Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • forget CAB you might as well phone bt back as thats about as useless as they'll be.   you can't have a rolling 24mts contract', bt rolling contracts are month to month only, thats an industrywide accepted definition of what rolling means.   what happened here is she earlier changed her 'package' removing skt to reduce costs. as with all providers that invoked = means she entered into a new 24mts contract.   she latterly phone to cancel that contract, and thus bt charged her the cancellation fee/loss of revenue over the raining months of the contract.   the fact that she owes them 'this money' but didn't pay it, then entitled them sadly to cancel the mobile contract, which sadly again they allowed to do.   rock and a hard place if she wants to keep the same mobile number.   Or as long as her phone is not imie blocked by bt (in otherwords she purchased from BT under the mobile contract) but simply locked to BT (which is easily gotten around for a small fee at many shops/market stalls or if someone is tech savvy follow the guides on youtube to unlock the phone for an even smaller fee. and wack a new sim in it.   as for the £800 bill simply ignore them. they'll sell the debt on  and if anyone like Lowells or anyother powerless DCA debt buyer wants to do court, it's easily defended we've not lost one case like that here.        
    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3420 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

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing that I don't think anyone has asked you yet Pat, are you still attending classes?

I've never been a student at Plymouth College of Art.

Fred was a part-time student, but the unfortunate barrier incident ended his short career there.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you're in my neck of the woods, Conniff Have you ever had the privilege of being a Plymouth College of Art student?;)

Edited by Patma
Link to post
Share on other sites

I ment Fred, sorry. I hope it wasn't a paying course, if so, has he applied for a refund of non used fees. Now that would really make them spit out their coffee reading that out in the staff room.

 

If he can't get a refund, he could apply for a course in 'mechanical engineering' :)

 

No, but used to pass it most days and a neice did a course there, I don't think auto barriers had been invented then.

 

I went to the Polytech in North Hill though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I ment Fred, sorry. I hope it wasn't a paying course, if so, has he applied for a refund of non used fees. Now that would really make them spit out their coffee reading that out in the staff room.

I guess it would.:lol:

 

No, but used to pass it most days and a neice did a course there, I don't think auto barriers had been invented then.

 

I went to the Polytech in North Hill though.

It's a small world.

You'd think barriers hadn't been invented yet to look at the sorry state of Fred's barrier now. They seem to have had a few problems keeping it intact:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plymouth College of Art student surely? :-)

Quite right, Bedlington.Thanks for reminding me. All present and correct now.:D

It was rather late and what I meant to ask Conniff was whether there was any chance he'd been a student of Plymouth College of Art, the very establishment which has taken one of it's own students to court for allegedly damaging it's car park barrier and then because it had no justifiable case has used it's not inconsiderable artistic ability to be extremely creative with the truth and to hound that student for over three years (That is a true statement and backed up by proof;))

Link to post
Share on other sites

This business of running up massive costs for a small claims case seems to be a new strategy implemented by Lyons Davidson. It appears a year or two back they were actively discouraging people from litigating in instances where the solicitors fees were likely to outweigh the potential return to the plaintiff.

 

Mind you at the rates they charge any premium payable on top of the policy for legal cover would be eaten up simply by reading the first letter you wrote them so maybe it just wasn't profitable enough for Lyons Davidson to pursue that claim and never mind the policy holders best interests??

 

LINK

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
This business of running up massive costs for a small claims case seems to be a new strategy implemented by Lyons Davidson. It appears a year or two back they were actively discouraging people from litigating in instances where the solicitors fees were likely to outweigh the potential return to the plaintiff.

That's interesting, TLD. You mean they used to act in a sensible way, but for some unknown reason they've gone kamikaze?It's very strange behaviour for a firm of solicitors, they usually watch the bottom line very carefully.If they've taken this approach with many other cases, they'll go the way of another company involved in Fred's case,before too long, Universal Security UK Ltd.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Patma I think the posters answer to Lyons Davidson should have been 'And what's that to me, I've got legal cover insurance so win, lose or draw I won't be paying your fees'?

 

So I'm not entirely convinced that the response from Lyons Davidson was in the best interests of the poster who was denied the chance to seek recompense despite them holding legal cover insurance on the strength of a decision most likely made by the provider of that insurance policy. It certainly appears from reading that thread and other similar threads that the legal cover offered by some of the companies out there is right up with all the other insurance policies that you are supposed to just pay a premium and never collect upon such as the various vehicle warranties and certain sickness plans.

 

Lyons Davidson could well have run up costs far in excess of the claim value and in the ideal world (the World lets face it that you are led to believe exists when you sign up to this insurance) the insurer would have been obliged to meet any surplus not recoverable from the defendant.

Where the claim is not subrogated vis a stooge third party against whom the solicitors can claim costs in the event of an adverse judgment it appears that insurers are just a little more reluctant to enter into litigation.:sad:

 

This quote from another thread here says much about the whole insurer client scene:

 

Just to say about Lyons Davidson, yes they are very big and seem to be recommended by a number of insurance companies.

 

I think you would be best to drop Lyons Davidson and start looking for a decent solicitor who specialises in personal injury. Certainly a solicitor that is small enough to care about you as a person, not just another 'file on the desk'

 

I say this because I have a friend who was involved in a car accident and has been unable to walk without the aid of a stick ever since. Like yourself the accident wasn't his fault, in his case a driver jumped a red light and hit him side on. Sure enough his insurance company recommended Lyons Davidson and of course probably like most people he went with it. Your comment "I just want it all resolving swiftly and for me not to be out of pocket!" probably rings true for most people, the reality of it is of course that injury claims take time, and Lyons Davidson are probably slower than others due to the volume of work they must have, with all the insurance company referals they get!

