Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

EE Mobile Insurance Wrongly Charged For a Generic Handset


sali1023
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3437 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

Hi there,

 

I hope that someone can help me clarify a matter and advise on if there is anything I can do.

 

I have been in a contract with Orange (now EE) for a good few years. In June 2011, I was midway into a contract when I registered a new phone via customer services. It was the Iphone 4 that had been purchased directly from the Apple store and I advised this to the agent I was speaking to. At the time, I was advised that the £6 a month Orange Care would increase to £12 a month as the new handset was a smart phone. Later I found out that the agent I spoke to also put a note on the account to say that the handset is a generic handset. There was no reason for me to question the £12 a month as I was led to believe that my handset was covered.

 

About 2 weeks ago, I called up EE upgrades to negotiate a new deal for my contract. I told the advisor that I was thinking of buying another handset directly from Apple and was wanting to know the best sim only tariff that they could offer. During the conversation that advisor told me that if I purchased a handset from a third party, in this case Apple, then the EE care would not be valid on it and as it would be classed as a generic handset. I paused and then told her that my current handet is a generic handset and I have been paying the monthly £12. She was not sure why this was and told me that I would need to speak to customer service with regards to it. She also told me that there were notes on the account to state that they were aware that the handset was generic.

 

I've tried speaking to customer services and feel like I'm being passed from pillar to post. When I eventually spoke to a team leader, he advised that it was wrongly applied and in the event that I needed to make a claim, they would have honoured it.

 

My gripe is that at the time, the agent knew that the handset was generic and continued to apply the new insurance to my account. Had I been informed of the full facts, that the insurance does not apply to generic handsets, there would be no reason for me to continue paying for Orange insurance? Is this a case of 'misrepresentation'?

 

Am I right in thinking that the insurance was missold to me? They have admitted that it should not have been added to my account but also that they would not refund me.

 

What can I do now? Am I entitled to a refund?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on, its been missold. Orange cover only covers handsets supplied by them.

Complaint to Customer Relations and if no luck then then the MD.

 

You are going on the case that if you had a situation where you had to claim, then you wouldnt have been able to as the Handset wont have been supplied by orange / EE

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I hope that someone can help me clarify a matter and advise on if there is anything I can do.

 

I have been in a contract with Orange (now EE) for a good few years. In June 2011, I was midway into a contract when I registered a new phone via customer services. It was the Iphone 4 that had been purchased directly from the Apple store and I advised this to the agent I was speaking to. At the time, I was advised that the £6 a month Orange Care would increase to £12 a month as the new handset was a smart phone. Later I found out that the agent I spoke to also put a note on the account to say that the handset is a generic handset. There was no reason for me to question the £12 a month as I was led to believe that my handset was covered.

 

About 2 weeks ago, I called up EE upgrades to negotiate a new deal for my contract. I told the advisor that I was thinking of buying another handset directly from Apple and was wanting to know the best sim only tariff that they could offer. During the conversation that advisor told me that if I purchased a handset from a third party, in this case Apple, then the EE care would not be valid on it and as it would be classed as a generic handset. I paused and then told her that my current handet is a generic handset and I have been paying the monthly £12. She was not sure why this was and told me that I would need to speak to customer service with regards to it. She also told me that there were notes on the account to state that they were aware that the handset was generic.

 

I've tried speaking to customer services and feel like I'm being passed from pillar to post. When I eventually spoke to a team leader, he advised that it was wrongly applied and in the event that I needed to make a claim, they would have honoured it.

 

My gripe is that at the time, the agent knew that the handset was generic and continued to apply the new insurance to my account. Had I been informed of the full facts, that the insurance does not apply to generic handsets, there would be no reason for me to continue paying for Orange insurance? Is this a case of 'misrepresentation'?

 

Am I right in thinking that the insurance was missold to me? They have admitted that it should not have been added to my account but also that they would not refund me.

 

What can I do now? Am I entitled to a refund?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

TIA

 

"he advised that it was wrongly applied and in the event that I needed to make a claim, they would have honoured it"

 

You just have to love this line from EE. There is no way on Earth they would have honoured the claim if you had to make one. No way.

 

Issue them with a 'Letter Before Action' immediately stating that you want all the insurance payments refund along with interest (at 8%) - do the calculations, present them with the total amount you are requesting. Remind them that if they choose not to respond, in writing, within 14 days then you'll be taking them to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see you getting far with this with the mis-sold arguement, but it's worth a try to ask for your insurance premiums to be refunded.

 

The problem you face is your claim it was mis-sold. If it has been mis-sold, it has been to their detriment, not yours. I.e. if you had to make a claim they would have had to honour it.

 

In regards to "there is no way on earth they would have honoured the claim if you had to make one". That is incorrect. In these situations where you had to make a claim, they would initially explain that it shouldn't have been applied and then offer you a refund of all premiums. Or if this is declined, then they would process the claim and then replace the device as per the insurance. They simply would not be able to say "sorry, we shouldn't have applied it so we won't replace". The fact that they applied it in error is to their detriment.

 

Mind you, i guess the option now is to call and start to make an insurance claim under faulty goods. See if they say you shouldn't have insurance for it, in which case you can suggest they refund all your premiums for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would write to the following email addresses & ask that they investigate & sort this out for you.

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

I recently had an issue with a different problem & I bypassed Customer Service as you get told varying things from them. So I contacted EE using the above email address.

 

I had a phone call from the Executive Office & my issue was resolved on the phone to my satisfaction!!

 

Do contact the Executive Office if you haven't had a reply within a week as sometimes they take their time!

 

Good luck!

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every single minute of it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...