Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that nuanced response Bazza. I was hoping to argue that I did turn left into the road and what happens on the road I turned into is a moot point. Best, Chris
    • Hi mitm are you able to DM me? Need some advice and rather just take off here for now. Won’t let me DM you as a new user. 
    • Just a little something for consideration When a card is compromised, the replacements can be set up to automatically allow or manually re-add, old recurring transactions. The card issuer may ask you to confirm legitimate transactions which they would effectively 'migrate' to the new card Some do - some don't. Some staff on some cards seem to be entirely unaware/uncaring about this. Some card issuers expect you to sort it all out manually.   BUT if the leak is an ongoing lyca leakas it seems - as soon as you or your CC supplier give it to lyca/the leak source - compromised again     A note on security DONT use the same email or phone number for your banking as you do for sims etc. Although a bank eg santander leak would compromise this Infp seems to suggest that single/compromised multi factor authentication customers are priority targets, with more robustly secure cards being hit by 0.00 tests first Consider that the email address is one of the OTP recieving options AND one of the OTP security checks prior to sending the OTP - with the phone number being another So if they've got your card and email (same email for banking and end contact) - and you aren't forcing a phone OTP - you are compromised.  
    • Thanks for posting up the back of the NTK. The good news s that as it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, it means that you are not liable for the charge as the keeper as I explained in a previous post.  The PC fails for two reasons. The first is that it does not specify the period of parking. All it does is list the arrival and departure times of your car. Obviously that does not include the time taken to drive to the car parking space, manoeuvre the car into the space and later drive from the space to the exit. Nor does their times include things like getting kids disabled people out of and into the car as well as things like returning the trolley whilst still being parked. All of which can add a fair bit of time to the parking period which can then be subtracted from their ANPR times and makes your actual parking time a lot shorter than 118 minutes they seem to think it is. The second reason is that they failed to ask the keeper to pay Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]  (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges You as keeper are now in the clear which is a good reason for you to contact Sainsbury  stating that you are being pursued as the keeper when you are not liable under the Act as well as the oher things I suggested in my previous post. If you don't get it cancelled with Sainsbury this could drag on for months with endless letters unlawfully pushing the price up to scare you into paying.  
    • Brilliant! That's great to hear and honestly pleased I'm wrong, my advice was out of concern. I checked some of your previous posts last night and you've been giving great advice to others at times. Bringing a claim can be serious (counter-claims etc) and it didn't appear you were knowledgeable based on posts so far. Far from an expert myself, just interested and will try to help. I'll sit on the sidelines, best of luck with the claim!
  • 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
      • 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

please can you help - worry over a RLP from Primark


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3985 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

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

May, might, maybe. Oh please!!!

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the same trouble at the moment as I am awaiting a letter from RLP and am unsure of what to do about it when it does come. I've spent the past two days searching and reading all about RLP and everywhere is just saying to ignore it and that they cannot do anything about it and now I that I've read this and seen that you have chosen the option to ignore it all and not pay for it that im curious as to how this has worked out for you and if they are still pestering you about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the same trouble at the moment as I am awaiting a letter from RLP and am unsure of what to do about it when it does come. I've spent the past two days searching and reading all about RLP and everywhere is just saying to ignore it and that they cannot do anything about it and now I that I've read this and seen that you have chosen the option to ignore it all and not pay for it that im curious as to how this has worked out for you and if they are still pestering you about it?

 

 

Please start your own thread, tell us your story, and we'll be able to help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - sorry only just logged on.

 

Please take the time to read all of my questions and responses received as the team and individuals who have taken their valuable time to respond to me on this forum have been such a rock to me, without them well who knows....

 

From the advice given to me, I've ignored and not responded once to their letters......and as you can see from my last posting, it hasn't ended yet! I received another letter just the other day albeit from another company which I also plan to totally ignore...yep! do nothing - totally nada!! :-)

 

Like you, I also did something stupid, out of character and still cannot answer why; was and still am, totally ashamed of myself...

 

I think they very much play on this last element so when you first receive the letters you enter into a sheer panic mode; don't really take on board the wording contained within. Being guilty of those same panic moments, upset etc., turning to this wonderful support mechanism (Can't praise them enough); when you eventually calm down and re read the letter(s) you realise they - RLP - contradict themselves in so many ways.

 

Again, with the latest letter from "scotcall" I now wonder if the two companies are connected. Why?

 

The first line of this letter "Our clients have instructed us to collect payment.........as you have failed to respond etc., etc.," followed by the second paragraph "should they not hear from me with payment within 7 days - then our client may consider legal action" ???

 

Why then has this issue been sent to "scotcall" only for it to be returned to the client in order for them (RLP) to start legal proceedings should I not respond - why bother to use the middle man/option?

 

So again, based on advice from here..... I shall ignore!

 

Plus have had the thought....as none of the letters have been sent "recorded" how can they prove that you have received them - which looking at the flip side, should you make any form of response to any letter received - they could potentially use this as their "proof of delivery" ??

