Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

Default damages [PCWorld wrong laptop sold & HFC Finance]- Supreme Court


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2432 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 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've signed it too. How about putting this in the campaign forum?

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Subbing - good luck Durkin. I had a similar thing done to me by Santander. The default has caused me no end of grief and denied me the opportunity to take advantage of % deals and lower interest credit cards costing me £££ in extra interest, when apart from the default, I have a good payment history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Legal Aid Board should be deciding our claim for Legal Aid next month having finally considered the application last month.

 

Much will depend on the wider public interest aspect so please bring this to the attention of all those folk you may know who are having difficulties with defaults. Any potential sympathisers too.

 

Despite our challenge that this is a very simple matter, they're considering it as "complex".

 

Here's the link to the campaign: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297131-Legislate-against-banks-defaulting-disputed-accounts

 

Thanks for your support.

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Still jumping through hoops with the legal aid board.

 

Despite 2 of 3 external reports, support from the MP and CAG and significant prospects in the Supreme Court, they're still persuaded by the bank's lawyers!

 

The MP has spoken to ministers and pretty much confirms that the government will do nothing util the Supreme Court has ruled on this.

 

Could be another year at least then that the banks are allowed to continue blackmailing the public.

 

I reckon that's unacceptable. I'd like to hear Ken Clarke's excuse for this. Does anyone have him as their MP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to hear this D i wonder if we can find a major Shareholder to raise this at an extraordinary meeting of the board of Directors ...surely they must have a limited budget for this action

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

signed D good luck mate

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I reckon that's unacceptable. I'd like to hear Ken Clarke's excuse for this. Does anyone have him as their MP?

 

I don't have him as my MP but I am currently in talks with my Conservative MP about an issue I'm having. He is currently in talks with the chairman of the bank in question.

 

I'd be happy to send him all the details to pass on if you wish to provide mw with them

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco :cool:

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

 

Scrapper vs MBNA Partial Settlement Success. Saved £13,000 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc PPI Reclaim Success £5,500 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclaycard Partial Settlement Success. Saved £6,000 :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Tesco's FOS upheld complaint. Possible court action to get default removed

 

Scrapper vs Egg (Barclaycard) Awaiting FOS

 

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc Offered made & Refused. This means war :-x

Scrapper vs Barclaycard (Cabot) Waiting 4 years for CCA. Cabot advised irresolvable :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Intelligent Finance. Success

 

Scrapper vs Picture (Webb Resolutions) Success

 

 

Beginner's guide

 

Advice & opinions given by Scrapper are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Scrapper,

 

I've already tried talking with Richard Spence (HFC's old CEO). A waste of breath. I really do wonder how long they think they can get away with it before someone less patient than ourselves decides to string them up.

 

There are plenty of unhappy bunnies now. Let's hope the Supeme Court can bring them into line before someone cracks.

 

I understand Richard Spence is now an advisor at The Treasury. No wonder the government isn't keen to protect the consumer. It seems they're all in it together!

 

Difficult to get them to admit it but it's often the case that actions (or lack of) speak louder than words.

 

I hope your issue is resolved today.

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard I really think the judges have been told to try and stop consumers claiming any further against the banks due to the frightening situation with the Euro etc. I was involved in a recent and decent case (not mine) and the judge just rolled over and allowed the bank's barrister (in a small claims court) to run the show.

 

I also heard a story on Breakfast TV from Paul Lewis of Money box stating the people getting PPI back from banks are being hit with tax bills! It's case of a) putting people off trying and b) if they do try grabbing some tax. Do keep up your battle if you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Good stuff Richard. I'll see if we can get this in the next newsletter to make sure as many as possible respond. :-)

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

HI

I haven't seen any discussion about the actual case, so perhaps this is the wrong thread.

I was aware of this case purely because i had used the precedent created in the awarding of costs issue. Which i may say has been a great help to many.

I couldn't believe the circumstance that caused the problem, i assumed that a credit agreement would automatically be cancelled on the return of an item in this way.

I was a little surprised when i read the transcript of the hearing to be honest, in that that the agreement was said to have been rescinded, due to section 75.

I didn't think that 75 worked that way, my immediate reaction was that the agreement would have been cancelled under the provisions in section 55-56 of the act in that no agreement was" made", as prof. Goode puts it.

 

I considered section 75 to be a device where, if you paid money to a supplier and lost it through their breach, you could sue the creditor in their place. This mechanics are simpler to understand on a running credit account, on a fixed term agreement the creditor i thought would simply repay the loan account( which i suppose is a kind of rescission). It is a subtle distinction and i suppose one that only emerges in the situation that came up here.

 

It is a serious gap in the consumer protection measures available under the act, lets hope the SC has the skill and the will to plug it.

 

DB

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard,

 

I am sure you are in good hands, but can I draw your attention to CCA74 section 57 which seems to cover your situation and was not mentioned in the latest judgment.

 

 

 

By my reading when you went back to the store the agreement had not been executed by the creditor and still at that time remained a prospective agreement.

 

HTH

 

Dad

 

I don't know why this has not been picked up on, it seems to me to be a good and valid argument.

 

There is a minor point that i would disagree with, and that is that the agreement was not executed.

In my view it was, however section 55 refers to the making of an agreement, professor Goode draws distinction between an agreement that is executed and an agreement that is "Made".

 

An agreement can be cancelled before it is made under section 57-69.

 

The agreement is made when the goods are delivered, in this case they were not, if you ordered a pound of butter and received a pound of salt would the goods be deemed to be delivered.

 

I think that this agreement should have been deemed cancelled not rescinded.

DB

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB,

 

Happy to discuss things here. I'm afraid I'm a tad cheesed off with "the law" just now. It seems set up to protect the criminals that can afford the best wordsmiths.

 

It shouldn't matter if the bank screwed us with Section 75 or Section 56. A good judge should still recognise that we've been screwed.

 

The Edinburgh lot have basically let the bank off with this Section 75 technicality that has been good these past 30 years. They are obsessed with linking new cases to previous ones to the extent that they alter facts and ignore evidence to fit.

 

Whether it was the candlestick or the lead piping say, we still have a corpse and we know who did it.

 

With conveniently deaf ears and turning a blind eye, judges have completely missed that the credit agreement shouldn't even exist, as it was processed fraudulently.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Edited by Durkin
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi DB,

 

Happy to discuss things here. I'm afraid I'm a tad cheesed off with "the law" just now. It seems set up to protect the criminals that can afford the best wordsmiths.

 

It shouldn't matter if the bank screwed us with Section 75 or Section 56. A good judge should still recognise that we've been screwed.

 

The Edinburgh lot have basically let the bank off with this Section 75 technicality that has been good these past 30 years. They are obsessed with linking new cases to previous ones to the extent that they alter facts and ignore evidence to fit.

 

Whether it was the candlestick or the lead piping say, we still have a corpse and we know who did it.

 

With conveniently deaf ears and turning a blind eye, judges have completely missed that the credit agreement shouldn't even exist, as it was processed fraudulently.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

 

HI Richard

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere in one of the judgments this was mentioned and the judge said that the only pleadings were based around the section 75 argument, is there going to be an extension to the pleadings in the new submission.

 

DB

Edited by Dodgeball
spell

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the court allows it, we'll tidy up the pleadings.

 

The facts and evidence remain as always. This should have more weight than the pleadings.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...