Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3363 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ok thanks I understand that, but Fred wasn't invited to respond to their app to amend their POC. It was just accepted.

I can see how they're going to struggle to have anything useful to say though.:D

 

That's because at the time that application was made the Judge believed both parties were acting honestly, truthfully and within the spirit of CPR.

One can only guess what has occurred since then to give the Judge doubts about the merits of one parties case.:eek::eek:

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Did Fred submit anything in those applications which was not 100% true and backed up with evidence???

 

The wording of the order also implies that the Judge has seen matters of real concern in Freds amended defence, he has ordered written response to all four apps not just the variation and enforcement ones.

Take that as a very large positive.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Fred submit anything in those applications which was not 100% true and backed up with evidence???

Nope every last word is backed up by proof.:D

 

It's astounding to me that this miniscule bundle of the claimant's compounds their doom by repeating some of the false allegations we've already laid to rest.

It would appear that their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Fred submit anything in those applications which was not 100% true and backed up with evidence???

 

The wording of the order also implies that the Judge has seen matters of real concern in Freds amended defence, he has ordered written response to all four apps not just the variation and enforcement ones.

Take that as a very large positive.

 

 

I may be the uninvited Devil's advocate in this thread, but even I see this as being very positive. Clearly Fred's case isn't just being ignored, but taken more seriously. I hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be the uninvited Devil's advocate in this thread, but even I see this as being very positive. Clearly Fred's case isn't just being ignored, but taken more seriously. I hope.

You're never univited AT.:D

To hear you saying this is a positive step is most encouraging, because you certainly bring a very objective eye to our deliberations.

I can tell you also, that we now have an appointment at Devon and Cornwall Police Headquarters this coming Thursday afternoon. We're taking our not inconsiderable stack of evidence with us.:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have quite a few guests today. They may need cheering up. Can anyone thing of anything encouraging to say to them?;)

 

The death penalty was abolished some years ago!

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Can anyone thing of anything encouraging to say to them?'

 

How about; I have noticed that the Western Morning News and the West Briton seem to be carrying more 'Situations Vacant' advertisments in the last few issues - 'Cattle Herdsmen (Holiday Cover only)' might appeal!

 

Don't worry folks, you don't normally need a CRB check to work with animals.

 

:D:D:D

Edited by Helford
p.s. added
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be the uninvited Devil's advocate in this thread, but even I see this as being very positive. Clearly Fred's case isn't just being ignored, but taken more seriously. I hope.

 

In all fairness to the Court they only became aware of the issues very recently and this order is their first correspondence on the matter so it would be wrong to say Fred was being ignored prior to this as he just hadn't made representation of the facts until 6th August.

 

Having given them enough rope to hang the whole sorry bunch Fred simply decided enough was enough and snapped it taut.

 

It's also possible as a result of Freds apps, the Judge revisited the hearing of July 1st and realised that the claimant had pulled a bit of a fast one on the Court as well.

 

I just don't know how Lyons-Davidson can possibly respond to this order. They've already admitted holding no records, the hearing of July was recorded, the rest is well documented and all in Freds favour. I'm not even convinced the Judge would permit them to discontinue in the circumstances such is the gravity of their behaviour.

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not even convinced the Judge would permit them to discontinue in the circumstances such is the gravity of their behaviour.

They are in a spot then for sure.

If the hearing goes ahead under the circumstances, it will be a most interesting event. Wonder how many seats there are for spectators?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the case for a couple of months and it's been very interesting through out.

 

I'd love to be in the court room in september, just to see the kodak moment of the poor claiment person (well not really) realising that representing the PCAD is suicide lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's really funny here Patma is that the claimant was served a copy of the applications and the supporting documentation as per the CPR requirements and has been ordered to explain themselves on the basis of that bundle. What they don't know is what was contained in the significantly thicker bundle of documents that was supplied to the Court a week or two earlier. Since those docs were not filed as part of the proceedings per se then Fred was under no obligation to serve a copy upon the claimant.

