Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

Arghh - Robinson Way seeks new licence - 06/08/2009


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5352 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

Credit Today online

 

Robinson Way seeks new licence - 06/08/2009

 

The directors of debt buyer and collections specialist Robinson Way are seeking a new consumer credit licence to enable a proposed management buy out to go ahead.

 

Managing director Graham Prosser and director Bill Murray have in principle agreed a deal to buy the business and assets of Robinson Way from parent London Scottish Bank. The company remains outside the administration of London Scottish, which is being handled by Ernst & Young. The deal includes around £500m face value of purchased debt.

 

----------

 

etc etc etc

 

Hope they fail to get a new licence - take note OFT these are **** and should not be allowed a licence

Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention as of yet on the OFT Public Register?

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:0000400Licence Status:Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Robinson, Way & Company Limited 885896

 

Categories:

Consumer credit

Credit brokerage

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes

Trading Name(s) (Current):

Chase Solutions

Debt Healers

Express Debt Collecting Services

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

Highland Solutions

Hyland Solutions

Hyland Solutions

 

Issued Date: 04-Nov-1976 Expiry Date: 07-Dec-2011

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

frank Dyson OFFICER

Graham Prosser

Patrick Francis McDonnell OFFICER

Robin James Ashton

Roy Reece OFFICER

William Grant Murray OFFICER

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Alan Frederick Toogood OFFICER

Jack Livingstone OFFICER

John Norman Ricketts OFFICER

John Owen Needham OFFICER

Mark Albert Tattersall OFFICER

Martin Graham West OFFICER

Mr Edward William John Taylor OFFICER

Mr Alan Frederick Toogood OFFICER

Mr Brian Goodall OFFICER

Mr Charles William White Dupont OFFICER

Mr J Livingstone OFFICER

Mr J Tomlinson OFFICER

Mr John Tomlinson OFFICER

Mr Joseph Grimes OFFICER

Mr L Duckworth OFFICER

Mr M G West OFFICER

Mr N Copson OFFICER

Mr Neil Copson OFFICER

Mr Norman Lathey OFFICER

Mr R L Arundale OFFICER

Mr Vincent O'Brien OFFICER

Mrs May Goodall OFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

Credit Brokers

 

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 201, Deansgate, MANCHESTER, M3 3NW, United Kingdom

Principal Place Of Business London Scottish House, Carolina Way, SALFORD, Lancashire, M50 2ZY, United Kingdom

Registered Office 201, Deansgate, MANCHESTER, Lancashire, M3 3NW, United Kingdom

 

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence London Scottish House 24, Mount Street, Manchester, M2 3LS

Principal Place Of Business 79, Moseley St, Manchester

Principal Place Of Business Arndale House Arndale Centre, ., Manchester, M4 3AQ

Principal Place Of Business Arndale House, Arndale Centre, Manchester, M4 3AQ

Principal Place Of Business Carolina Way, SALFORD, M50 2ZY, United Kingdom

Principal Place Of Business Speakers House 39, Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2BA

Registered Office Arndale House, Arndale Centre, Manchester, M4 3AQ

Registered Office London Scottish House 24, Mount Street, Manchester, M2 3LS"

 

I have a friend who has been battling with RW for over two years now;

RW employ very covert tactics!

 

Letter of complaint going off to the OFT.

 

Please send as many complaints as possible;

we ALL know what they have been up to.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

safeguard 250 jobs, everyone knows what happens on a buyout, the first thing is to cut costs so half the threatmonkeys will be given a banana and sent home, should up the CAG membership by a few dozen

Link to post
Share on other sites

safeguard 250 jobs, everyone knows what happens on a buyout, the first thing is to cut costs so half the threatmonkeys will be given a banana and sent home, should up the CAG membership by a few dozen

 

I guess that they will be granted their licence then?

 

Unless, the consumer complains about the Bad Business Practices employed by Robinson Way!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

When these people were after me , they did not care one iota about any kind of rules . Even after they got statute barred letters they would still not desist . Even after lodging a complaint with the OFT , still nothing would dissuade them . Times I tried to tell them of the futility of it all , no, they would not hear of it . Onwards they pressed , there was no intelligence in there to realize there was no money to be had out of me . I think that is one of their directives , to ignore statute barred letters , from what I have seen . I believe they think that there must be a certain percentage that will accept their ' we sent you a letter a month ago and therefore do not accept this debt is statute barred ' as bona fide reason to carry on their pursuit of these old debts . Shocking really , that a known perpetrator of such dubious methods and practices are allowed to continue without further intrinsic regulation or stipulations .

 

But you know , even if you make clear to them you know it is statute barred and are aware of the laws regarding this kind of debt , you would expect them to give up , after a SB letter , you would think they would realize there is no money to be made here . But they don't , they will carry on with the same gusto to retrieve a payment as if you just signed the agreement yesterday .

Edited by Drexl Spivey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone and everyone who has been affected by the RW Unfair Business Practices must, report Robinson Way to the OFT!

No matter, if you have made a complaint prior, complain again.

 

If you do not, they will be granted their new CCA licence.

 

Robinson Way, need to have their wings clipped!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was the only profitable asset london scottish bank owned . I don't know what they were paying these telephone operators , but there wasn't a great deal of investment in elocution lessons . It was some kind of odd guttural manc , salford accent , horrible to the ear .

Edited by Drexl Spivey
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you who they reminded me of . Remember that monty python film where the knight kept coming back after having a leg chopped off , then another , they were like that .

