Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Phantom
      Letter from Police, intention to prosecute RTA - advice please on how to proceed

      By The Phantom · Posted

      I have posted the letter off today - sent recorded delivery, so should get to the Police early next week. I also walked along the street where this happened and checked if there were any CCTV cameras or video door bells in that section of the road, but could only find one. I talked to the owners of the house with the camera but they say it is set to only cover the area leading up to the house and not really the pavement or road and footage also auto deletes after 72 hours, so anything captured would be gone now. That was disappointing. I walked along the road a bit more, but couldn't see any other video door bells or CCTV, so that didn't help.  I always thought most people have at least a video door bell these days but not in that road... 😐 So came home a bit disappointed.  If anything else happens I will post an update here, but may not be for a week or so. Not sure how long this will take now.
    • SOD'EM
      Virgin Media playing Games.

      By SOD'EM · Posted

      Hi all.   I've just cancelled my Virgin Media because my Wife and I are going abroad for 12 months or so. My Son will be staying in our home, and wishes to start a contract with them. He signed up to a great deal for New Customers online, and a Contract Agreement was signed online. He had a delivery date for a Self Installation Kit but it never arrived. After speaking to numerous Virgin Media Staff online, they are insisting that he calls their Pre Installation Team (I presume that is their sales Team to try and get more money). He doesn't want to speak to them over the phone. He doesn't mind doing a Live Chat, but he hasn't got an Account Number yet, so that's impossible. He even had a chat with a Team Member on Whatsapp, who say they don't have access to the information they need, so he has no option but to call them. Why can't they just be straightforward with their Communications? Is there any other option other than calling them?   TIA.
    • steam_hammer
      Another P2G / EVRi Lost Parcel Claim

      By steam_hammer · Posted

      Hi All, I'm looking for help with a P2G claim for another lost parcel. Given the wealth of information on this site, I'm hopeful that this should be an easy one to fix, but want to be sure I have everything. On the 6th March, I contracted with P2G to send a parcel (a £600 Pioneer AVH-Z7200DAB car stereo which is not on either P2G or EVRi's excluded from compensation or prohibited items list) using EVRi, sent it off, and that was the last I heard of it. The EVRi tracking showed that the parcel had made it to the national sorting hub at 2:12 on the 7th, and then vanished. By Friday, I had started to get nervous, and so, raised an enquiry. And then another, and another - well, they weren't responding, and I couldn't get their telephone one to work, I think in all, it was more than 15 enquiries. I also raised an investigation with P2G as well. EVRi closed the enquiry confirming a loss on the 19th March, and P2G near the end, although P2G closed it claiming that I needed to send photos of the parcel as proof - which I didn't have, and I also do not have an account with P2G so couldn't upload anything (I did test, just in case), and this is why despite receiving advice on the EVRi Fb group to send the letter before claim, I haven't yet acted. I have proof of the eBay listing, and the refund, to demonstrate that which was being sent, but P2G's insistence that I have no photographic proof of the parcel with the label - I have the photo of the goods in their box before sending, but this is for the eBay listing, and so does not show it after the fact. This I fear is what P2G will seek to rely on as a defence, hence my 10 week delay on progressing with this. But, I am more than £600 out of pocket for the loss: £600 for the item and £8.04 for the delivery fee, although my claim will actually be for an initial £611.09 to cover the cost of the loss, their delivery fee, and my 1st Class Recorded stamp for the Letter Before Claim to P2G, rising to £681.09 to cover the additional £70 cost of opening the court case if they fail to respond within 14 days. This question mark surrounding P2G's request for photographic evidence, is this likely to cause me a problem? Steve
    • pralink
      PRA Group Claimform - old Barclaycard

      By pralink · Posted

      Had a letter response today dated 12/6/24 from PRA Group re request for information consumer credit act 1974. Confirming they are in receipt of my CCA letter request - and that they are requesting the required information. They returned the £1 postal order. And my CCA letter. Stating that they will contact me with an update ASAP. They attached/included a standard ( non personal ) page about ' what they should provide ' and ' what happens If I don't get this information'.    I need to file my defence by 21 June 24. Any suggestions as to what that defence should be ?   
    • aries18pk
      Need help with huge amount of unsecured debt

      By aries18pk · Posted

      Thanks @dx100uk for responding promptly.    To be quite honest with you, applying for breathing space might not really help except some short term relief. I don’t want to default either as I might lose my job too and I cannot really afford it. Sorry for sounding bit stupid but is there something I can do to stop them charging interest and agree on reduced payments? Can I use pro-rata payment letters to get out of this situation without too much impact? I am working on information that @BankFodderhas requested and will be sharing it later today.  

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.
Latest activity

Locked in car park

Patma

By Patma
in General Consumer Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4658 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

Alphageek

Alphageek

Posted
Posted
No he never admitted causing criminal damage. He always insisted he only carefully raised the barrier. Anyone who has seen the unedited cctv footage can see the truth of that.

 

I think that goes without saying Patma.

 

I would simply do as I suggested above and invite LD to save costs and gather their evidence from the police.

