Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • I didn't realise there was much difference, this is my first time doing anything like this so maybe a bit ignorant. Sorry for any offence caused.
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2874 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

Guest funforus
Anyone had dealings with McKay Law in Leeds ? ere. Egg

 

It's a bit late to reply to this but given the gravity of the situation for anyone 'represented' by this firm I'm doing so.

 

McKay Law were in Leeds but they decamped to some cowsheds down a lane outside Wetherby when they ran out of money in Autumn 2011. See the judgement published on the web (name for search below) which will come up with your search for an explanation.

 

The text of the judgement also reveals in the reported words of the judge himself that the Principal of the firm, Simon McKay, was insolvent and subject to an IVA at the time of the events described. The firm failed to find a way of meeting their obligations to clients to fund their no-win no-fee agreements. There had been a previous scandal of mishandling clients funds which has meant that the firm is closely supervised by the SRA and has to submit accounts regularly. Maybe you were one of the clients who were assured that the firm had the necessary insurances to fund your case and to protect you, maybe you are surprised to find that this was not so - Again, that is what you will feel when you read the words of the judge himself.

 

If you are a client what this means is that they are always likely to be tempted into trying to find ways of getting money from you. When Ratio Money rolled over they tried the wheeze of telling their no-win no-fee clients that Ration had not paid them money due to fund their cases . . . In fact it was the unwillingness of financiers and insurers to finance an insolvent lawyer (read the judgement) that was the problem but, hey, why let an opportunity pass by to use the excuse of Ratio's failure to try to chisel some money out of clients. As recommended to Hopster elsewhere, just put McKay's full names (Simon Arthur Samuel McKay) into a search engine to find the sorry story, well, stories as it happens.

 

Presently McKay is in the brown and sticky having lost several actions that were intended to pump him up in the papers and get free publicity and not just because of the offices being among the cowsheds. See the reference miscarriageofjustice from your search to get an idea of the things that the firm get up to - Not exactly focusing on your case, indeed, the senior litigation solicitor left the firm nearly a year ago although clients for whom she is the nominated solicitor may not have been told that. Also, there are several complaints running with the Legal Ombudsman.

 

If you consider that you have been shafted by this outfit which received a great many referrals from Ratio then you need to get your complaint in quickly as, if they go under, you will need the evidence of having got your act together and complained to pursue their professional indemnity insurers. Make sure you heed the good advice to use a credit card to pay any sums in excess of £100 or read up on the Cheques Act and ensure that you know how to establish a binding contract so that you can reclaim from your bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...