Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
    • As the electric carmaker sees sales fall and cuts jobs, we take a closer look at its problems.View the full article
    • Care to briefly tell someone who isn't tech savvy - i.e. me! - how you did this? Every day is a school day.
    • Hi Guys, well a year on and my friend has just received this in the post today, obviously a little scared so looking for more of your advice.  Letter from the NCC dated 1-May-2024 is as follows.......   Before deputy district judge Haythorne sitting at the national business centre, 4th floor st Kathrine's house Northampton Upon reading an application from the claimant  it is ordered that  1. The claim be sent to the county court at #### (Friends local Court) Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.  A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this order.  If the application is one which requires a hearing, and a) the party making the application is the defendant: and b) the defendant is an individual, then upon filing of the application the claim will be transferred to the defendants home court.  In all other cases requiring a hearing the claim will be transferred to the preferred court.    As a result of an order made on the 1 May 2024, this claim has been transferred to the county court at ##### (friends local court) 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3571 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

NZ has very right wing PM John Keys, who is a personal friend of David Cameron. Lets just hope that Cameron does not get any ideas.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the vast majority pay fairly quickly. Whilst I don't have any figures to back this up, I imagine the percentage of willful, determined non-payers are small. Personally I would have no issue with that approach being taken over here.

 

When I had bailiffs on my back I did everything possible to repay and I succeeded eventually, despite their underhand tricks. Similarly with debts I am trying my best to repay, but I'm a 'Can't get blood out of a stone' situation.

 

I see no reason why I (and many others like me) should struggle to pay off their dues while a percentage get away with just not bothering.

 

For the record I claim no benefits, but would be better off if I could (caught in what economists call the poverty trap). I am disabled and have serious and permanent mental health problems. There is no doubt whatsoever about my extreme vulnerability.

 

If I can do it, I'm sure others can. Like me, they may need help in organising things, or even POA's put in place to enable this to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubrt the BPA and Parking Eye would love that sanction to be extended to their speculative invoices, the removal of Driving License sanction is already here, as CSA can do it against a parent who won't pay up I believe

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubrt the BPA and Parking Eye would love that sanction to be extended to their speculative invoices, the removal of Driving License sanction is already here, as CSA can do it against a parent who won't pay up I believe

 

They would have to step over my dead body first !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen in the UK if we took the view of what New Zealand has done

read here

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1407/S00291/fine-dodgers-paying-up-to-avoid-driving-ban.htm

 

I think it is an excellent idea if implemented properly and any one ignoring a ban should be jailed. However bailiff costs should be fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dodgy Dave and Failing Grayling attempted to introduce such a measure in the UK, any such measure would have to be done by use of a Substitution Order and exclude decriminalised local authority PCNs. If it was implemented without the sanction of the court that imposed the original fine, I suspect it would be unlawful. The Tories have form for changing the law to make it fit their law-breaking and breaking the law. Lord Michael Howard was found guilty of acting unlawfully, whilst Home Secretary, on at least seven occasions. Not a good example to set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already 2 million people drivng around without a licence or insurance and there has been little reduction in that since the passing of new laws regarding SORN's etc. If you bring out laws that are draconian the penalty for breaking the law becomes less of a threat and so loses its deterrence, a reverse of what was intended. So, introduce hanging for parking offenders and all of the traffic wardens will be murdered becuse you only get about 8 years in prison for that. No parking wardens, no enforcement of parking offences so no-one liable to hanging but a massive increase in the crime rate, the reverse of what was intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already 2 million people drivng around without a licence or insurance and there has been little reduction in that since the passing of new laws regarding SORN's etc. If you bring out laws that are draconian the penalty for breaking the law becomes less of a threat and so loses its deterrence, a reverse of what was intended. So, introduce hanging for parking offenders and all of the traffic wardens will be murdered becuse you only get about 8 years in prison for that. No parking wardens, no enforcement of parking offences so no-one liable to hanging but a massive increase in the crime rate, the reverse of what was intended.

 

I would take anything the insurance industry says with a lorryload of salt. Even the police admit they have seized vehicles on the say-so of some insurance company drone, only to find out later that the insurance company had blundered, making the police look incompetent and bullies.

 

I have spoken to the ICO about such blunders by insurance companies and they have informed me they have no qualms about fining them. However, they do need more motorists to tell them what is going on. Given the ICO can impose a fine of up £500,000, the more motorists who shop insurers to the ICO, the more the buggers will be fined.

 

The politicians are dancing not to the tune of the electors, but that of the bankers, insurers and major corporations who have utter contempt for the law and rule of law and will say and do anything to further their quest for profits and power and have no qualms who they trample over or kill to do so. It is for us, the people, to stand up to them and say "No. Enough is enough," and hold those who are supposed to act as a safety barrier against corporate abuse of power to account and insist they do their job as we, the people, tell them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...