Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You posted in a solid block of text and it's rather difficult to read. Please will you make sure that your posted future are properly spaced and punctuated and that way people will find it easier to give you the help and support you need.
    • I arranged the delivery of a set of drum kit wood shells with hermes, I booked directly online. They have told me the item is lost 70x50x55 cm box???   They asked me to fill in a claim form which I have done i declared a value of £300 for the parts sent and paid for extra cover. I had recently purchased the whole drum kit for £650 and shipping costs of £95.00 to get them to me.    After investigating the cost of replacing the shells, not a direct equivalent but similar, it will cost around £450.00 with delivery.   I want to get compensation over the £300, is that possible, i have informed them of the total loss with delivery costs, prior to shipping with Hermes as £745.   I am more than happy to go to the small claims court for the difference but would it be dismissed,   Should I go for the full cost of the loss or the cost of replacement shells only I have all the receipts for the drums and shipping costs prior to hermes losing my items.   I still have the remaining parts that a pretty much worthless now, unless i get a new set of drum shells.   Its probably going to to take ages, I've written to CEO of Hermes about my complaint as well just to cover all bases. Next stop will be the small claims court as i read they pull delay tactics and low offers.   They really didnt care and also didn't seem surprised when i spoke to a service agent.
    • Hi all I used to be a member here a few years ago when I went through a bad time - husband and I had bad health, both lost jobs etc, we got the usual helpful and sympathetic response from the bank.   With the help of CAG I did my best to fight back and found that some debts were legally unenforceable as well as the usual defective defaults and everyting else the banks were doing wrong. We're going back to about 2009/10.   With HSBC they refused to provide a SAR/CCA because I wouldn't provide a signature that matched their records. I remember I took the advice from CAG at the time NOT to sign.  in any case, due to my injury I was unable to do anything except scrawl. I told them that I didn't think the SAR required a signature and in abny case I couldn't. In short they refused to cooperate, there as a series of letters but they cited the DPA, at which point I pointed out that they were sending me demands, statements and theatening letters but only now were they saying they had to verify my ID (at that point, the bank said that they wouldn't send any more statements/demands etc until my Id could be confirmed (seriously, you couldn't make it up). I also pointed out that the guidance from the ICO was that if they were responding to the address they has on record and was the usual contact address, they could assume it was their customer writing to them. I even complained to the ICO who, as usual took the bank's side.   Eventually, I said to the bank that if they were unable to give me details of the alledged debt then I was unable to consider their demands and verify the situation and I wouldn't correspond with them any more and they could go to court if they liked. But, if they did lodge court papers, and sent the statements etc I'd immediately complain to the ICO that they hadn't verfied my ID acording to their own procedures (something the ICO had agreed was required), and I'd bring it to teh attention of teh court that they had deliberately not sent me the data to allow it to be resolved one way or teh other. If they didn't send the stuff through discovery, I'd lodge an embarassed defence and ask for it to be struck out as I had been asking for the records for 6 months or more.  I didn't hear any more from them, that was in March 2011.   In Nov 2015 I got a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd that they has been assigned the rights from MKDP LLP and giving bottom Robinson Way's address. I hadn't heard of MKDP before and simply ignored it. I certainly wasn't aware it had be assigned to them in the first place.   A few days ago, I got a letter from Hoist again asking for payment. I intended to ignore it except for a letter I got from the Bank this morning.   The letter is the same one that has been mention on here very recently, a refund from the bank for £25 because they had determined I hadn't recived the correct level of service (no sh*t Sherlock!) The account number is NOT my currect account. It MAY be my credit card, but I seem to remeber they were rolled into one. I don't seem to have any correspondence about the CC, and I destroyed all paper documents a few months ago. All I have is scanned copies of letters (which may not be a complete record, but should be).   I received a letter in Nov 2017 from PRA about another CC saying the debt has been assigned to them (no letter of assignment from the creditor) and in Jan 2018 an 'Annual Statment'. Since then, nothing.   I've made a point of ignoring these kind of letters and demands in the past belieivng they were SB and eventually the data would be destoyed. After a few years of actually being able to relax, I'm now worried that the aggro is all going to start up again with this HSBC and other accounts.   Now, the questions. it is/was my understanding that the debts became Statute Barred a few years ago and they couldn't be enforced. The CC default was issued Feb 2009. A month later a Final Demand was issued for both current AC and CC giving a combined total. (that total is similar to the one sought by Hoist which gives my currect AC number).   So, are these accounts SB? If they are SB and the bank has desposed of them by assignment to someone, why do they still have my name and enough details of my correspondence to determine they didn't behave correctly? Does the DPA not require them to destroy data after 6 years?   On the same DPA note, it seems that this account is simply being passed around from one **** bag bottome feeder to another (maybe teh same one under different names), again, why is data still being processed after 6 years? Am I doomed to be persistely pursued by these scumbags until I die? Or am I worng? Are they able to process data as long as they like, even when there has been no contact for years?              
    • We are not offended. But we try to give you advice all the way and you seem to want to go your own way including hiding the identity of the breeder – for whatever reason, I can't possibly fathom – except that during the time that you have been hiding their identity, other animals presumably may have been at risk and other purchasers also may have had difficulty. Had you posted the identity of the breeder here, people might have stumbled on this information and become aware. It seems to me absolutely normal that if you start taking advice from somebody then you stick with it. We are not offended, but is a bit frustrating to feel that we are putting effort into helping you – but in fact you are off doing your own thing and not necessarily in your best interests. Anyway, you've sent a 28 day letter so you have to stick with it. You say you haven't done this kind of thing before so you need to read around and find out the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court. Now you have a decision as to whether to look at the advice we give here on that or go to Which? or whoever else you may have been consulting. One of the problems about having gone to Which? is that although they have effectively given you a letter of claim to copy out which gives 28 days before taking legal action, they didn't explain to you that 28 days wasn't necessary and that the pre-action protocol only requires 14 days. So you came away from them not really understanding the whole story and the choices you had. I'm afraid I was find it very frustrating that these organisations which purport to inform and empower consumers don't tell them the whole story.   The reason why Which? gives this kind of softer advice is because they don't want to alienate themselves from corporate interests and they don't want to seem to be to pushy. Unfortunately we have found over 15 years that in order to assert your rights properly, you need to be pushy. The County Court papers are the great Equalizer between you and all sorts of commercial interests including huge multinationals. Still, let's see maybe your breeder will respond within 28 days with something satisfactory. However, you better be prepared and ready to take the next step – if you know what that is
    • Well it sounds like a breach of contract which has substantially deprived the purchaser of the entire benefit of the contract – which amounts to a breach of condition which means that the contract can be treated as terminated. After that  section 75 consumer credit act   See if there has been any communication with the finance company. Send them an SAR – do it now.
  • Our picks

