Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just for info   Family member had oxford A/Z jab and had 40 degree temperature for 24 hours or so the day after Seems to be OK now and lateral flow showed negative for what thats worth
    • Start off by listing the DCA's and the amounts please
    • I understand that you may have suffered an injury and that you have memory problems. Obviously is not a good situation. However, you have to engage with this thread closely if you want to make headway. It is difficult for us to take an interest and then find that there is no contact for two months and then we have to start again refreshing our memories and being enthusiastic about supporting you. If your lack of contact is because of a memory problem then I think that you probably should make a note on a Post-it or something and put it in a prominent place so that you can remember to get back to us. It is very important for you – because you can be certain that the one people won't forget are Vodafone and eventually their debt collectors who will start to put pressure on you and start to make your life very uncomfortable indeed. I see that back in January I advise you to send Vodafone an SAR. Have you done this? It is an essential step. Also, as a matter of interest are you still with Vodafone? I'm afraid Vodafone are a very troublesome company. They are very inefficient – the only thing they seem to be really good about is about debt collection. There are extremely poor at dealing with problems when things go wrong. The one company we haven't had any complaints about so far is GifFGaff and they offer month by month no contract Sim cards. In effect they sent Sim cards out like confetti and no contract is ever started until the Sim card is actually activated in a telephone. This means that there can be no mistake and no commitment until you have actually made the choice to open your phone, put the card in and then to switch on the service. Even then, you are only bound for a month and then another month and then another month and another month – but you choose. As I say, we've had no complaints here. Have you sent Vodafone the SAR?
    • Dear New Tenant   L C S !st Floor West Wing Town Center House The MerrionCentre Woodhouse Lane Leeds LS2 8LY   02/03/2021   Our Case Ref xxxx Re Our Client E.On   Outstanding balance: £37.xx   FINAL NOTICE   We have been instructed to act on behalf of the above named client to recover the sum of the outstanding of £37.xx for dual fuel consumed at X Whatever Road, Sometown , Anyplace. Despite our previous communications and offer of help we have not received payment or valid reason for non payment for the outstanding balance.   Until you have cleared the outstanding balance, your details may continue to be shared with a credit reference agency.  Other lenders may see information about the way you pay our client and the amount you owe them which could affect your ability to obtain future credit.   In order to prevent any further action and potential inconvenience, we would urge you to pay the full sum immediately or alternatively contact our office on 03445439130 quoting Ref xxxx to discuss your options. Alternatively please email us at [email protected] quoting your reference.   Yours sincerely   Rebecca Carter For and on behalf of LCS   I suspect this is the kind of letter they send when they know they are stuffed?    
    • It already allows visitors to spend their quarantine on a golf course in an effort to boost tourism. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 27 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1398 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I live on a canal boat,

for which I am required by the 1995 British waterways act to have a licence,

the licence is a statutory requirement,

 

 

British waterways was changed to a charitable trust some years ago but the legislation that governs licences has not changed,

 

 

the trust is now falsely claiming that this licence is now a contract which they can add their own terms and conditions to without any recourse to parliment, and can cancel at any time they choose if the boat owner breaches any condition they have invented.

 

 

The trust has now " re interpreted " the 1962 transport act section 43 and are claiming this gives them the authority to do anything they want,

 

 

but they can't hide the fact that licences for boats on their waterways were not invented until 1975, and a public right of navigation existed on all their waters until 1968,

so whatever way you interpret this section of this act it cannot possibly apply to licences.

 

 

BW never claimed it had any such powers and post 1962 sought the consent of parliment for four new sets of bylaws, and 11 further waterways acts.

 

 

The trusts is doing this because the law gives boat owners certain statutory rights which the trust wants to con them out of,

 

 

many boaters already believe that the licence is a contract with contract terms and conditions, it sounds so right, but it is not true.

