Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I had an eBay account a few years ago and sold a high-value piece of jewelry for around £9000. I sent the item to eBay's authenticity center (mandatory for this value), and the tracking showed it was delivered. However, eBay later claimed they never received it. After an investigation, UPS said it was delivered to a different address on the estate where the authenticity center is located. Eventually, eBay located the package but said it contained only chocolate and unrelated items, which I obviously did not send. UPS was unhelpful. As a result, eBay refunded the buyer, and my account went minus £9000. I refused to pay, lost my eBay account, and no longer have access to it or the associated email. Today, I received a text from DRS debt recovery with my name and a reference number, stating I owe a debt to eBay and to log in online using a passcode emailed to me (which I don't have since I no longer have access to the email). When I called DRS for more information, they asked for my address, which I refused to give based on advice I read online. They then said they couldn't discuss the debt further and ended the call. What should I do in this situation? Should I contact DRS again and provide my details to find out more about the debt? Should I send a letter explaining why I shouldn't owe this debt and do nothing further? Is there a legal risk of them taking me to court? Any advice would be appreciated. From what I am aware of, I think they only have my name and telephone number. I have not received any debt letters in the post and I removed/change my address from eBay at the time this all happened. I also have not received any CCJ's. This is the first time they have contacted me. They sent me another text with a PDF letter explaining the debt. The address on the letter is the address on my ebay account which is not an address linked to me and is actually missing the first line.
    • Well firstly, I would point out that according to section 2 paragraph 4 it is on P2G to prove that you are not a consumer for the purposes of the contract. Anyway even if they prove it you can just rely on  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which gives you similar rights.   don't out yourself. let p2g prove it. its on them to prove not you.
    • It depends, is selling stuff online your main source of income?  
    • I was under the impression that, as a business, I could not rely on the Consumers Right Act 2015?
  • 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

OPUS Charging For Pass Through Amount Wrongly?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2945 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all


Got a letter from OPUS saying they were increasing my rate by 6% and using the reason "Pass Through Amounts" increase (PTI). Havent got a problem with that as we already pay the CCL etc so figured it was another one of those, however upon checking the bill there is no separate PTI stated, its just a set 6% increase on rates.


I have checked the T&Cs and it states they can increase 2 ways. First, they can increase if the cost of the supply is more than the contracted rate. However this doesnt apply. Second, they can increase if due to a rise in the PT Amounts. However shouldnt PTA be separated on the invoice, ie like the CCL?


To me it just looks like a rise for nothing? I have queried this again with them as my first dispute re this was before I got the invoice and then I was told it would be listed separately. Now I have the invoice I want proof this is a PTI.


Anyone else had similar issues and am I right in challenging this?


They have a clause stating that I can cancel my contract if they rise in breach of clause 8.1, ie if the cost of supply is more than the contract rate.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of abbreviations in there, maybe you can expand on them a bit.


Are we talking about gas/elec charges and price rises here?


What contract are you under?



Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...