Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Shocking costs created by Tory led Government in 2012. Taxpayers brace for £100bn money-printing bill – as George Osborne says it’s ‘not my responsibility’ MSN WWW.MSN.COM  
    • Sorry, I may have forgot to get back on this. Please monitor for a reply tomorrow
    • Yes, now its just about getting the WS / Court bundle finalised to send to the court / Evri. I've attached the most recent version of the WS / Court bundle to save having to scroll back up to the previous post (#204) where it was also shared. If you, @BankFodder or anyone else has any feedback on this, i'd be grateful for your thoughts. In my previous post #204, i'd also attached an invoice from Packlink which shows that I was charged by Packlink for these services: "drop-off at Her mes - Next day delivery" and "Proof of Delivery". It also has the payer's address and there are "Origin" and "Destination" fields which have the postcode of the sender [origin] and the recipient [destination] - I have redacted personal details in the attached invoice.  I am already including this in my evidence bundle (without the redaction) but wanted to share this redacted version so that other people can consider this as example in their bundle of Packlink and Evri's contract being instigated by the sender of the parcel who has paid for the service, and further shows that there is information in the invoice to identify that a third party beneficiary (the sender / recipient) is involved in this transaction. I have also attached this redacted invoice in this post to save having to scroll back up. Happy to get any thoughts and if this invoice is no good, then please let me know.   Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf Packlink invoice - REDACTED.pdf
    • Does anyone know if I would be allowed to record conversations with health professionals for my own use on my phone without them knowing. I know that we are allowed to record phone calls. I do record some of my phone calls for my own use due to my disability and if anything is said then I am covered. I would only record audio in private area's of myself and the professional dealing with me. I know I could not get and other persons audio in it and I don't intend to. my only other option is to buy a body cam but I am not sure the rules regarding this.I never thought i would have to but things are getting worse Thanks for any guidance 
  • 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

Ch 5 Cant pay we will take it away , fact check


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2367 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

Don't know if anybody is interested but OFCOM have started an investigation into the program and specifically one transmitted on 28th September.

 

This is confirmed in the latest bulletin from OFCOM

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/93635/Issue-316.pdf

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guess who is up for another investigation

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins#

 

Page 109

  • Haha 1

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am beginning to think that someone (or a group) has an agenda with Can't Pay as there is another case under investigation (last page)

 

Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin issue number 318

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Quite an interesting report from OFCOM

 

They have upheld a complaint against C5 and Can't Pay. The report is included in their broadcast bulletin

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/107433/issue-340-broadcast-on-demand-bulletin.pdf

 

In 3 previous complaints C5 has walked away a winner but this one may cast some doubt on the previous decisions and may make OFCOM review them. The Reason? Body Worn Cameras (BWC)

 

It transpires that the production company behind the show issued better quality BWCs to the HCEAs as the footage from the normal ones is of a poorer quality. By doing so C5 has access to ALL the footage recorded rather than segments applied for via the HCEA company.

Body worn cameras were introduced to ensure the safety of the HCEA and for evidence in any complaint and any of this data captured should remain confidential however, by allowing the HCEAs to wear cameras issued by the production company, all the footage belonged to C5 and as such is copyrighted by them, not the HCEA company. This is surreptitious filming and the person(s) involved had no idea that once they had told the camera crew to leave, they would be continue to be filmed and published without express permission.

 

I hope C5 take this on board and stop this horrible practice.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

the debtor requires all cameras to be removed/switched off etc. I bet there are plenty of enforcement visit recordings in the TV production companies office that will never be shown.

 

At some point the TV production company staff will be attacked as well as the HCEO's and such an entertainment programme will be an end. An enforcement visit is probably provoking enough without a TV crew being there as well. Filming vulnerable people without prior consent must be a breach of Human Rights?

 

I believe you may be correct. While in certain circumstances at present, there is no expectation of privacy. Under the GDPR, this may change unless C5 find a loophole.

 

The problem with cameras is that debtors assume the cameras worn by the HCEAs belong to them and form no part of the TV show-until after it has been viewed. Asking a camera crew to switch off all cameras won't work as all they will do is set up on public land as they did in the case mentioned. Only by asking an HCEA if the BWCs belong to the production company can they then insist on them being switched off but even then, the HCEA might say no as they need the cameras to protect themselves in the event of a complaint. The HCEA who told the complainant the he didn't know whether any footage from the BWC will be used was obviously lying as he knew who owned the cameras and would have been told by the HCEA company to allow C5 to view the footage.

 

I wonder what Grumpy would make of this new information?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I only watched one episode and not the whole episode at that due to the behaviour of the HCEA's. I wanted to smash my TV and I love my TV!! I never bothered ever again but I have kept up to date with this thread and others about DCBL.

 

I think that in the 7 day letter, a booklet be sent telling people what bailiffs are/are not allowed to do so they are at least informed to some extent. Obviously this would need to be in plain English for those with learning difficulties.

 

I have heard tales of where the HCEA has pushed past a debtor on the first visit and 'footing' to stop the door being closed. These are some of the things that need addressing.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...