Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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
      • 160 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

Disputing Tuition fees


Redstar7
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4899 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

Hi, i attended a Derby uni last september but i left the course in April. The reason i left was the very reason that i could not afford the tuition fees that the uni demanded i pay upfront. They are demanding over £4000, I was told i was not eligable for tuition fee support. The uni has since passed on the "debt" on to a DCA. The DCA is STA GRAYDON.

Any advice would be very appreciated, which letters should i send to the uni/DCA.:eek:

I am not in a financial position to pay and even if i was i am disputing it.

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

UPDATE: I sent a letter to STA GRAYDON from this website which basically told them to prove the debt or do not contact me again. This worked i have not heard from them since the end of July.

Now i get a county court claim made against me from the uni through a solicitor called "Michael T Hadfield" which i have never heard from before, they are based in Kent.

How do i deal with this? i dispute the claim entirely!

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you started in September and left in April then you were there for almost the entire academic year which the fees cover. I don't really know much about this area but from what I've read the rules on repaying tuition fees differs between universities - some will charge you the whole amount regardless of when you drop out, others will only charge you if you drop out after a specific point in the year. What are your grounds for disputing these fees? Because it sounds like you owe them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My grounds will be, What "service" did i recieve that warranted the sum of almost £5000 to be claimed against me?

Since i did no recieve any qualification from this university. I was studying for a standard undergraduate degree, why was i being charged upfront anyway?

Also to whom do i owe this debt? The first DCA was sent a letter by me which said prove the contract exists or go away. They did not contact me again, so why has this matter resurfaced?

Fair enough Defence?

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

The service you received was the year's worth of education. Fees aren't only payable if you get a qualification. If that were the case then anyone could drop out near the end of the third year, or fail, and pay nothing, even though they used the services of the university for those three years. Every student has to pay their fees upfront.

 

There are plenty of threads on The Student Room where people have dropped out and had to pay the whole amount of their fees, the rules on this depends on the university. Perhaps you could give the student finance people a ring, apparently they are very helpful when it comes to this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...