Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a chargeback via a paypal account used in an ebay sale doesn't usually result in funds being sucked from your bank account,  just that you attain a paypal negative balance. as you saying the money was taken by paypal from your bank account without you authorising this? or is it directly the buyers name that is shown? regarding the chargeback but either way you bank account HAS been debited? dx  
    • what solicitor is the PAPLOC from? then just search xxxx snotty letter dx  
    • moved to the debt self help forum. plenty of like threads here to read along with the ones you've done so far..good work. last thing you ever want to do is look at any kind of IVO/BK or anything alike concerning consumer debt, never do that, turns unsecured debts into secured ones in many instances. your best bet for now is p'haps looks at  Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) sadly you have to go thru one of the free debt charities to invoke that but DON'T be tempted to also open up a DMP with them, just get the Breathing Space done. get that in place that gives you at leasy 60 days buffer you've also goto to realise you'll probably get a default once breathing space is in place, bit if not it might pay you to withhold payments even after BS then p'haps re start payments once a DN for each debt is issued and registered. at least that way, whatever happens in 6yrs the debt will drop off dx  
    • Hello, I am a private seller and recently sold a pair of trainers on eBay.  Everything seemed fine until just after the eBay 30 day mbg had expired.  The buyer contacted me with photos showing me that both shoes had ripped.  He wanted his money back, and after refusing to refund him, he then left me retaliatory and defamatory feedback on my profile to the effect that I had sold him fake trainers (this was removed by eBay).  He then initiated a chargeback via Paypal.  Invariably, the outcome was in his favour, and I have now been charged for the cost of the trainers.  I would have also been stung for the chargeback fee, but eBay refunded this.  Incidentally, I do have the email receipt of the trainers from when I bought them from a well-established and bona fide online retailer.  The susbequent conversation with eBay followed its predictable course, i.e. the chargeback is out of their hands etc. I have been in contact with citizens advice, and my bank.  Citizens advice told me that as a private seller I'm responsible for the "Title and description" of the goods, but not the performance, or the fitness for purpose.  To me it is clear; if you receive something that's not as described, you don't then use the goods, and more than 30 days later claim 'not as described'.  In my mind, this makes the claim fraudulent.  He's used the 'they're fake' card to give credence to a 'not as described' claim here, obviously, without any evidence.  My understanding is that the chargeback is unlawful, because the trainers were shipped as described.  However, I read something on an eBay forum regarding sellers having no statutory rights, i.e. no right to appeal against a chargeback decision, or to complain to the financial ombudsman.  Does this mean that if my bank disputes the charge on my behalf, it will be to no avail, even if it's recognisably a fraudulent chargeback?  I have reported it via the Action fraud website. Any advice, anyone?  Would be most grateful!
    • Thank you, I have drafted my letters and started to complete the reply form, printed from this site and not using the one they provided.    2 questions, on the forum link it says to tick box D & I, the reason for box D will be given on my thread, what would my answer be to "I dispute the debt"?  Do I send anything for the Vodafone debt they have included?  I've only done 118 loan s. 77 & capital one credit cards so. 78    Thank you  
  • 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

Winter is coming for councils - The Game of Cuts


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3327 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

 

 

 

Winter is coming for the Northern and Midland Cities! - Support Fairer Funding For Local Councils

 

Lord Ned Starp’s pleas for fairer funding for the people of the Northern Cities are met with mockery by the King. At the same time the Southern Cities prosper...

 

THE REAL STORY BEHIND GAME OF CUTS

 

Since 2010 local government in England has lost more than 40% of its core funding.

 

Urban authorities, largely in the North and Midlands, have lost the most money as a result of these cuts.

 

By March 2016…

 

* Manchester will have lost £197 million

 

* Liverpool will have lost £202 million

 

* Sheffield will have lost £159 million

 

* Newcastle upon Tyne will have lost £91 million

 

* Leicester will have lost £86 million

 

* Sandwell will have lost £89 million

 

Some of our poorest communities are facing the greatest cuts, putting more people in poverty.

 

Local government funding must be fairer so councils can continue to provide vital services to those that need them.

SIGOMA

 

Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (outside London) within the LGA (SIGOMA) is a grouping of 45 urban authorities in the Northern, Midland and South-Coast regions of England. SIGOMA’s membership compromises of 33 metropolitan districts and 12 major unitary councils with similar characteristics. We are the collective voice across these regions and embody the opportunities and potential of the communities who live there. The combined population of SIGOMA councils amounts to over a quarter of the population of England and its member account for over 25% of English local government expenditure

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1%, the G12, CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT.

 

What can you say, we all know the problem, GREED, but no one has the ability to do anything about it as the law makers hold all the cards. High profits, low wages, pay restraints for all but the wealthy and zero hour contracts lead to desperation where people will accept lower and lower pay and treatment to try make ends meet. Ultimately you fall on the dependency of the state which is also rigged to ensure that slightly better off people do the dirty work of those in control so they don't sully their hands. BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD!!!!!

 

After all, you try and con the dole out of a few extra pounds a week to make ends meet and afford the luxuries that others take for granted like food, heating, a nice place to live and you will find an army of people waiting to take you down, but if you happen to be in the position of the four ITV executives who granted themselve pension options now worth an estimate £39M or you can get others to squirrel money away off shore then then you can negotiate with the tax man to pay what you like, with no repercussions.

 

We all know the injustices, we all know successive governments have failed the vast majority, they're supposed to look after us all but have been corrupted by political sponsorship and until the corrupt nature of the world is addressed to re-distribute earning power in a fairer way, (not a living wage but a just wage plus a fairer sharing of the profits we help to make to support those not in a position to help themselves) we all might as well shut up complaining and accept that Robin Hood and his merry men have joined the other side and we are all screwed.

Edited by Grumpy consumer
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...