Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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

Goods not recived via private internet purchase?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5709 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

Hi guys,

I bought a car cover for £130 off a guy on a car website in april, and it still hasn't been delivered. It was a private one-off sale, and I paid by direct bank transfer as I trusted the guy :-x... Now he has said royal mail have lost it, blah blah blah, but he did not insure it so cannot claim the money back. Ever since I have been fobbed off with lame excuse after lame excuse.

 

I called the police as it has been 4 months now, they paid him a visit on the grounds of obtaining money by decepiton, but he has convinced them that he admits he owes me £130, and it is all in hand.

 

I am loosing patience now, as I have been messed around for too long, is small claims court the way forward, as the guy is claiming he is off work due to a bike accident, so only has £60 a week. He lives with his parents, so even if I win in court could the baliffs legally enter the property to recover the debt?

 

Any advice would be great, I was going to follow the bank charges model, send him 2 letters then file on moneyclaim online, would this be acceptable? Also can I claim the interest on the initial £130 and the cost of all the phonecalls etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - if you've already sent several requests for a refund then simply send him a final LBA, give him 14 days, then submit a claim.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Did you ask him to get the postal insurance?

Does he have proof of posting?

 

If he is on benefits you are going to get very little from him if you take court action and win.

The bailiffs can only enter his property if he doesn't pay what the court orders and if he lets them in. If he doesn't answer the door to the bailiffs they will eventually give up. If he doesn't let them in they can't force there way in. As its his parents home I imagine he will say everything belongs to them so I don't think bailiffs would be very successful in this set up.

I hope I don't sound like I'm on the guys side I'm not.

This is the problem with buying off the net, you have to be so careful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't ask him to insure the parcel, you can only claim compensation up to the maximum allowed by Royal Mail, which is a lot less than £130. From the Royal Mail site:

"This compensation is subject to the maximum payable being the lower of the market value of the item and statutory maximum of 100 x 1st Class stamps at the first weight step."

 

In order to do that, you will need proof of posting which he should provide. If he can't provide this, then he should compensate you as there is no way of telling the item was ever sent!

 

If he does give you proof of posting, then I'm afraid you don't have a case against him. You'll have to get compensation from Royal Mail. It's not too late, you have 12 months from the date of posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't ask him to insure the parcel,

 

In order to do that, you will need proof of posting which he should provide. If he can't provide this, then he should compensate you as there is no way of telling the item was ever sent!

 

If he does give you proof of posting, then I'm afraid you don't have a case against him. You'll have to get compensation from Royal Mail. It's not too late, you have 12 months from the date of posting.

 

Exactly, You are spot on.

thats why I asked the OP if they had asked for an insured delivery and if the seller had proof of posting.!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

 

I called the police as it has been 4 months now, they paid him a visit on the grounds of obtaining money by decepiton, but he has convinced them that he admits he owes me £130, and it is all in hand.

 

you were lucky the police went round to visit the guy, surely they must have asked to see the proof of posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest joe.inom

you know what , it aint the fault for the sellers.

Cause you know what , i have orderd a Shoe pair from eBay , and they took it to deliver here in florida after a month .

I have sent them millions and millions of letters , emails and i almost murderd the bank manager on the phone.

Then almost at the month end of the order , the guy comes in with the delivery report and gives a ltter.

the letter says that they are already busy with millions such orders , when my number came in , i got my delivery.

This is the case with you too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, if he has no money, I think the best you could get out of him is a very small sum each week, unless his parents do the decent thing and pay you back.

 

Until the OP actually says that the seller has NOT got any proof that he actually sent the item then no one knows for sure that he didn't.

 

The OP said "The guy is off work at the moment." which would make one presume that the guy is an adult, over sixteen at least.

Why would the guys parents have to do the Decent thing, and pay him back.

No one has any way of knowing if the parents knew anything about this.

Once children are over sixteen, the parents are not responsible for their actions.

If the seller was a child then I would agree. I think it can be gleaned from the OP that the seller is an adult. So I don't see that the parents should even be bought into the picture.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Still not had any joy with this, whats the maximum sentance for GBH? :mad::mad:... Incidently, the bank (HSBC) say they cannot do anything as the payment was made by myself, even though the guy is a fraudster, they refuse to help!

