Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The tech giant's business was likely boosted by US sanctions against its Chinese rival Huawei. View the full article
    • We hear from three people who have started their own companies during the downturn in aviation. View the full article
    • Covid-19 has created extra problems this Halloween, so how are firms fighting back? View the full article
    • its a 12mts contract else why would it say till 2021 and first month..   simply states they don't charge a joining fee clever marketing ploy as people don't read things. it IS a monthly payment, that runs for 12mts.   but anyway there is stuff and all anyone can do to you.   dx        
    • Hi Slick,   Amazingly fast reply, thank you!   According to the reference on the payment it says "ON 24 SEP BCC" and the payment cleared 25th September at 11:26   I was simply told to sign up on the website by a staff member in the gym, no further information was given to me by them. The website stated that it's a rolling monthly membership that could be cancelled at any time "No contract membership JUST £14.99 a month, until 2021*" As far as I am aware there was absolutely no minimum membership length, unless there's some small print I've missed somewhere. But Harlands haven't mentioned anything about me being obliged to pay for a certain length of time so... I've attached a picture to this post of what I signed up for.   Also, I'm not sure if this has any relevance at all but the building is plastered with £9.99/month signs EVERYWHERE yet it costs £14.99 when you go on the website. False advertising 🙄 Could perhaps use that as leverage in a letter if it comes to it, I dunno? 😂
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3956 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 well that explains why he so readily wrote you a cheque even though technically you were more at fault than he was, he didn't want this coming to light.


Sadly lack of insurance has no bearing on liability, ie if you hit someone who has no insurance you still have to pay for their repairs, unfair I know but that's how it is, but you then get your own back by reporting them to the Police.


He was driving a Company vehicle without insurance??????? Usually all employees are covered on a blanket policy so that seems odd, but it also explains why the cheque was possibly stopped, if he shouldn't have been driving the vehicle the Company will have stopped the cheque for that reason (which is wrong as previously discussed).


Or was it not a Company car?????????? If so I cannot fathom why he used a Company cheque to pay you when it has nothing to do with his Company.


This is going to be an interesting outcome, please let us know what ultimately happens



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks for your reply/interest.

Here is where it becomes interesting. The car he was driving belonged to another employee - insured only for him and his wife (so clearly not a company car)

"OK well that explains why he so readily wrote you a cheque even though technically you were more at fault than he was, he didn't want this coming to light" Yes - our thoughts entirely - but- the man who signed the cheque was the owner of the car and we believeto be an authrsd sgntry - and the guy who was driving was not an authorised signatory for the company. However - it deepens - the man i had accident with admitted to 4 witnesses he was on company business whereas the car he was driving was covered for sdp only - confusing isnt it? The driver is now stating he was on personal business!

However - The crux of the matter is - the accident is irrelevant, the point is I have emails from the other drivier admitting liability and 'offering' to pay direct and not thru insurance (for now obvious apparent reasons) and my leverage is now the 'dishonoured cheque'. Which as far as I know is not in question!!!! They have to pay. ?????

Will keep you guys posted

And ............ thank you.

Aztec xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:


A bangs into the back of B. A admits liablilty for the damage. A's great-aunt, C, writes out a cheque and sends it to B. She then talks to A who says that perhaps he was not responsible after all. C puts a stop on the cheque. If B sues C she has no counterclaim because there is no connection between B and C.


The company is in the same position as the great aunt.





A did not admit liability. B did

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not informative enough.


I am A, B admitted liability.


A = Me

B = driver (and employee of company)

C = Owner of car(and employee of company & signatory on cheque)

D = Boss stops cheque!


Isn't it confusing! You can see wherein my dilemma lays!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or was it not a Company car?????????? If so I cannot fathom why he used a Company cheque to pay you when it has nothing to do with his Company.




He said he was on company business and hadn't "done this kind of driving for a long time - but nobody else was available to do the drop so they asked me". But, the car he was driving belonged to another employee ( the signatory on the cheque) and then the boss stopped the cheque (D)

Edited by aztecmusic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Driving whilst un-insured is a criminal offence, or so I believe.


My argument would be that if a person wants to take that kind of risk, then they cannot rely on the law to recompense them when things go wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • 8 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...