Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you Andy/Dx   UPDATED Defence, 3 days remaining.   Not sure where to mention invalid PAP. I put it under number 5. Please check if this is good to go.   Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   3. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   4. I do not recall ever receiving a letter of assignment from the Lloyds Banking group advising the debt was assigned to the claimant.   5. Claimant served the invalid PAP with no connection to their court claim,   6. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant failed to provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of said request.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.      
    • no.   i wonder if the OP is entitled to CTAX benefit, thats only available from the relevant council...most on UC can get it..   but your MP is by far the most successful route to sorting these issues we've seen here to work.
    • dx100uk  unclebulgaria67   OP is on UC.   Could the council apply for weekly amounts to be deducted from UC claim ?
    • I suggest you start reading around this forum about the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very straightforward but you should understand the steps before embarking on it so that you are confident. We will help you all the way. Once you have done this basic reading then come back here and we can begin the process if you are happy to go ahead. On the basis of what you say, I expect that your chances are better than 90%. I also expect that West Cheshire Facilities Management will want to put their hands up before it goes to court and get a judgement against them. We would want to see your letter of claim before it sent off but I suggest that it is made clear that Social Security's have already been informed and that when you get a judgement against West Cheshire Facilities Management, you will make sure that social services and the health service generally are all circulated with copies of the judgement. If West Cheshire Facilities Management really want to take that risk with all of the reputational and business risk that accompanies it, then they are being extremely shortsighted.
  • 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
      • 33 replies

Tesco Stores - Boxing Day


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4443 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 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am ashamed that there are people on this thread not defending their rights.

 

So the new laws come from tesco signs do they.

No if they had give the op the item for free then fair enough but they did not it was paid for with money and if someone has earned money and spent it in the trust that tesco would provide a decent product then they shouls have the right to get there money back anytime not just when it suits them that is like going up to a hospital with a hole in your head and them turning round and saying sorry but we are understaffed could you please come bac tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. And handling a consumer's faulty product by the retailer is a requirement in law. Attempting to reduce a consumer's statutory rights is a breach of those laws. I'd argue that such a reduction is not just limited to the scope of those rights, but to the access to them.

 

From the OP, there was no attempt to reduce the stats or access other than within a publicised and common trading policy. There was no attempt to deny him his statutory rights

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that you can only get refunds/replacements when the customer service desk is open. In most 24/7 stores, the service desk is only open between 8.00 am and 8.00 pm.

 

Also, this station normally only has space for up to 3 customer services staff.

 

You haven't been denied your rights. You have been asked to come back at a more conveniant time.

 

In my experience, processing a refund can take at least 10 minutes.

Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have established that they were'nt being denied completely. But I can't help thinking that a bit of tact on Tesco's part wouldn't have gone amiss. Likewise I think the OP should hav realised that the store would have been busy.

 

This thread seems to have moved on to the wider issue of retailers decideing when they can adhere to the law.

HALIFAX: 13/01/07 Sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter (marked as rec'd 16/01)

Paid in full in March 07

Link to post
Share on other sites
From the OP, there was no attempt to reduce the stats or access other than within a publicised and common trading policy. There was no attempt to deny him his statutory rights

 

Again, you make the mistake that store policy can override the law. It cannot. Like I said earlier, shall I make it my policy to take a nice new TV from Tesco, but because I'm too busy today, I won't pay them until tomorrow? Of course not - that would be against the law. Stores cannot dictate when they choose to comply with the law any more than you or I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you make the mistake that store policy can override the law. It cannot. Like I said earlier, shall I make it my policy to take a nice new TV from Tesco, but because I'm too busy today, I won't pay them until tomorrow? Of course not - that would be against the law. Stores cannot dictate when they choose to comply with the law any more than you or I can.

 

Exactly :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

spot on

Opinions are offered in good faith based upon personal experience and research. Before making any irreversible decisions the opinion of a qualified, registered and insured legal professional should be sought.

 

If my advice or information has assisted you in any way - please click my scales.

 

thanks

 

Nat West Charges £1056 WON

RBS Charges £3600 WON

RBS Unenforceable Loan £18500 Pending

RBS PPI on loan above Pending

MBNA Credit Card CCA & SAR Sent

Co-op Credit Card CCA Sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points from all sides.

I will write to Tesco and invite them to come to this thread and make a comment.

We can talk about this all day but in the absence of a positive answer from those who expect consumers to observe THEIR one day ruling,then it makes no sense to try to determine the rights and wrongs-or indeed the legalities.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that makes me think that tesco may feel a little on shaky ground is "goodwill gesture" of refund of fuel money.

Opinions are offered in good faith based upon personal experience and research. Before making any irreversible decisions the opinion of a qualified, registered and insured legal professional should be sought.

 

If my advice or information has assisted you in any way - please click my scales.

 

thanks

 

Nat West Charges £1056 WON

RBS Charges £3600 WON

RBS Unenforceable Loan £18500 Pending

RBS PPI on loan above Pending

MBNA Credit Card CCA & SAR Sent

Co-op Credit Card CCA Sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its worth a shot FD.

With 200k members I think they will know CAG is no baby.

 

Besides,I really believe 2009 will see the survival of the fittest who HAVE to go the extra mile.

With so many businesses going to the wall and closing Consumers will be looking more on those who can deliver not just on price but on aftersales.

Ok we know Tesco are pretty strong and will be in this fight but Asda Morrisons Liddel and Aldi are there too.

Food sellers appear to be the only ones who remain unaffected by the downturn.

Tesco invested heavily in both Asian and US markets this year in expansion of their programme for dominance outside the UK,but like everyone else,they were unprepared for what was to follow in the last quarter of 2008.

In contrast Liddel and Aldi have much smaller sites,operate with no frills,and their operating costs are far less.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in 2009.

Woolworths demise was not because they wasnt making any money-their overheads killed them.

  • Haha 1

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides,I really believe 2009 will see the survival of the fittest who HAVE to go the extra mile.

With so many businesses going to the wall and closing Consumers will be looking more on those who can deliver not just on price but on aftersales..

 

An interesting point which is at the heart of Modern Markets and the dozen or so other government policies - the consumer driving the market.

 

Why then was my local Woolies last week packed to the brim of people seeking a bargain when there were huge signs on the doors saying "No refunds offered - exchanges only - this does not affect your statutory rights". Why do goods marked "half price" disappear when they have always been on sale at the reduced price?

 

The consumer will not drive the market - the retailers drive it with their campaigns and marketing. The sooner the government (local and central)realises this and starts providing TS and other enforcers with the funds and resources needed to do an effective job, rather than living in woolly cloud land with deregulation or "self regulation" (excuse me whilst I choke on my leftover turkey), the better.

 

Its as simple as this: If a retailer can find a way around the law, and gain profit, they will do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...