 

 

However to cut a long story short it has been 3 years since my friends accident and it has been an uphill stuggle for him all they way, Lyons Davidson were slow at doing anything, didn't return his calls etc.. so much so in the end he got rid of them and appointed a new solicitor, who so far has been much more pro-active about getting things done.

 

 

Remind me again how long have Lyons Davidson been dealing with this 'simple' small claims case? No wonder their costs are so high, this should really have all been done and dusted in months!!

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

 

Well Patma I think the posters answer to Lyons Davidson should have been 'And what's that to me, I've got legal cover insurance so win, lose or draw I won't be paying your fees'?

 

Good point, TLD. I see what you mean.

There's a very close relationship between insurance companies and Lyons Davidson, which as you point out is definitely not in the interests of the customer/client.

Remind me again how long have Lyons Davidson been dealing with this 'simple' small claims case? No wonder their costs are so high, this should really have all been done and dusted in months!!

They first wrote to Fred in September 06 I believe, so it's 3 years and counting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They first wrote to Fred in September 06 I believe, so it's 3 years and counting.

 

 

So as according to the latest order costs matters will be addressed at the November hearing, I trust Fred will be highlighting the appointment of the Private Detective agency, all those vehicle reports from MIDIS and DVLA etc. and quite a large number of other items in their costings as wholly unreasonable coming as they did not prior to commencement of proceedings (as would be normal when means testing to assess a parties ability to pay) but just under THREE YEARS AFTER Lyons Davidson took on the case!!

 

Three years during which the vast majority of the rather large costs presented by Lyons Davidson had already been incurred!!!

 

A little late you might say.

 

Of course all these more recent long letters, applications and extra hearings that Lyons Davidson are so keen to avoid must be ratcheting the costs right up for somebody (I'm guessing Plymouth College of Art) but they weren't to know at the time they authorised a financial investigation of Fred that their case was about to go horribly wrong. There are strong indicators in their costings that Lyons Davidson have acted as though they were given carte blanche to run up costs.:|

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 and all this hounding of an innocent person reads like a bad dream when you contrast it with the ethical policy of the corporation and governing body of Plymouth College of Art.

http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1e.%20%20Code%20of%20Conduct/Code%20of%20Conduct%2002.08.pdf

 

Check out the Aims and Values section especially 3.2 and 3.3

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a real scream who writes their material!!!:D:D

 

Has Fred actually made a formal complaint about his treatment to the Governors of Plymouth College of Art and to Plymouth City Council? I know there have been a few 'off the record' mutterings about the goings on at Plymouth college of Art but with the litigation now drawing to an end would it be worthwhile making a formal complaint to the college and the council, possibly even going as far as to make it reasonably personal and mentioning George Dexters part in the proceedings seeing as it is his hand involved at every stage and on almost every document a number of which have been alleged to the Court by Fred as being false instruments?

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 and all this hounding of an innocent person reads like a bad dream when you contrast it with the ethical policy of the corporation and governing body of Plymouth College of Art.

http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1e.%20%20Code%20of%20Conduct/Code%20of%20Conduct%2002.08.pdf

 

Check out the Aims and Values section especially 3.2 and 3.3

 

 

Ironic that when I clicked on the link........

 

 

 

owl.pcad.ac.uk:443 uses an invalid security certificate.

 

The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted.

 

(Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen "The university of bums on seats"?

 

http://www.cynicalb*****ds.com/ubs/

 

Oh, the web address gets censored. I think most people can guess how to complete it. Otherwise google "The University of Bums on Seats".

 

From what we've seen in this thread, I wonder if the character of "Senior University Bloke" Ron "The Razor" Richards is relevant somehow. Look at his exploits in "Skidmark".

Edited by Annoying Twit
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a real scream who writes their material!!!:D:D

 

Has Fred actually made a formal complaint about his treatment to the Governors of Plymouth College of Art and to Plymouth City Council? I know there have been a few 'off the record' mutterings about the goings on at Plymouth college of Art but with the litigation now drawing to an end would it be worthwhile making a formal complaint to the college and the council, possibly even going as far as to make it reasonably personal and mentioning George Dexters part in the proceedings seeing as it is his hand involved at every stage and on almost every document a number of which have been alleged to the Court by Fred as being false instruments?

No he hasn't yet made a formal complaint, but I think he should. If he doesn't there's a whistleblower procedure that anyone can use, pass the whistle please ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all write letters of complaint to Plymouth college of Art and Design, that we have been made aware of unethical conduct by their staff.

 

Education is paid for nationally isnt it?

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 is an excellent idea, nats. :D

 

Lets see what the Principal has to say about the unprincipled actions of his minions.

 

Maybe copy the head of education at Devon County Council and the Secretary of State for Education as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the "a couple of legal actions" that were underway in 2006 were.... And if any of them has been discussed further with the audit committee yet.

 

http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1h.%20%20Audit%20Committee%20Minutes/Audit%202006%20-%206%20December%20Final.pdf

 

correctly.

Page 11 – there were a couple of legal actions being taken. At this stage,

the College’s view was that no disclosure in the accounts was required. The

only reason to disclose would be if these legal actions were going to have a

large financial impact.

Edited by Annoying Twit
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe copy the head of education at Devon County Council and the Secretary of State for Education as well.

 

As far as I am aware, a college is not responsible to or funded by the County Council. It is an autonomous body funded by the LSC.

 

As it is further education, it has nothing to do with the SoS for Education, it will, I believe, come under Lord Mandleson's fiefdom, along with the universities.

 

If you intend to fire off letters of compliant, then you must first select the correct targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3420 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...