

been receiving texts from a company called no worries loans

they keep trying to make me apply for a loan

ime getting three of these texts a day

the number is 0871 7111 789

 

can some one put my mind at rest

 

is this company making money out of me by charging for these texts

that i never asked to receive

 

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ buzby: are you sitting down? I absolutely agree with you and well done jodilauren.

 

Well, it has to happen at least once! :)

 

On a more serious note, I still remain amazed that a third party that you have no contractual agreement with, can simply initiate a call you your mobile number and claim money, and you don't have a leg to stand on. Talk about human rights? This one needs stopping before it gets out of hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont know how they got my number

been receiving texts from a company called no worries loans

they keep trying to make me apply for a loan

ime getting three of these texts a day

the number is 0871 7111 789

 

can some one put my mind at rest

 

is this company making money out of me by charging for these texts

that i never asked to receive

 

many thanks

Hopefully not. Look on your bill, contact your network operator and ask.

 

There are two types of unsolicited text msg. Premium Rate 'services' that are charged and spam advertising that is not charged.

 

You can register your mobile number with the TPS to stop some of the spam advertising.

Untitled Document

On a more serious note, I still remain amazed that a third party that you have no contractual agreement with, can simply initiate a call you your mobile number and claim money, and you don't have a leg to stand on. Talk about human rights? This one needs stopping before it gets out of hand.

Yes! The ICO has been asked why we can 'opt-out' of receiving unsolicited free spam advertising but not opt-out of receiving unsolicited reverse billed [problem] 'services'.

They refused to admit it exists. The problem of unsolicited billing goes back to at least 2000.

There has never been a single criminal prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...