 

Fred is not being unhelpful (not that he needs to be) and is trying to assist the claimant ;)

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So even if you agree to be cautioned, that might get turned down a short time later & it gets referred to the CPS, or the caution is delivered, or the senior guy realises that its a load of rubbish & the person is let out without realising that everything was dropped and the caution never given

One possibility must be that after the caution was delivered someone in a senior position saw it was a load of rubbish and deleted it, but if that's so they have a lot to answer for letting Fred think for over 3 years that he had a caution against him.

 

One big outstanding question is who has carefully removed all the evidence of the incident and who edited the cctv?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think that goes without saying Patma.

 

I would simply do as I suggested above and invite LD to save costs and gather their evidence from the police.

 

Fred is not being unhelpful (not that he needs to be) and is trying to assist the claimant ;)

That's an excellent suggestion Alphageek :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
foolishgirl

foolishgirl

Posted
Posted
Fred allegedly received a Simple Caution, but the conditions were certainly not complied with by the police.

 

 

Hmm- is this why the police are dragging their feet over the info. you are currently awaiting I wonder.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hmm- is this why the police are dragging their feet over the info. you are currently awaiting I wonder.

 

My suspicion is that they are trying to work out how to limit the damage to themselves and there may be internal investigations going on which they're not telling us about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dhoyle

dhoyle

Posted
Posted

I'd like to invite Plymouth College of Art and LD round for a game of poker!

 

They should have folded ages ago, but just keep raising the stakes in a game they can only lose.

 

All the best Fred and well done Patma and CAG!

Link to post
Share on other sites
389shell

389shell

Posted
Posted

Wow! I remember reading a bit of this thread when it first started, it has now taken me a good few hours to get through 113 pages of twists and turns.

 

You could call this thread 'CAG does Erin Brockovich', not quite a global giant but untruths have been uncovered and it will be a fantastic win with the possibility of someone doing a bit of porridge.

 

Well done, it just goes to show what a fantastic website this is.

 

There have been quite a few guests in and out whilst I've been reading this too.

 

Good luck Patma and Fred, I wish you the very best of luck.

PLEASE DONATE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN

 

 

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

 

 

 

 

Go on, click me scales (if I have helped) :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
cab1ne

cab1ne

Posted
Posted

interesting read on the police website

 

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.

Cautions are now covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'.

 

 

This applies retrospectively so applies to anyone who has ever had a caution, irrelevant of when it was given.

 

 

 

If the application form says that the post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 then the caution must be disclosed, no matter how long ago it was given.

However, this does not mean that it will not be disclosed on a CRB check. It will not normally be disclosed on a standard check but maybe disclosed on an enhanced check and on a subject access request - see below for more information.

Depending on the type of offence cautions are 'stepped down' after a set period of time (5 or 10 years). This basically means that they will only be visible to police staff and not other agencies who do checks. The exception to this is if a person is the subject of an Enhanced Disclosure and then if relevant it will be disclosed.

Even after five/ten years the caution can still be disclosed if you apply for certain types of jobs, i.e. police, teacher, or jobs working with children and vulnerable adults. It will be disclosed if it is relevant to the job you are applying for.

Cautions will always remain on a person's record but as explained above will be stepped down after 5 or 10 years. There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned.

 

 

 

cab

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
noomill060

noomill060

Posted
Posted

"Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Helford

Helford

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

Just to clarify, Hays DX (Document Exchange) is NOT like fax. DX allows original documents to be transferred from one designated point (i.e. A local bank, insurance broker etc. acts as a local collection point in the community) and then they are transferred overnight (By road, rail, aircraft etc.) to another designated point from where they are collected. Depending on your volume of mail, you might be a designated point yourself!

 

See here:- DX exchange

 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yorky2008

Yorky2008

Posted
Posted
A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

 

So we have no caution and no prosecution....now I may not be a high flying lawyer like LD but that to me says no case to answer....

 

Count me in on the poker game, I can clean up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'd like to invite Plymouth College of Art and LD round for a game of poker!

 

They should have folded ages ago, but just keep raising the stakes in a game they can only lose.

 

All the best Fred and well done Patma and CAG!

Thanks for your good wishes,dhoyle.

We'll keep going till we win too :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Wow! I remember reading a bit of this thread when it first started, it has now taken me a good few hours to get through 113 pages of twists and turns.

 

You could call this thread 'CAG does Erin Brockovich', not quite a global giant but untruths have been uncovered and it will be a fantastic win with the possibility of someone doing a bit of porridge.

 

Well done, it just goes to show what a fantastic website this is.

 

There have been quite a few guests in and out whilst I've been reading this too.

 

Good luck Patma and Fred, I wish you the very best of luck.

 

Thanks for your support 389shell.

I noticed the guests were dropping a fair bit today too. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned.

Both the above apply in this case.

Funny thing is Fred started out thinking he' might have an uphill struggle challenging the caution as it doesn't seem to happen too often.

