Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

Airlines not refunding tax on flights not taken


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5059 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

costs 20 quid? It doesnt cost the airline that!

 

If I had a reasonable amount to claim back, I would be asking exactly how much it costs them.. several pence.

 

Its a [problem] good and proper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mrs Hobbit

Oh yes, claim it back and let them see that they are to be as responsible as the other institutions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah - it's an aspiration, not a foregone conclusion. I think it important to differentiate beteween what we'd like and what we'd get - should we challenge.

 

The airlines are up front, they state clearly what the costs of cancellation are within their T&C's, so you;ll be piddling in the wind if you trhink you can challenge this on the basis YOU think it unreasonable. They've told you their tariff, and if you book, you agree.

 

Bitching after-the-event is a recipe for failure. We already know this, as the Telecom charges for bot paying by DD or LAte Paying are stipulated within the price list, and the courts have geld that onlt if these charges are hidden would they be unfair to the consumer. The issue of whether they are 'reasonable' and represent the costs actually incurred is not the issue, that's a different argument, and one best taken by a regulator.

 

Class Action? No such thing in English or Scottish Law, I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's FAIRNESS got to do with anything?

 

We don't live in a schoolyard utopia where if you point out something is unfair, it is resolved. Further, you are not in any position to guestimate how 'little' it costs them. Easyjet makes no charge, BA and the Ryanair and the rest do. But they DO have this in their Terms of Cancellation. If you don't like it, you don't book. (Or go with EasyJet).

 

I can see a Judge weeping with despair when your case is summed up as 'it's not fair'....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby, CAG was based on the premise of fairness, and consumers reclaiming the right, whether or not there are unfair (or even unlawful) terms in contracts... challenge the legality of these terms.

 

Bank charges/credit card charges/PPI reclaiming (and loads of other CAG stuff) is based on this and the fight goes on. This just strikes me as another example of bully boy tactics where the big kid takes the little kids sweets, and hides behind a contract, which is often difficult to understand.

 

I can see a Judge weeping with despair when your case is summed up as 'it's not fair'....

 

I have personally taken many banks and credit card companies to court and won back money taken unfairly and unlawfully, regardless of any contract. I would have no fear whatsoever in taking an airline to the courtroom.

 

If you don't get what cag is about after 4 years I doubt very much you ever will.

Edited by HSBCrusher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mrs Hobbit

We got our air taxes back when we had to cancel a flight. iu wrote a letter and explained I understood the costs incurred etc, but as the air taxes were not paid by the airline because we did not fly, I consider they should be refunded. This was a long haul flight and we got the full refund.

 

We also got refunded our fares less the admin charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAG being founded on 'fairness' is one thing. Starting a thread where you imply Caggers know the score in a story regarding the refund of taxes and by implication, could avoid same was indeed misleading.

 

I think I have a fair idea what cag is about, I have 2k more posts than you for a start. But that's not the issue. What is misrepresenting an issue that somehow with the CAG forums assistance you can avoid this problem. Yet you do nothing to explain how, and better yet, the story you linked to was balanced in explaining the problems and the issues. Agreed it isn't 'fair' - but so's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, life is not fair, but we are in the business of making it more fair.

 

an airline takes the tax but the flight is not taken, they keep the tax.

they then hide behind "costs" to prevent you getting your money back and keep the tax that does not belong to them.

 

we know its only going to cost them a few pence to get the tax refunded, a press of a button.

 

I have suggested that anyone with this issue who thinks they have been wrongly treated could try and get it back. After all.. its your money they are keeping. The banks tried this on, "we can charge you hundereds of pounds in charges, but its ok as its in our T&Cs..." the rest is history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had tax back twice for cancelled flights-from 2 different companies without any penalties.

I also have 15586 more posts than Raymond:rolleyes:

  • 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

Yep too late Bookie.

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

I'm afraid your mistaken,

Class action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Railtrack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Ah - it's an aspiration, not a foregone conclusion. I think it important to differentiate beteween what we'd like and what we'd get - should we challenge.

 

The airlines are up front, they state clearly what the costs of cancellation are within their T&C's, so you;ll be piddling in the wind if you trhink you can challenge this on the basis YOU think it unreasonable. They've told you their tariff, and if you book, you agree.

 

Bitching after-the-event is a recipe for failure. We already know this, as the Telecom charges for bot paying by DD or LAte Paying are stipulated within the price list, and the courts have geld that onlt if these charges are hidden would they be unfair to the consumer. The issue of whether they are 'reasonable' and represent the costs actually incurred is not the issue, that's a different argument, and one best taken by a regulator.

 

Class Action? No such thing in English or Scottish Law, I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mistaken?

 

What thread are you commenting on?