 

I mean, they weren't even trying to make out I had made any payment on this account , that was about 14 years old and last made payment on in 1998 , they were adamant that the fact they sent me a recent letter made it non statute barred . It was all very surreal . They wouldn't let go of this false pretense no matter what legislature they were shown . I ended up with making a complaint against their complaints and compliance department who were the originators of all the disinformation .

Edited by Drexl Spivey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine how tortuous it will be for Robinson Way to fill out this form :

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/CCP1.pdf

 

Look at some of the questions they are going to be most loathe to answer :

 

3. Who will have responsibility for ensuring the compliance of

your business with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, other relevant

legislation and OFT Guidance? Please give his/her name and

contact details.

 

4. If applicable, please provide details of any relevant training,

experience and/or qualifications of the person named in

question 3 in order to demonstrate his/her suitability to carry

out these duties

 

5. Please state whether the person responsible for compliance

will report directly to the board of directors, or any other senior

manager/officer, and provide details

 

6. How do you and/or relevant employees intend to keep up to date

with changes in relevant UK legislation and OFT Guidance?

 

10. Will you have a documented compliance strategy or any other

controls in place to ensure compliance of your business with the

Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated Regulations, other

relevant consumer protection legislation and OFT Guidance?

 

11. Please describe briefly how the compliance strategy operates or

will operate within your organisation

 

12. Please supply details of the monitoring processes you have, or

will put in place, to ensure compliance with relevant UK

legislation and/or OFT Guidance:

 

14. What disciplinary or other action will be taken if your employees

breach company procedures on compliance with relevant UK

legislation and/or OFT Guidance?

 

16. Please summarise the systems you will have in place to ensure

the appropriate handling of debtor complaints and confirm that

your complaints handling conforms to the requirements of the

FOS rules.

 

18. Describe the monitoring processes that will be in place to

ensure that your employees comply with your complaints

handling procedures:

 

26. How will you seek to ensure that your consumer contracts comply

with all applicable relevant consumer protection legislation – for

example, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Unfair Terms in

Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?

 

33. Please describe the procedures you will have in place to ensure

compliance with the OFT Debt Collection Guidance:

 

40. Please describe your procedures for dealing with disputed debts?

Please explain any policy for accepting payments from consumers

who are disputing liability for a debt

 

41. Do you have systems in place to ensure that you do not collect

statute barred debt?

 

----

 

And so on.

 

 

Someone at robinson way is going to have to draw a short straw at being selected to answer those type of questions.

 

---------

 

Best bit is at the end :

 

I understand that:

• It is an offence to knowingly or recklessly give any false or misleading

information to the Office of Fair Trading.

• If I give false or misleading information:

– My licence may be refused

– Any licence that is issued may be revoked at a later date

I might be prosecuted.

Edited by Drexl Spivey
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine an answer to this question being (in my own words and based on my own experience with this company

 

14. What disciplinary or other action will be taken if your employees

breach company procedures on compliance with relevant UK

legislation and/or OFT Guidance?

 

We do not employ staff directly, the disiplinary issues are dealt with by an external source as their employng body and the outsourced staff are acting as our agents... we do not understand the second part of this question and are seeking legal clarification on "compliance with relevant UK legislation and/or OFT Guidance?" and how it fits our business model.

 

Purely imaginary of course - especially after listening to one of their more senior puppets...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course No 18 would have a similar answer

 

18. Describe the monitoring processes that will be in place to

ensure that your employees comply with your complaints

handling procedures:

 

We do not have any monitoring in place as we do not have any directly employed staff - therefore the complaints handling process is an outsourced operation and we have no liability for its accuracy or purpose.

 

Again based on my own experience with this company......

Link to post
Share on other sites

In My Local Private Employment Agency, There Is Still An Advert To Work At Dlc

 

16000 + Commision

 

Been There Over A Year

 

Must Be To Takers

 

Same Old Story

Its

If The Company Gets Its Wrists Slapped, Not Me Guv, Only Agency Staff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: 41. Do you have systems in place to ensure that you do not collect statute barred debt?

 

Answer .

 

We at Robinson Way do not accept the concept of 'statute barred' and will pursue such debts as vigorously as any other on our book . We feel the laws regarding these kinds of debts do not apply to Robinson Way and therefore we reserve the right to disregard them as we see fit . The laws stated within the statute of limitations are at odds with the guidelines we have produced in our compliance department regarding similar debt and are therefore disregarded so as to avoid conflicting directives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 33 next.... 33. Please describe the procedures you will have in place to ensure compliance with the OFT Debt Collection Guidance:

 

We do not understand this question at all - please can we have more information and dates/times of the guidance which has been produced, the name of the regulatory authority and the dates this alleged legislation came into effect....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question : 4. If applicable, please provide details of any relevant training,

experience and/or qualifications of the person named in

question 3 in order to demonstrate his/her suitability to carry

out these duties

 

Answer :

 

Here at Robinson way, we are experts in the field of consumer credit and we ensure that every member of the youth training scheme that are responsible for queries on legislature and the cca have a minimum of one GCSE between them .

Edited by Drexl Spivey
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suspect , that any Robinson way employee putting their signature to such a document , would be akin to somebody being asked to vouch for the legality and authenticity of Arthur Daley's lock up warehouse . And would be subsequently guilty of many visits to the khazi , when the auditors come visiting .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...