Who'd have guessed it would have gone and disappeared all by itself :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, well, well, we have an update!:D

 

Fred has been on the phone to say he's received a letter from Lyons Davidson this morning, together with a new witness statement from Mr Dexter saying this (drum roll:D:p:D)....

"The barrier in place at the time of the incident was manufactured by FAAC. This was later replaced by a barrier manufactured by RIB."

This is kindly signed with a statement of truth.

There's more...

They've also inluded a more detailed defence against the counterclaim and Fred read bits out to me....one of which admits that the barrier was already damaged when Fred lifted it. They are claiming that his action in lifting it damaged it further.

They are still sticking to the old line that classes finished at 12 and therefore Fred had no business being there, but we've already demolished that argument with proof from Plymouth College of Art staff themselves via FOI requests.

 

In the accompanying letter from Lyons Davidson they refer to having been informed that Fred has communicated directly with the College Principal and they state they are the College's legal representatives and he must communicate through them.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have a wonderful quote from Lord Woolf ....

"They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie." Lord Woolf

 

I want to be able to give the reference for it, but so far haven't been able to track it down.

Does anyone know where I might find it please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
electron99

electron99

Posted
Posted

This is fast becoming a farce. If the barrier was already damaged, and fred caused further damage, why are they chasing him for many times the cost of a new barrier. Should not this be directed towards the person who first did the damage. Presumably CCTV exists of this, or does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This is fast becoming a farce. If the barrier was already damaged, and fred caused further damage, why are they chasing him for many times the cost of a new barrier. Should not this be directed towards the person who first did the damage. Presumably CCTV exists of this, or does it?

 

A farce it certainly is electron. We have a previous witness statement from Mr Dexter stating the barrier was definitely not a FAAC and we also have the fact that they have claimed no records exist, but now suddenly when the Principal has entered the equation a little bit of truth is trickling out.

I think these lates offerings give us a lot of scope even perhaps a strike out application in view of all the false statements.:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
middenmess

middenmess

Posted
Posted

Arrowed is the latest work party on their way to continue digging this huge hole just outside their Bristol Office.

 

Despite repeated requests to lay down their tools,the proprietors of Lyons Davidson have stated that will not stop until they can dig no more!

 

truck-mine.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yorky2008

Yorky2008

Posted
Posted
They've also inluded a more detailed defence against the counterclaim and Fred read bits out to me....one of which admits that the barrier was already damaged when Fred lifted it. They are claiming that his action in lifting it damaged it further.

 

They would have to prove what additional damage Fred has caused by his actions and then they would only be able to claim for that, the rest they would have to recover from the other 3rd parties.

 

As no maintenance records, or any records for that matter, seem to exist they are on a hiding to nowhere and just running up costs. Be interesting to see what the judge makes of the makes of the fact that they know they dont have the evidence and are still pushing on and just p1ssing money away now!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
They would have to prove what additional damage Fred has caused by his actions and then they would only be able to claim for that, the rest they would have to recover from the other 3rd parties.

 

As no maintenance records, or any records for that matter, seem to exist they are on a hiding to nowhere and just running up costs. Be interesting to see what the judge makes of the makes of the fact that they know they dont have the evidence and are still pushing on and just p1ssing money away now!!!!

Verty true Yorky!

And what will the court make of all the growing list of false statements they've made, under statements of truth? That in itself is an offence.

Again I quote Lord Woolf:-

"They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie." Lord Woolf

 

I really want to find the source of this quote if anyone has any ideas where I might track it down.:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
pebsham

pebsham

Posted
Posted

A new law hits the statute books, "Criminal Damage Lite"!

This is when you cause criminal damage to something that's already broken but you pay for the whole repair. Wow infinite cash flow. Just bill anybody that passed throgh the barrier as contributors to the "damage".

 

Are LD really a bunch of qualified people or do they only exist as a software package called "random broken-law generator"?

 

Is the security guard responsible towards the costs because I'm guessing he raised and lowered the "arm" many times after it originally failed?

 

Are the college jointly responsible towards the cost of repair because they've admitted they knowingly allowed a broken security device to continue to be used without putting it out of action?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma

Patma

Posted
  • Author
Posted
A new law hits the statute books, "Criminal Damage Lite"!

This is when you cause criminal damage to something that's already broken but you pay for the whole repair. Wow infinite cash flow. Just bill anybody that passed throgh the barrier as contributors to the "damage".

 

Are LD really a bunch of qualified people or do they only exist as a software package called "random broken-law generator"?

 

Is the security guard responsible towards the costs because I'm guessing he raised and lowered the "arm" many times after it originally failed?

 

Are the college jointly responsible towards the cost of repair because they've admitted they knowingly allowed a broken security device to continue to be used without putting it out of action?

All very good points pebsham.

I've just realised too that this admission also proves that the original complaint to the Police was fraudulent.oopsy daisy yet again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
royboy68

royboy68

Posted
Posted

Was there a statement of truth stating that the barrier was in good working order. If so then how can they then amend the defence.

Be careful with this as they may have come up with a ploy that the damage was minor and Fred compounded it making it useless. Sureley they should be put to proof as to what the damage was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4658 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...