 

This will seem very weird coming from me but "stay strong & good luck!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I just happened to pop over to the RLP website and noticed that IF they are taking people to court, why is the last entry from July 2012. If they were so sure of their position then surely they would be shouting recent court wins from the rooftops. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

As for Snotcall-stuff em! :razz:

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that RLP use Snotcall or any other DCA is that there is still an old fashioned stigma associated with words such as 'debt collector' or 'bailiff'. They hope that this perceived shame may be enough to tip the wavering victim over the edge to pay up.

 

The reality is that Snotters are little more than bottom feeders with no legal powers in this mayter, and who may well be operating outside of the OFT guidelines in attempting to collect a 'debt' which does not exist. They quickly retreat once this is pointed out to them but ignoring has the same effect.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, with the latest letter from "scotcall" I now wonder if the two companies are connected. Why?

 

The first line of this letter "Our clients have instructed us to collect payment.........as you have failed to respond etc., etc.," followed by the second paragraph "should they not hear from me with payment within 7 days - then our client may consider legal action" ???

 

Why then has this issue been sent to "scotcall" only for it to be returned to the client in order for them (RLP) to start legal proceedings should I not respond - why bother to use the middle man/option?

 

There is no connection between RLP and Scotcall other than RLP using Scotcall as a DCA to try to collect these non-existent debts. The letter from Scotcall is a template - DCAs don't use anything else. Just like RLP, the words are supposed to impress, scare or otherwise persuade you to send money to them.

 

Scotcall, like all DCAs, just believe whatever their clients tell them - they will just accept that there's a debt if RLP say there is. When they are told that there's no debt - and thus, that they are acting contrary to the terms of their licence - they will say that they took RLP's instructions in good faith. This is why I personally would send Scotcall the 'no liability because there's no debt' letter, but it's up to individuals to decide what they want to do. Now, anyone with one iota of intelligence would know that if a client keeps asking them to collect debts that don't exist, they should stop taking their business; but we all know that greed rules DCAs as it does RLP, so until they are stopped by a regulator, they'll carry on.

 

 

Plus have had the thought....as none of the letters have been sent "recorded" how can they prove that you have received them - which looking at the flip side, should you make any form of response to any letter received - they could potentially use this as their "proof of delivery" ??

 

A court might accept that one or perhaps two letters weren't received, but unless the address is wrong, it would probably be taken that they were received. A letter denying liability may show that the RLP letter was received, but it also shows a judge that the receiver's position has been made clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I just happened to pop over to the RLP website and noticed that IF they are taking people to court, why is the last entry from July 2012. If they were so sure of their position then surely they would be shouting recent court wins from the rooftops. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

As for Snotcall-stuff em! :razz:

 

RLP don't take anyone to court - they have no cause of action.

 

Although the reporting of cases on their website may make it look this way, only the retailer can bring an action. This is one of RLP's biggest problems - retailers do not want their names in the newspapers for taking a customer to court, either because RLP's 'matrix' is legally very dodgy, as the Oxford case showed, or on the basis of unproved allegations made by a back-street civil recovery firm or some security guard.

 

RLP's operation is a numbers game based on a percentage of targets paying - it has nothing whatever to do with crime reduction, prevention or deterrence, and court is the last place they want to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys...thanks again for such rapid responses in which I failed miserably to read until just a moment ago - forgot to charge my laptop! Oops!! :-(

 

I'm now in such a quandary as to whether, having ignored all correspondence to date, I should now send the "no debt - no liability letter" as I fear a gush of letters and back and forth dialogue situ!!

 

H E L P ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

with the greatest respect

 

this has being going on since dec 2012

 

NOTHING has actually happened bar the usual scary letters

 

I would continue to ignore them.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....from this one very big error of judgement I've truly found such a flock of earth angels...who have certainly helped me; given me such valued support and guidance who will continue battling on to help others...I really cant stop thanking you enough. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not here to judge you. At all. Everyone makes mistakes, no matter what reason they were made for. WE are here to help deal with the aftermath and make sure EVERYONE knows the rules they have to follow.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

HELP!!! HELP!!! I'm at a loss as what to do now???

 

I go to church on a Monday night so always turn off my phone and had forgotten to turn it back on....However, just this minute turned on to be greeted with a text message from scottcall saying "this an important message my regarding my account and that I need to call them urgently to discuss!!!.

 

 

Obviously in connection with the above???? My telephone account is a private number so they must have used unscrupulous methods to have obtained it as I withhold ALL numbers at source so I consider this to be a GROSS invasion of my privacy and harassment...what do I do next?

 

This is now making me so ill it's affecting my health big time!

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

what do I do next?

 

 

 

Ignore any calls or texts from them. You can also report their text to your phone provider.

 

If you accidentally pick up a call from them, just refuse to answer any security questions.

 

I hate to say it, but the denial of liability letter would have created a dispute that would have seen Scotcall off at the first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mystic is looking for more direct help. Hands on

 

CAG is anonymous and your statement suggests that you are advocating meeting theOP. I would discourage this. Nobody knows who you are or I for that matter. The OP needs to understand that RLP and their underlings are preying on someone who is at the moment, quite vulnerable.

 

I would suggest the OP visits the doctor who will treat anything said in confidence.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having received two messages from them I've just phoned my network provider who have now logged both the mobile and landline numbers as nuisance/harassment calls ........

 

Having ignored without any form response to date I feel loathed to enter into any form of dialogue with them at this late stage in the process HELP??:sad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...