 

Also, Can I claim 8% interest on this if I go through the small claims court?

Edited by will_cosworth
Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't said if the guy has proof of posting or not.!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will_cosworth. viewpost.gif

Still not had any joy with this, whats the maximum sentance for GBH? :evil::evil:...

 

You might just land yourself in alot of trouble with that attitude,

I don't think a court case is worth bothering with. As the guy you are after is unemployed you are likely to get a pound a month out of him, if your claim is successful.

I think that kind of outcome would wind you up and make you feel worse than you do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things:

 

1) Even if the sender had proof of posting, it is still his responsability. Whether he can claim off RM or not is not the OP's issue. OP entitled to get full refund for item non received.

 

2) Maybe the guy can pay, maybe he can't. There's no way to ascertain that and it's amazing the number of people who DO find they can pay up after all when faced with the possibility of a CCJ. There is the risk that OP might not recover his money + court fee, but the alternative is kiss goodbye to £130 without a fight. If it were me, I'd spend the money on the court fee and go for it. At worse, I'd lose £30 (£35 now?) and not get my money back, at best, I'd get it all back + interest.

 

If you do decide to go to court, yes, you can add 8% statutory interest (and your court fee on top). You can also claim "reasonable" costs for dealing with the case, at £9.25 an hour, but don't be greedy and over-inflate your costs, that does nothing for your credibility.

 

Yes, there is the risk that the guy will come out with a £1 a week judgment... IF he can convince the judge that that is all he can afford... But you know what? As far as I am concerned, it's always worth doing anyway if only for the moral victory, knowing that maybe he screwed you out of £130, but his credit rating is b*ggered for the next 6 years.

 

In the end, though, it has to be your decision, and no-one else's. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bookie on this wholly - not sure why it is assumed that it is the OPs issue if the compensation from RM is inadequate - the seller had a responsibility to ensure the goods were delivered and this includes adequate insurance on the item.

 

In addition, again agree with Bookie that to say it is pointless following a claim is just not true, certainly on the information we have. Baliffs are not the only form of enforcement of a CCJ(indeed, they are the worst IMO), and a garnishee order or AoE would probably work wonders in this case.

 

Good luck OP ;)

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bookworm,

Every thing I sell on line is covered by the royal mail comp which is free when I obtain a proof of posting certificate, I think it covers up to £36. roughly,I always obtain POP when I send an item I've sold.

If the item sold is worth more I give the buyer the opportunity to pay insurance.

Buyers usually wish to pay the insurance.

Are you saying that if the buyer chooses not to pay for the insurance and lets say the item is worth £100. and royal mail looses it then its up to me to refund the buyer in full?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the seller didn't offer insurance in this instance, did he? Seller didn't insure goods, didn't offer to buyer to add insurance to purchase, so yes, it is totally 100% his liability and responsability to reimburse buyer. Furthermore, even if buyer were to want to pursue the matter himself (for reasons best known to himself), he couldn't as he doesn't have a contract with RM, the seller does.

 

Edit: As far as you are concerned, if you are charging your customers (not businesses, that's a different matter) insurance, you are in breach of the CPUT Regs 08:

If you are selling to a consumer, you are responsible for the risk of loss or damage in transit, until the goods are delivered. If you wish to take out postal insurance, this is your responsibility, not the consumer's. Postal insurance should therefore not be offered to consumers at an extra charge.
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/Images/ca12_tcm9-8175.pdf Edited by Bookworm
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the seller didn't offer insurance in this instance, did he? Seller didn't insure goods, didn't offer to buyer to add insurance to purchase, so yes, it is totally 100% his liability and responsibility to reimburse buyer. Furthermore, even if buyer were to want to pursue the matter himself (for reasons best known to himself), he couldn't as he doesn't have a contract with RM, the seller does.

 

sorry i probably didn't explain my self very well, not very articulate.:oops:

I was asking the question for myself.

I sell quite alot on Ebay.

As I said I always offer insurance , the buyer has to pay. If the goods are worth less than £36. this is covered for free for buyer through the POP which I always obtain. I also give them an option to purchase insurance.

If they decide they don't want insurance (which from memory only one buyer has & the value of item was £60) and RM looses the parcel are you saying I am responsible & have to refund them the full amount.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are is the short answer, as per Bookies edit above ;)

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...