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3367 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

Goodnight all, it's a busy day tomorrow, so it's time for some sleep for me.

Don't know if I will though there's too much to think about;)

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Just back from dropping kids off to Gatwick, and off to tribunal of my own shortly, just wanted to catch up...

 

May I suggest that once this is put to bed, you guys create a 2nd thread with the whole timeline and developments you can't discuss now so us plebs can have a clear idea of what went on? :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck Bookworm with your tribunal. Fingers crossed for you.

 

As soon as ever we can I promise you , you'll get the whole story, every last bit.:D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just back from dropping kids off to Gatwick, and off to tribunal of my own shortly, just wanted to catch up...

 

May I suggest that once this is put to bed, you guys create a 2nd thread with the whole timeline and developments you can't discuss now so us plebs can have a clear idea of what went on? :-D

 

 

It's men so have that top blouse button undone - easy win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck fred.

 

i take it this development is what i think it is...

 

 

just kidding im as clueless as the rest of us

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be rather embarrassing if a barrister were to lose a case against a litigant in person? Especially if the case was well known among his/her peers? Would that extend to the law company involved? Would they somehow lose face, at least to a small degree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be rather embarrassing if a barrister were to lose a case against a litigant in person? Especially if the case was well known among his/her peers? Would that extend to the law company involved? Would they somehow lose face, at least to a small degree?

