Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • maybne the courts are waking up to Simple Simon and his shenanigans, and dots are being joined?
    • In their draft application to the court they state that their Letter of Claim listed the proper three invoices.  Is this true, or are they lying?   As for replying to them, hang fire for the moment, see what people who have dealt with this sort of thing before have to say, there may be a way to oppose their application or at least make them pay a hefty sum to the court for granting it.
    • but the other debts are part of this big picture and its eventual solution a rough idea will help.   if if if they ever get another powerless repo/dca involved, they will tell you well in advance.   help us please
    • to do what they are powerless...   you like 10'00'000 of other s jump because a dca says this or that a DCA is not a bailiff and has zero legal powers on any debt no matter what its type.   another one of your issues is following stupid freeman of the land twaddle. very dangerous.don't   moorcroft dont by debts they only act for clients.   as long as you don't run from debt and insure the debt owners or 'the client' has from you a letter which states your correct and current address or you did so to the Original creditor before any sale or your haven't moved since taking 'the credit' out you are safe from backdoor CCJ's to an old address.   sit on your hands and see if the owner of the debt want to issue a letter of claim. if they do  you return here   A CCJ - which is the only tool they have - because just like us joe public, its the only thing we can legally do if we claim someone owes us money - they have no more powers that you or me
    • That is why I (specifically) said "the lender".
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3205 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

visited liverpool on sunday 8/4/12 for a few drinks with 2 other couples,

decided to get one of the last trains home,

arrived at the train station half an hour or so early purchased our tickets and waited for our 2 other friends to arrive at the turnstyles,

 

A police officer arrived and was speaking to staff at the turnstyle and next min i was approached by the police woman[EDIT]

 

as i was unstable on my feet' i admit i had been drinking i was prob the most soberest of us all,

i am 25 and had been wearing somewhat high shoes since 2pm and my feet were starting to ache,

but really refusing me on a train?

what was i going to do ???

 

after speaking to us [EDIT] was very nervoous and was shaking as i assumed he realised what a big mistake he had made,

 

instead of coming and talking to me to see how drunk i was

he just through his power around!

 

we proceeded to the shop to get our refund and i advised we will get our refund and go as they wernt going to change their mind

 

2mins later as the operative behind the counter was sooo annoyd we were refused the police officer and [EDIT] reappered,

 

[EDIT] and the police officer trying to aggrovate us,

they were doing this on purpose so they could arrest us and slap us with a fine,

 

the woman copper started getting aggresive but we didnt rise to it,

as we were fully aware what she was doing obv not tooo druk?????

 

we left the station and had to get a taxi home which cost us £100

 

never been so embarrassed in all my life!!!!

 

and will never travel with this crap rail company!!!!:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely up to them how drunk they thought you were really: I guess you could complain but it is indeed an offence to be intoxicated on the railway, so I'm guessing their own side of the story is fundamentally different to your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the Police Officers aggressive, or Assertive? Common misconception that one.

 

Indeed you were drunk by your own admission, therefore you were treading a fine line from the word go really. I'd like to have thought they'd refund the tickets nonetheless!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with the other posters. It is entirely up to the railway staff and / or police officer whether they allow a person access to a train or to remain on a station if they show signs of being intoxicated. It doesn't matter whether or not the person concerned holds a valid ticket. This is covered by National Railway Byelaws (2005)

 

This is the specific Byelaw

 

4. Intoxication and possession of intoxicating liquor

 

(1) No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.

 

(2) Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with intoxicating liquor with him.

 

(3) Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may:

 

(i) require him to leave the railway; and

(ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until an authorised person is satisfied that he has no intoxicating liquor with him and/or is no longer in an unfit condition.

 

 

Byelaw 4.1 and 4.3 (ii) seem pretty clear on the matter.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...