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

Caught in Sainsbury's please help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3959 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

Hey Locky94,

 

Really glad someone picked up this thread and I have the opportunity to pass this wisdom onto someone else!

 

In the end we had several letters but we followed the advice on this forum down to the letter and we never heard from them again! I think it was after 2/3 letters from them that we wrote to them and said we 'denied liability to their clients', and then we never heard from them again.

 

Don't cave- be strong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply, As i'm a student i don't have 150 at hand. So i was worrying. When should i send the letter saying that i deny liability to their clients? After they send another one?

 

Thanks for the help, Really is grateful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again- have a look back over this thread (thats where i found the advice)- but im pretty sure we put: To DWF, ref you letter dated [whenever they sent you the letter] I deny any liability to you or your client, Yours Sincerely, [your name]. Something like that. But yep wait for 2nd of 3rd letter. and dont sweat it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you HoneyBee

 

And ScarletPimpernel, this is the 3rd letter i have just received today

Dear Sirs,

 

Our Client: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited

Balance Due: £150

 

We write with reference to our letters dated **/**/**** and **/**/**** and note we have note received your reply.

 

Should payment not be made during the course of the next 7 days we will consider commencing Court Proceedings to recover the sum outstanding.

 

If you do not pay:

- The sum outstanding may increase due to Court costs, fees and interest

- A county court Judgment may be entered against you

- Your credit rating may be affected for up to 6 years

- A bailiff may attend your house to remove goods to the value owed

- We may seek a Court order deducting monies from your earnings with your employer

 

If you pay now:

- No further action will be taken

 

Please pay by one of the following methods [...]

 

We await your payment or response during the course of the next 7 days.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

DWF'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that DWF appear to have forgotten that they'd need to win a court case before any of the things they threaten can happen. If they were attempting to collect a legitimate debt their letter would breach OFT Guidance, but as no real debt exists it's clearly just an attempt to mislead.

 

Personally, I'd send a simple letter:

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your recent correspondence. Any liability to you or your client is denied.

 

Yours etc.,

 

... and then ignore them.

 

You could also just continue to ignore them. There is always a possibility, however remote, that a court claim could be brought, and the letter will show a judge that you have made your position clear, whilst ignoring them may show a reluctance to deal with the matter.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you send the letter either by Recorded delivery or at the very least obtain a Free proof of posting from the post office. That way you have proof that the letter has indeed been sent.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Ahhh okay, Thanks for all this help. Really am grateful.

 

Hi Locky94,

 

Initially, apologies for reviving an old thread.

 

My wife has recently found herself in a similar situation and I was wondering if you were successful with your efforts following the advice received in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Red DD

 

I think that if Locky94 was still experiencing any problems then there would be more posts here

 

Have a read of all of the RLP threads and then create your own thread if you need support

 

RLP do operate a bullying business model with no legal basis and cannot take legal action against anyone. Your wife should certainly not return any of the forms that they might send, the only communication worthwhile is the one-liner denying any liability, and even with that, not by registered post (get a free certificate of posting from the post office)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...