Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3697 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

Any help on this issue would be appreciated. I have copied and pasted below a draft of a letter I will be sending to T Mobile. Basically, my mobile broadband stick was stolen without my knowledge and used to make phone calls totalling £600 which I am now apparently liable for. The full detail is in the text below - any comments/ideas/similar experience/abuse welcomed. Cheers.

 

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I am writing to express my disapointment in T-Mobile's response to the recent theft of my mobile broadband USB stick. I have called T Mobile on three separate occasions to explain the circumstances surrounding the theft and have been referred only to the following point included in T Mobile's terms and conditions:- 'report your lost or stolen phone right away. Until you notify T-Mobile you're liable for the cost of any services used on your missing handset'.

 

By way of detail, the mobile broadband stick in question was stolen alongside my flatmates laptop in mid-July. As the stick was not used by myself or my flatmate, neither of us realised this at the time. As it was never used, it was not noticed missing until I received a bill of £105 for the period up until the 20th July. It appears that when stolen, the SIM card was removed from the USB and used to make a number of international calls to Iraq and Pakistan, amongst other places. The additional charges incurred in the period 20th July until the point I reported the stick stolen are £484 (as per my discussions with my T-Mobile colleague). As per your terms and conditions, I am apparently liable for those charges, even though common sense clearly indicates that they were clearly not incurred by myself. I have a police report detailing the date that the theft took place should you wish to see further proof of this.

 

Under normal circumstances, should I have had my mobile phone knowingly stolen and neglected my responsibility to report it, I would reluctantly accept liablity in accordance with your terms and conditions. However, given the specific circumstances listed below, I cannot accept that I can be held liable for these charges.

  • As you may have record of, I previously had a number of discussions with T-Mobile where I expressed my displeasure in the way in which the mobile broadband package was sold to me. I was called by a T-Mobile operator and offered a 'loyalty bonus'. I was informed that my usage of the service would be 'capped', never costing more than £10 and 'would work out about 30p a day if you used it for one day'. As I am sure you will agree, to express something as being 'capped' is grossly misleading in this context, and you can imagine my surprise when having never used the service, I received a bill of £10. At this point I attempted to cancel the service on the grounds I had been mis-sold the service. I was informed that I could cancel should I wish to pay up the remainder of the 24 month contract. I did not opt to take the matter any further and continued with the contract. My annoyance led to me switching my mobile phone operator for the first time.
  • I was never made aware at any point of how this product could be used. Whilst it may seem obvious to people in your industry that what I actually had was another phoneline, there should be no assumption that your customers have similar knowledge. As far as I was aware, I had a 'capped' service that allowed me to access mobile broadband, hence my apparent disregard for its value. That this product should then be fraudulently used in a manner I was not aware possible only adds to my annoyance.
  • I find it difficult to accept that when T-Mobile sell me a service 'capped' at £10 a month, you would then not notify me/cap the service when the usage has reached approximately 60 times what the normal charges in any given period would be. Not only this, it was being used for a purpose that it was not intended to make international phone calls to countries which I have absolutely no ties. It appears that T-Mobile were more than happy for charges to continue to be incurred in his fashion.

As I am sure you will appreciate, the fact that I am being told that I shall be liable for the full amount of the charges incurred has left me angry and disapointed. I have unknowlingly been the victim of crime that I had no knowledge there was a risk of, all in relation to a service that I still maintain I was deliberately misled into agreeing to purchase. As I have explained, I understand the contractual point which I have been referred to previously. Given my above comments, I cannot accept that it should apply in this case. As such, I have instructed my bank to suspend any further payments to T-Mobile until this matter is resolved, as I will be willing to take the complaint further should you not agree to rescind the charges. I would request that this amount is not passed on to any debt collection agency while these monies are in dispute.

I look forward to receiving your comments in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any help on this issue would be appreciated. I have copied and pasted below a draft of a letter I will be sending to T Mobile. Basically, my mobile broadband stick was stolen without my knowledge and used to make phone calls totalling £600 which I am now apparently liable for. The full detail is in the text below - any comments/ideas/similar experience/abuse welcomed. Cheers.

 

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I am writing to express my disapointment in T-Mobile's response to the recent theft of my mobile broadband USB stick. I have called T Mobile on three separate occasions to explain the circumstances surrounding the theft and have been referred only to the following point included in T Mobile's terms and conditions:- 'report your lost or stolen phone right away. Until you notify T-Mobile you're liable for the cost of any services used on your missing handset'.