 

 

Yes it is conceivable that such embarrassment will be in abundance especially if the theory I forwarded to Patma last night concerning the involvement of the barrister and the subsequent progression of the case turns out to be correct.

They have already been ordered by the Court to effectively explain themselves over reneging on the deal brokered by the Judge on the 1st July, one must assume that this small matter alone will have caused some huffing and puffing in chambers.

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
Would it be rather embarrassing if a barrister were to lose a case against a litigant in person? Especially if the case was well known among his/her peers? Would that extend to the law company involved? Would they somehow lose face, at least to a small degree?

 

It depends, barristers dont get to pick and choose cases, they cant refuse a case, so if they get handed something that is never going to win in a million years, then there isnt a lot they can do. If the barrister is involved in unethical conduct, then that is a different story completely.

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

Good luck today with the police Fred and Pat.

 

starting early today are we? Daresay you have a lot of work to get through huh?

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
I think TLD & Patma should open up their private investigation company, you guys are so good. I am reading this thread with interest, the plot gets deeper and deeper.

 

keep the good work up:D

How about it TLD, we could do well?

You can cover the midlands and I'd take care of the southwest. Any offers for the northeast and south east? and there will be vacancies for Wales and Scotland too?:D

 

We can arrange to close down for test matches:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your good wishes everyone. We'll be setting off before too long because it'll take a while to get there and we want to be sure we can find it.

I'll get a message via TLD with an update about it as soon as it's over.

Enjoy the cricket, TLD and anyone else who's a fan.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

best of luck Pat and Fred

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
How about it TLD, we could do well?

You can cover the midlands and I'd take care of the southwest. Any offers for the northeast and south east? and there will be vacancies for Wales and Scotland too?:D

 

We can arrange to close down for test matches:D

 

 

It's certainly a good idea and I particularly like the thought of stopping work for cricket but I fear that 'Private eye' companies like Beaumont Consultants of 16A Broadway, Peterborough, PE1 1RS might have already cornered the market, certainly where Lyons-Davidson are involved. :cool:

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

A thought occurs to me (that TLD might like to consider) about the admissibilty of an caution, as section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provides only for admissibility of convictions "by or before a court"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
A thought occurs to me (that TLD might like to consider) about the admissibilty of an caution, as section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provides only for admissibility of convictions "by or before a court"

 

That is an outstanding point to make. Thank you very much.

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
Quite amazing how many businesses have become embroiled in this case. Not surprising the costs are in the region of £10k and counting....

 

Lyons-Davidson ran a covert means test on Fred, checked out his house, checked out his vehicle(s) etc. So at least we know who these mysterious visitors really were now.

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
They ran a covert means test on Fred, checked out his house, checked out his vehicle(s) etc. So at least we know who these mysterious visitors really were now.

 

 

They weren't really very covert, since they stuck out like canine gonads. Still 16A Broadway is hardly Thames House.

 

The actions of the en forces in this case seem to me to be excessively unsavoury, even by the standards of the lower end of the legal profession. However, I'm certain it will all be brought before the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm certain it will all be brought before the court.

 

 

Me too!!

 

The breakdown of costs claimed by Lyons-Davidson reads like a diary and in itself contains a plethora of information about the claimants representatives behaviour, the behaviour and involvement level of certain employees of PCAD, and some not inconsiderable attempts at communicating with a company on what strangely turned out to be its last day of trading.:eek:

 

And amusingly what appears to be flurries of activity in response to certain key posts on this thread.:-D:-D

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
They ran a covert means test on Fred, checked out his house, checked out his vehicle(s) etc. So at least we know who these mysterious visitors really were now.

 

Probably the same people who staked out my house. They're so good they described my husband as 6ft tall, in his mid forties and of medium build. He was furious their 'evidence' wasn't used in court as he's 5ft 9", in his late fifties and decidedly rotund :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3367 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...