 

It might be more helpful (assuming you wish to further the debate) that you state what point you are making. The first Wiki article explains the use of Class Action in US Courts, and for the second, Railtrack? Whatever next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This little gem

 

'Class Action? No such thing in English or Scottish Law, I'm afraid'

 

The first Wiki article states the following:-

'However, in several European countries with civil law different from the English common law principle (which is used by U.S. courts), changes have been made in recent years that allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of large groups of consumers.However, in several European countries with civil law different from the English common law principle (which is used by U.S. courts), changes have been made in recent years that allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of large groups of consumers.'

 

The second Wiki article demonstates that Class Actions have indeed taken

place in the U.K.

 

Theres nothing to debate. Debate over.:)

 

I'm mistaken?

 

What thread are you commenting on?

 

It might be more helpful (assuming you wish to further the debate) that you state what point you are making. The first Wiki article explains the use of Class Action in US Courts, and for the second, Railtrack? Whatever next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

an airline takes the tax but the flight is not taken, they keep the tax.

they then hide behind "costs" to prevent you getting your money back and keep the tax that does not belong to them.

 

That's exactly how it is. An airline win-win revenue stream. Don't ask for it back and they win, ask for it back and they win. Good on easyJet for paying it back no quibble. The banks at least stuck together, whereas here, easyJet prove it to be a money making racket (as if we didn't know).

 

I'd like to see the likes of Ryanair prove their costs are £17 higher than easyJets, or argue that easyJet are absorbing a £17 loss every refund. :lol:

 

The point is though, I'd like to see any of them justify the fee covering admin.. hehe, bunch of greedingtons.

 

This really should be quite straight forward - do airlines really want to go to court to justify the fee? I know people have successfully reclaimed them, just not with Ryanair where service is an issue - though possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very selective.

 

First - there is no 'Class Action' period. YOu can attempt to call it something else (oh wait a minute, you did), but you neglected to call it by its real name. But I digress. What you outline is a differewnt process. Whereas in the US, all it takes is an enterprising solicitor/lawyer to round up a list of aggrieved participants, taking a retainer from them in the process and when he recieves enough money to proceed - a 'call action is raised'.

 

Does this happen here? Nope, note chance. What you outlined was the Labout Government's attempt at giving consumer (and some other ORGAN ISATIONS the ability to make a 'SuperComplaint' that would then permit the raising of a legal action. Organisations include Trading Standards, and a few sundry 'watchdogs' (but not, I hasten to add, any BBC TV programme of a similar name).

 

A bunch of like minded individuals have no abiility to raise any issue (or 'super complaint') as they have no legal ability to do so, even if they had the backing of a suitably qualified agent/solicitor or even barrister.

 

So - sorry to burst your bubble. YOur selective reading of the links does you a serious injustice, and what I stated remains factually correct. For the circumstances previously stated the OP cannot start 'a class action; as it is not within his powers to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby, if your considering a class action, you might consider these guys

Group &amp class action litigation lawyers, UK

 

Very selective.

 

First - there is no 'Class Action' period. YOu can attempt to call it something else (oh wait a minute, you did), but you neglected to call it by its real name. But I digress. What you outline is a differewnt process. Whereas in the US, all it takes is an enterprising solicitor/lawyer to round up a list of aggrieved participants, taking a retainer from them in the process and when he recieves enough money to proceed - a 'call action is raised'.

 

Does this happen here? Nope, note chance. What you outlined was the Labout Government's attempt at giving consumer (and some other ORGAN ISATIONS the ability to make a 'SuperComplaint' that would then permit the raising of a legal action. Organisations include Trading Standards, and a few sundry 'watchdogs' (but not, I hasten to add, any BBC TV programme of a similar name).

 

A bunch of like minded individuals have no abiility to raise any issue (or 'super complaint') as they have no legal ability to do so, even if they had the backing of a suitably qualified agent/solicitor or even barrister.

 

So - sorry to burst your bubble. YOur selective reading of the links does you a serious injustice, and what I stated remains factually correct. For the circumstances previously stated the OP cannot start 'a class action; as it is not within his powers to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly how it is. An airline win-win revenue stream. Don't ask for it back and they win, ask for it back and they win. Good on easyJet for paying it back no quibble. The banks at least stuck together, whereas here, easyJet prove it to be a money making racket (as if we didn't know).

 

I'd like to see the likes of Ryanair prove their costs are £17 higher than easyJets, or argue that easyJet are absorbing a £17 loss every refund. :lol:

 

The point is though, I'd like to see any of them justify the fee covering admin.. hehe, bunch of greedingtons.

 

This really should be quite straight forward - do airlines really want to go to court to justify the fee? I know people have successfully reclaimed them, just not with Ryanair where service is an issue - though possible.

 

If I bought a TV via mail order, and then decided not to buy the TV would the company keep the VAT?

If I stopped working for an employer would they keep the tax for work I had not done?

 

This is just plain daft, easyjet can refund this money that doesn't belong to them, so can the rest of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...