Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
    • Farage rails and whines about not being allowed on the BBC ... ... but pulls out at the last minute of a BBC Panorama interview special. It was denied it was anything to do with his candidates being outed as misogynists and Putin apologists, or that farage was afraid Nick Robinson might throw some difficult questions at him ... despite farages recent practice at quickly cowering in fear.   It was claimed 'it wasn't in Nigels diary'     Nigel Farage pulls out of BBC interview at last minute amid Hitler row WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK ‘Panorama’ special postponed as Reform UK party faces row over candidate who claimed UK would have been ‘better off’ if it had...   Waaahhhh
    • i'd say put lowells to strict proof of where the payment came from. cant hurt to send SB letter, even if proved not. at least they get your correct address. they'd have to link the old IVA times scale to a payment  these IVA F&F pots (if thats where it came from) most mugs dont even know they are not only taking most of your payments on fees but also creaming money off to supposedly offer F&F's.  funny when the IVA fails or is complete these sums of money in F&F pots never get given back or even mentions... these IVA firm directors esp with regard to knightsbridge and creditfix were fined and struck off more times than Paul Burdell of Link Fame and still managed to continue to scam people.
  • 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 
        • 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

Deadseakit.com*LONDON - buyer beware!


Ship'sBelle
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4278 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

Although this firm probably aren't acting unlawfully they're certainly using some very dubious tactics in order to shift their products! :-x

 

I applied online for what I *thought* were some free samples of facial moisturiser ... but what I was really applying for was a free trial of these products. (Spot the subtle difference? Well I didn't notice it at the time.)

 

I was asked for £3.95 to cover postage ... and (silly me) used my credit card to pay for it. In due course the samples arrived ... 3 little tiny pots of 'goo'. I thought no more about it until I received my credit card statement. Not only had Deadseakit.com*LONDON taken the £3.95 for p&p, but they'd also taken £59.95 just 10 days later! Apparently the £59.95 charge was levied because I had decided to keep the product AFTER my free trial had ended! (My free trial, it appears, lasted for just 14 days ... this info is buried amongst the 'small print' at the bottom of their website).

 

I contacted my credit card provider immediately ... but it appears that as I voluntarily supplied my credit card details to this firm there is no way that I can recoup the payment. :mad2:

 

To make matters worse ... having now read and digested their t&cs it seems that I have also entered into an 'autorefill' agreement with Deadseakit.com*LONDON ... apparently they'll send me a little pot of goo every month at £59.95 a time! (Or so they think ... but needless to say I'll be cancelling my credit card!)

 

Ask yourselves ... what sort of firm has so little faith in its products that it has to resort to duping its customers in order to make a sale? If they truly believe that their product is worth £59.95 then why do they try to hide the price behind the 'free trial' incentive? Bah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally ...

 

Cosmetic, toiletry and perfumery products (cosmetics) are subject to European laws that ensure that they are safe. These laws also require certain information to be printed or labelled on packaging. This includes an ingredient list, the contents, any warnings that might be necessary on how to use the product safely, and a "period after opening" or a "Best Before Date" to show how long the product may be kept.

 

There is no such labelling on the Beauty Kit that I was sent:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who get caught in this 'vanity trap' should get together and do a class action against Facebook who actively promote this kind of 'special offer', and hide behind their 'non EU' status.

 

If these companies are reported to Trading Standards and the OFT then something has to be done.

 

This lot were hiding behind a genuine cosmetic companys logo and I reported it to the genuine company... not heard anything back from them yet.

 

The £59.95 isn't as bad as the £113 for what are supposed to be diet pills which has been going around for a while.

 

Just because the companies aren't based in the UK doesn't mean to say they can't be stopped from advertising in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who get caught in this 'vanity trap' should get together and do a class action against Facebook who actively promote this kind of 'special offer', and hide behind their 'non EU' status.

 

If these companies are reported to Trading Standards and the OFT then something has to be done.

 

This lot were hiding behind a genuine cosmetic companys logo and I reported it to the genuine company... not heard anything back from them yet.

 

The £59.95 isn't as bad as the £113 for what are supposed to be diet pills which has been going around for a while.

 

Just because the companies aren't based in the UK doesn't mean to say they can't be stopped from advertising in the UK.

 

Interesting post.

However, I take issue with the 'vanity trap' remark ... I've volunteered as a 'human guinea pig' several times previously (I'd rather smear 'products' on my 63-year-old face than have them dripped into the eyes of rabbits etc), and the Deadseakit advert that I responded to implied that this was a similar sort of thing. I was supposed to take 'before' and 'after' mug-shots, and as a 'reward' I got to keep the samples of grease.

 

Incidentally, the company IS based in the UK ... they merely 'ship from' a P.O. Box in Israel.

Edited by Ship'sBelle
adding a bit more
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shipping from a PO Box in Israel still means they are hiding somewhere, as it is Israel the 'product labelling' and 'anti- animal testing' conventions doesnt exist there, so you could still be using stuff tested on animals, or even derived from some endangered species.

 

I would use the term 'vanity s c a m' but the filter on this forum doesn't allow the word through but basically it is a marketing poly to get you to think that you are getting something for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a bit more digging ... the domain name Deadseakit.com*LONDON has just 14 days left to run. (Expires 8th October 2012). The domain name is owned by a firm called DS Marketing Ltd who operate from premises at 788 - 790 Finchley Road, London NW11 7TJ.

 

They aren't the sole importers/distributors of the 'Dead Sea Kit' products that are made in Israel (see ebay for at least one other example!) ... but they're the only outfit that charges extremely high prices for the products; and the only firm that 'cajoles' (dupes?) customers into signing up for 'repeat purchases'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who get caught in this 'vanity trap' should get together and do a class action against Facebook who actively promote this kind of 'special offer', and hide behind their 'non EU' status.

 

If these companies are reported to Trading Standards and the OFT then something has to be done.

 

This lot were hiding behind a genuine cosmetic companys logo and I reported it to the genuine company... not heard anything back from them yet.

 

The £59.95 isn't as bad as the £113 for what are supposed to be diet pills which has been going around for a while.

 

Just because the companies aren't based in the UK doesn't mean to say they can't be stopped from advertising in the UK.

 

'Phoned the CAB's 'Consumer Advice' dept about this firm this morning. (Apparently this arm of the CAB liaise with the OFT and Trading Standards Depts now).

The person I spoke to confirmed that several of the terms and conditions on the website of Deadseakit.com*LONDON breach UK regs. Also the content of their online advert will be examined, plus the Health & Safety issue of failing to state the ingredients used and the expiry date of the product. The case will be investigated by 2 branches of Trading Standards: one from my own area, and one from the area of London where this firm are registered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...