But we know that fridays Judge had those documents as well as the formal application documents which puts the claimant in a very precarious position if they're going to try and blag their way out because the Judge knows a lot more background than is actually revealed in the docs of the 6th August and they are now in a position where they cannot possibly know just exactly what the Judge does know about their claims.

They will have to be very careful indeed in their reply because the Judge already has many of the answers and I suspect is just as much seeking confirmation from the claimant as an explanation and any anomalies in their reply to this order will be spotted a country mile off now.:p

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, TLD

Those 13 separate documents, each one signed with a statement of truth, simply because they are nothing but the unvarnished truth, backed up by solid proof, stand alone if necessary.

You created a devastating blow to the claimant's case by writing those and the court manager, quite properly passed them onto the judge alongside the applications.:cool:

When the time is right, they should be posted for everyone to see how blooming good they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat & TLD

 

interesting document by HSE on these barriers, in that they must be secure when down etc , well worth a read

 

and not as seen in the famous video clip

 

Advice on horizontal swing car park barriers

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why they were submitted to the Court manager and not as part of a formal application. Currently you know and I know whats in them but PCAD and their representatives don't because there was never any obligation to serve a copy upon them in those circumstances.

 

But with them having been supplied to the Court manager the Judge simply would not have been doing his job properly if he had not taken a look through them before reaching a decision on the formal applications submitted a couple of weeks later.

 

So by order of the Court the claimant has to respond to the formal applications knowing (by virtue of monitoring this thread) that the Court has a very comprehensive bundle of evidence in the matter (the content of which is unknown to the claimant) and is quite possibly now just sitting and waiting for the claimant to hang themselves. Nice.

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kiptower, I don't wish to 'take the wind out of your sails', but this article was published after a few horrific incidents with swinging horizontal barriers that had not been secured, rather than vertically lifting barriers such as that at PCAD car park. Notwithstanding, it just goes to show the sort of grief any non maintained and non -

supervised barrier presents.

 

The main incident leading to this HSE report being published is here:

 

BBC NEWS | Wales | Unlawful killing in barrier death

Edited by Helford
Clarified!
Link to post
Share on other sites

no problem it was the point of barriers secured when down etc i was making , and non maintained, unlike the one in the video of Freds

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting and possibly on topic comment was made yesterday by the Magistrates Association in a press release opposing the proposal for careless driving to become a fixed penallty offence.

 

'Regrettably, recent experience with out-of-court disposals shows that the police cannot be relied on to use them appropriately or as intended. Once they have been given these powers, the police will misuse them, that is a certainty'

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds pretty fair comment, TLD, in view of Fred's experiences.

The BMW returned today btw, this time with 2 people in it, a man and a woman. Partial number plate obtained.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get Fred to go out and pointedly take photos of the car. I'm sure the judge wouldnt take to kindly to intimidation either.

If you find my post helpful please click on the scales at the top. Thank you

FAQ SECTION HERE

 

Halifax Bank Claim filed and settled

Halifax Credit Card settled

Argos Store Card settled

 

CCA requests sent to

Halifax Credit Card

LLoyds TSB Credit Card

Capital One

Moorcroft (Argos)

NDR

18/06/09

Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds pretty fair comment, TLD, in view of Fred's experiences.

The BMW returned today btw, this time with 2 people in it, a man and a woman. Partial number plate obtained.;)

 

 

That is shocking. I do hope that Fred will be handing over the details of the vehicle and the incidents along with any identifying number to the police whilst he's at HQ tomorrow. They're clearly up to no good whoever they are and there's no guarantee it is who we think it is so it might be a good idea if the police were made aware of such suspicious behaviour.

If it is somebody following this thread then they already know that Fred will be out tomorrow afternoon over at Police HQ in Exeter so they would know that they'd have several hours in which to burgle his house.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point, TLD. I'll see that it's mentioned to the police.

 

Of course if it does transpire that it's the Plymouth branch of Lyons Davidson doing a little extra curricular research then stick that complaint in the pile for the SRA.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3363 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...