Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The card number at the top right of the Advanced Application Form and Agreement does not reflect the same card number the number is 546780 and ends 5931 (however that card was taken out in 2005) the card number on the POC - there isn't one it is just the reference number that they use or they call the 'original account number'.   As for the statement (excel spreadsheet type) that has the same reference number but not credit card number.  However this is different to the spreadsheet paperwork they have sent previously to me. Which looks like it comes from Lloyds and shows the debt being written off by them. I've attached that here.   I wrote to Lowell asking for the deed of assignment and they haven't furnished us with it either. They did state that they don't have it as it is too old or something in the offer letter.      new doc 2021-02-25 08.15.42.pdf
    • Hello All   Update   As per post #83, I had mentioned that for some unusual  reason, there had been two deadlines from the court for responding, namely the 18th of January 2021 and 1st of Feb 2021.   With everyones great help I filed in the response by the18th of Jan 2021. I think I was bit concerned that the claimant, Mike Ashley may use the second deadline as a chance to add a supplementary statement in response to my defence.    Well, Mike Ashely has in fact does exactly this. He has responded and filed a supplementary witness statement and has responded to all the defence points. He has addressed most the issues I had raised in my defence.     His Supplementary WS is dated 30 January 2021 and his solicitors emailed it to me on the 17th of February 2021.   Not sure what to do, but he seems to have amended everything which i could have used as a loophole leaving me with the thought of , should we have waited till the 2nd deadline ie 1ist Feb2021 and submitted the defence rather than the 18th January 2021. this would have deprived him of the chance to response with a supplementary WS. Thats what really had a worried me and I raised it a few times on this platform.     Not sure now because he has kind of amended a few things, removed the incorrect exhibit ( where the signages had belonged to a different site, and called it a clerical error).   Will post his redacted supplementary WS later as at work now.   Thanks all
    • An eye-opening new report from the payment processor Worldpay found so-called 'mobile wallet' payments were used for just under a third of all online transactions in 2020. View the full article
    • Adding to all the other difficulties (address for service, proving an agreement, obtaining enforcement even if you succeeded) that have been raised: Has the obligation to repay yet arisen?   You say the agreement was repayment once the divorce settlement occurred, but then point out settlement has yet to occur!.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Tenants could switch to save £190, says Ofgem


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2718 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

Nearly four in five UK tenants have never switched energy suppliers - a move that could save them £190 a year, the energy regulator has said.

 

Ofgem said that 77% of bill payers in rented homes had never switched gas and electricity supplier.

 

If a tenant is directly responsible for paying the bill, then they have the right to switch.

 

If the landlord has a tie-in with a specific supplier, this must be made clear to a tenant.

 

However, if the tenant is responsible for paying the bill then he, or she, has the right to switch at any time without incurring an exit fee.

 

"At a time when nine million British households are renting and budgets are tight, it is important that consumers are clear about where they stand when choosing and switching their energy supplier," said Philip Cullum, Ofgem senior partner.

 

"Our research shows that tenants that have not switched could save an average of around £190 on their annual energy bill."

 

The regulator has put together a guide for tenants on the issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24062938

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...