Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
    • As the electric carmaker sees sales fall and cuts jobs, we take a closer look at its problems.View the full article
    • Care to briefly tell someone who isn't tech savvy - i.e. me! - how you did this? Every day is a school day.
    • Hi Guys, well a year on and my friend has just received this in the post today, obviously a little scared so looking for more of your advice.  Letter from the NCC dated 1-May-2024 is as follows.......   Before deputy district judge Haythorne sitting at the national business centre, 4th floor st Kathrine's house Northampton Upon reading an application from the claimant  it is ordered that  1. The claim be sent to the county court at #### (Friends local Court) Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.  A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this order.  If the application is one which requires a hearing, and a) the party making the application is the defendant: and b) the defendant is an individual, then upon filing of the application the claim will be transferred to the defendants home court.  In all other cases requiring a hearing the claim will be transferred to the preferred court.    As a result of an order made on the 1 May 2024, this claim has been transferred to the county court at ##### (friends local court) 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I sent my 2nd LOD (with my own added bits) around the 20th August 2009 and till now I have not heard anymore. I would like to believe that this is the end of it but I have a feeling it won't be.

 

Just out of curiosity has anyone heard anymore about the illusive Dark Trooper that received 'the brown envelope'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent my 2nd LOD (with my own added bits) around the 20th August 2009 and till now I have not heard anymore. I would like to believe that this is the end of it but I have a feeling it won't be.

 

Just out of curiosity has anyone heard anymore about the illusive Dark Trooper that received 'the brown envelope'?

 

As they gave me a time limit by which I had to reply does the rules not state that they should reply to me within a certain amount of time???

Link to post
Share on other sites

usefull article on the bbc this morning BBC NEWS | Technology | ISP in file-sharing wi-fi hack

 

Wonder if ACS have seen it!

 

Nothing really new in it, Im currently in bed with my laptop and I can see some neighbours unsecured networks.

 

I note theres a new quote from the BPI saying that people should 'discuss it with fellow householders' if they get the warning letter, it may in the future reach the stage where in multiple person households people would be reluctant to be the actual named personn who sets up the isp account because as the law stands its them and them only who can get into trouble.

 

So noone has heard anything of the supposed court action starting in September ?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent my 2nd LOD (with my own added bits) around the 20th August 2009 and till now I have not heard anymore. I would like to believe that this is the end of it but I have a feeling it won't be.

 

same story here i also have not heard any more after 2nd lod . although they have gone quite after selecting the second batch but i also doubt its the end just yet

 

but i have stopped worrying too much about that . there are lot of better things in life than that

Link to post
Share on other sites

although they have gone quite after selecting the second batch but i also doubt its the end just yet

 

 

I doubt it to, they have too much money rolling in from people who have been scared into paying them.

 

As per Davenport Lyons, I would expect the next thing they will be trumpeting a court case they have 'won'. Closer inspection will probably reveal the case was undefended. (I the DL case there is actually doubt the woman even existed).

 

If they want to try a defended case, this extract from a BBC report shows what they are up against:

 

In order to illustrate the point Matt Roxburgh, a security expert from TalkTalk, visited an ordinary street in Stanmore, Middlesex.

Within a couple of hours he had identified 23 wireless connections on residential street The Highway, which were unsecured.

He downloaded music files from two connections, including Barry Manilow's hit Mandy and the soundtrack to the 1992 film Peter's Friends.

In both cases, the residents had given prior permission to "be hacked" and the content downloaded was legal.

 

Just read that again ('Mandy' & 'Peter's Friends'), duhhhh.....am I the last person on the planet to have got the joke?:eek:

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, I sent a second template letter with bits of my own saying "I do not take thier letter at face value as thiers was a template letter was it not?". As that is why they rejected my letter to them. That was 2 weeks ago not heard a thing yet. This waiting for the next letter to arrive has got me in knots. So I hope they have given up but I dout it. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received 3rd letter after LOD. Now saying they are taking me to court. Anyone else in same position as me?:-x

 

Do they actually say that they are taking you to court, or does it say "We have instructions from our client to pursue this matter against you further"? Because that does not say anything about doing anything they aren't already doing. Pursuing the matter further can include writing a million more letters asking for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that it will cost them money for each person they take to court & that each UK citizen has basic legal rights/protections etc...

Then i do conclude that on the whole, they are full of cr*p & are just relying on people paying up out of fear & ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

D_arktrooper got taken to court. It might be worth getting in touch with him. He's gone quiet lately on the forums.

 

If D_arktrooper, (or anyone else for that matter) has been taken to court and lost, it would be trumpeted all over the ACS website by now.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did, then it will be interesting to read his feedback on what happened.

Im certainly not suggesting that they dont or wont take anyone to court whatsoever - i said "on the whole"

I would imagine they'd be selective in who they do take to court & many others have stated that.

Even so.. Darktrooper or anyone else would have had/will have basic legal rights & protections from the start etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of weather its a company or an individual taking someone to court to get money off them...both parties dont just turn up on the day & the claimant gets given the full amount there and then (it may happen in rare cases who knows?) - but mostly it doesnt.

The court system takes into account the defendants ability to pay etc...

So assuming thats what happens everytime ACS gets someone to court, then i would assume that on a ratio basis, they are being left worse off as a result of what they are spending taking someone to court than what money they are bringing back in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they actually say that they are taking you to court, or does it say "We have instructions from our client to pursue this matter against you further"? Because that does not say anything about doing anything they aren't already doing. Pursuing the matter further can include writing a million more letters asking for money.

 

Similar letters from DCA's are normally full of 'mays' and 'ifs', very rarely a definate 'we will'. I suspect ACS are the same.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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...