 

By way of detail, the mobile broadband stick in question was stolen alongside my flatmates laptop in mid-July. As the stick was not used by myself or my flatmate, neither of us realised this at the time. As it was never used, it was not noticed missing until I received a bill of £105 for the period up until the 20th July. It appears that when stolen, the SIM card was removed from the USB and used to make a number of international calls to Iraq and Pakistan, amongst other places. The additional charges incurred in the period 20th July until the point I reported the stick stolen are £484 (as per my discussions with my T-Mobile colleague). As per your terms and conditions, I am apparently liable for those charges, even though common sense clearly indicates that they were clearly not incurred by myself. I have a police report detailing the date that the theft took place should you wish to see further proof of this.

 

 

Under normal circumstances, should I have had my mobile phone knowingly stolen and neglected my responsibility to report it, I would reluctantly accept liablity in accordance with your terms and conditions. However, given the specific circumstances listed below, I cannot accept that I can be held liable for these charges.

  • As you may have record of, I previously had a number of discussions with T-Mobile where I expressed my displeasure in the way in which the mobile broadband package was sold to me. I was called by a T-Mobile operator and offered a 'loyalty bonus'. I was informed that my usage of the service would be 'capped', never costing more than £10 and 'would work out about 30p a day if you used it for one day'. As I am sure you will agree, to express something as being 'capped' is grossly misleading in this context, and you can imagine my surprise when having never used the service, I received a bill of £10. At this point I attempted to cancel the service on the grounds I had been mis-sold the service. I was informed that I could cancel should I wish to pay up the remainder of the 24 month contract. I did not opt to take the matter any further and continued with the contract. My annoyance led to me switching my mobile phone operator for the first time.
  • I was never made aware at any point of how this product could be used. Whilst it may seem obvious to people in your industry that what I actually had was another phoneline, there should be no assumption that your customers have similar knowledge. As far as I was aware, I had a 'capped' service that allowed me to access mobile broadband, hence my apparent disregard for its value. That this product should then be fraudulently used in a manner I was not aware possible only adds to my annoyance.
  • I find it difficult to accept that when T-Mobile sell me a service 'capped' at £10 a month, you would then not notify me/cap the service when the usage has reached approximately 60 times what the normal charges in any given period would be. Not only this, it was being used for a purpose that it was not intended to make international phone calls to countries which I have absolutely no ties. It appears that T-Mobile were more than happy for charges to continue to be incurred in his fashion.

As I am sure you will appreciate, the fact that I am being told that I shall be liable for the full amount of the charges incurred has left me angry and disapointed. I have unknowlingly been the victim of crime that I had no knowledge there was a risk of, all in relation to a service that I still maintain I was deliberately misled into agreeing to purchase. As I have explained, I understand the contractual point which I have been referred to previously. Given my above comments, I cannot accept that it should apply in this case. As such, I have instructed my bank to suspend any further payments to T-Mobile until this matter is resolved, as I will be willing to take the complaint further should you not agree to rescind the charges. I would request that this amount is not passed on to any debt collection agency while these monies are in dispute.

I look forward to receiving your comments in due course.

 

 

I've highlighted in bold the portion of the letter that worries me. T-Mobile can default you easier than any bank can. They have the best (or worst depending on your viewpoint) of both worlds. I'll explain a bit further, A bank has to subscribe to the rules and regulations of "the customer credit act" whereas T-Mobile don't give credit, so thats a whole set of rules they can ignore, so letting your bill go unpaid for any period of time can ruin your credit score (depending on the criteria searched, it can ruin it as much as a county court judgement!)

 

Also playing devils advocate a little here, they will state that the terms and conditions were sent out with the dongle, and it is up to you to read them, and using the service is accepting the terms and conditions.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the buck will stop with you if you did not take reasonable care of the dingle, which includes PIN protracting it from unauthorised use. Issues of being miss old are of no help here, nor of hem owing you any duty od care. If you cancel your DD or net make the complete payment due, this will be flagged on your credit file. Even if you enter into an arrangement to pay it off, T mobile will still report this as a delayed settlement, do watch out got his.

 

It is a pain that most folk do not realise how vulnerable they are until it is too late, but the networks has done nothing wrong, and unless you have insurance to cover the misuse, you'll be left high and dry.

 

Your arguments that you do not call these countries don't help. Until you report the loss, only calls made after you advise them will be their responsibility. Remember, the the if would simply take the dongle SIM and put it in a standard handset to run up the calls. Easy!

 

At more conciliatory approach is a better bet. Asking for any consideration in reducing the debt might just get it lowered a bit to minimize the hardship if you don't have insurance. Going in with guns blazing will not get you far, and cost more in the long run.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...