Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Bank refusing to help with PayPal fraud


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5717 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 did actually post this in another thread, but I figured it was probably lost in the flow of conversation, so I hope it's OK to put it here:

 

I've been trying to sort out a £270 purchase I made on PayPal (the item never arrived, the seller is a [EDIT]) - since I know that PayPal doesn't cover me to the full amount, I requested a chargeback from the credit card company. After about a month of hassle, they have finally sent me a letter stating that PayPal's duty was simply to process the payment and that as they have done so correctly, there are no grounds for a chargeback. I honestly don't know what to do now - I was under the strong impression that the credit card companies had to cover you against cases exactly like this, and I'm more than happy to push the issue as far as I need to, but realistically I don't know where to start. Any ideas, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do They don't like reversing Paypal payments (PP as a client of Barclays) give them a hard time

 

Tough for them remind them of their obligations under sec 75 of the CCA & also to move funds in a fraudulent transaction is money laundering

 

& why are you not covered by PayPal???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fully covered by PayPal simply because they only provide £150 buyer protection on a lot of transactions - I know it's better than nothing, but it still would leave me out of pocket for something that I had absolutely no control over.

 

The letter sent claims that section 75 of the CCA doesn't apply. I've scanned and OCRed the letter, full text is below. I disagree with some of their points (particularly the comparison to sending a cheque - that analogy completely negates the role that PayPal play in the transaction) and I get the general impression that I'm not being given all of the information I need, but I unfortunately don't know how to go about dismantling their argument.

 

 

Dear XXXX,

 

Your Credit Card Account Number: X.

 

I write following your recent contact about the transaction of £270.00 to Paypal * XXXX.

 

I feel it is important to explain that the Ombudsman has recently been looking at issues around section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Paypal-type transactions - specifically whether or not section 75 applies. The conclusion reached was that transactions involving an 'electronic money institution', i.e. Paypal, is a four-party transaction, involving the cardholder (debtor), the card issuer (creditor), the electronic money institution (supplier of remittance), who then forwards the funds to the supplier of goods (supplier/seller). Consequently there is no debtor-creditor-supplier relationship between the Bank and the supplier of the goods.

 

For section 75 to apply the law says there has to be a "debtor-creditor-supplier" agreement involving an actual or contemplated pre-existing 'arrangement' between the creditor and the supplier. Our relationship is with Paypal, who fulfilled their obligations by forwarding the funds to the supplier/seller of the goods. We do not have a relationship with the supplier/seller of the goods.

 

To further clarify this, the Ombudsman explained "...the cardholder is in the same position as he would have been if he had used his credit card to pay money into his current bank account and had then written a cheque to the seller."

 

As we are unable to help you any more, I can only suggest that you continue to pursue the matter via Paypal and Buyer Protection or seek independent advice.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Steve Morris

Manager, CCA Claims

Dispute Processing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll certainly request the details from PayPal again - when I tried to do so before they informed me that they couldn't provide them to me directly, only to the police. I have not yet reported it to the police, as I was hoping that it would just be sorted through the banks and PayPal, and because I had previously been informed that it was a civil, not criminal, matter. If that is not the case, however, I'll certainly do so.

 

In terms of taking further action against the bank (it's Lloyds TSB, not Barclays, by the way) or PayPal, I don't know what grounds I could do so on. That was really the crux of my original question - obviously I'll push it first to them, and secondly through the courts, but I don't know what grounds I can do so on when they claim that the CCA doesn't apply - I know from experience that big companies often do everything they can to avoid fulfiling their legal obligations, and that they often give in when presented with the facts and shown that the customer is willing to take it as far as necessary, but I can't seem to find any reference points as to what the facts actually are here, other than the (presumably biased) interpretation they gave me.

 

I really do appreciate your taking the time to help me here, I'm so glad that there's at least somewhere to discuss matters like this. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at the financial ombudsman's website, and it does appear that the letter from Lloyds TSB could be accurate - they seem to have decided that section 75 doesn't apply if PayPal is involved. Frankly I find that unbelievable - not only am I left with no recourse, I can't even lodge a complaint because the very people I'm meant to complain to are the ones who say I have no rights! On principal, apart from anything else, it is just completely unacceptable.

 

The only thing I have not yet had a chance to check is the regulations that the FSA place on PayPal in situations like this - since the ombudsman has decided the banks are not liable, I guess there is still some hope that the liability has simply been transferred to PayPal.

 

Has paypoo reimbursed you the £150 they claim you are covered for?

 

They are a nightmare to deal with.

Not yet. Not only that, they are now claiming that they'll only cover me for £100 since the seller was registered from the US but with a UK address. The fact that this was at no point mentioned, and that the eBay auction did clearly state £150 coverage, means that I will at least have some grounds to complain about that, but it's just another hassle.

 

How can stealing money from someone be a civil matter? theft is theft however it is wrapped up.

Quite correct, now that I look at it more closely - that'll teach me to believe what I'm told! I'll certainly take it to the police, but I still must assume that the chances of them actually recovering my money are slim, are they not? I know it's only £120 (assuming PayPal fulfil their obligations) but it's still enough to irritate me, not to mention the principal of the thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely fed up seeing companies erroneously hide behind the DPA to avoid giving details of thieves to their victims

 

The DPA was never intended to allow those guilty of a criminal offence to be anonymous & they should know that

Link to post
Share on other sites

as for the ombudsman they are a joke & their decisions are more & more frequently ignored, or even critized, by the courts

That's interesting - I don't suppose you happen to have any examples? I googled it a bit but couldn't seem to find anything relevant. Citing a few situations in which the ombudsman has been ignored or overruled would certainly help to give me a better position against Lloyds TSB's claims they made in the letter they sent me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get as much back from Paypal as you can. I have had dealings with them recently ( private seller/ not a [EDIT]) and it seems to me that they have far too many powers to move peoples money around without any notification and/or authority.

 

There a few dedicated websites, detailing Paypal problems, who may be able to assist.

 

UK Auction Help may be of use.

 

Good Luck Moonbuggy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...