 

I have taken the trust to task over this in a reasoned and polite way,

they have banned any of their staff from speaking to me, and blacklisted my email and phone,

 

 

they have also stated to me in writing that they will refuse to issue or renew a statutory licence unless their contract is agreed to,

 

 

agreement to a contract or anything else is not a statutory pre condition of this licence

 

 

surely must be illegal, the contract illegal and therefore unenforceable ?

 

I and all other licence holders are being forced to agree to a contract we do not want,

which the law states we do not need to obtain a licence,

 

 

the Trust is blatantly breaking the law,

which for them has no consequences,

without funding a very expensive judicial review of the legislation we are at a loss to find a way to challenge this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Waterwork

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Could you just clarify that the Contract they want you to Sign is in addition to the Licence?

 

Also does that Contract they want you to sign have a specific Heading?

 

As for the staff not to speak to you,email & phone stopped I think they may be using there "Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy - Last Updated: 21 March 2017", you can download the PDF of the policy here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/search?page=2&q=policy

 

Have a good read of that specific policy document and as you read it just think to yourself "Did the do that" and if not highlight what they didn't do.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very common for licences issued by statutory bodies to have a set of conditions attached. This applies to everything from telecom operator licences to the licences issued to law firms. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

I would have thought British Waterways only need a power giving them discretion as to whether or not to issue a licence to impose conditions - they don't necessarily need a specific statutory power to impose conditions.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Waterwork

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Could you just clarify that the Contract they want you to Sign is in addition to the Licence?

 

Also does that Contract they want you to sign have a specific Heading?

 

As for the staff not to speak to you,email & phone stopped I think they may be using there "Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy - Last Updated: 21 March 2017", you can download the PDF of the policy here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/search?page=2&q=policy

 

Have a good read of that specific policy document and as you read it just think to yourself "Did the do that" and if not highlight what they didn't do.

 

My correspondence with them has been minimal and polite, and my questions simple to answer, though I'm sure they would use this policy to stop me, they are a thoroughly dishonest organisation.

Edited by Waterworks
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very common for licences issued by statutory bodies to have a set of conditions attached. This applies to everything from telecom operator licences to the licences issued to law firms. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

I would have thought British Waterways only need a power giving them discretion as to whether or not to issue a licence to impose conditions - they don't necessarily need a specific statutory power to impose conditions.

 

The 3 pre conditions for the issue of a licence are stated in the 1995 BW act, section 17, that act says a licence must be issued if those three conditions are met, it says nothing about contract terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the imposition of conditions be part of limb (a) of section 17(3) - i.e. part of the Board satisfying itself that the vessel complies with the applicable standards?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

.

maybe the transport act (as amended) you mention, re s43(3) '.....subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.' (which have been amended re case law)?

eg

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could the imposition of conditions be part of limb (a) of section 17(3) - i.e. part of the Board satisfying itself that the vessel complies with the applicable standards?

 

No, that section is the statutory conditions for a licence, 1, a boat safety certificate, 2, insurance, 3, a mooring or the intent to not stop in one place for more than 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe the transport act (as amended) you mention, re s43(3) '.....subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.' (which have been amended re case law)?

eg

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

 

There is the problem, the meaning of this section is disputed, the Trust only quote part of the section but it also says " Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III mentioned in the last foregoing subsection" when this is taken into context what is the outcome ?

 

The section in full.

 

 

43.-(1) Subject to this Act,-

 

(a) all charges schemes under Part V of the Transport Act,

1947, shall cease to have effect, and

 

(b) no local enactment passed or made with respect to any

particular undertaking so far as it limits the discretion

,of the persons carrying on that undertaking as to the

charges to be made by them-

 

(i) for the carriage of passengers or goods,

(ii) for the use of any railway, or of any inland

waterway by any ship or boat,

(iii) for services and facilities connected with the

carriage of passengers or goods, or with the use of

any railway, or of any inland waterway by any ship

or boat, or

(iv) for services and facilities in or connected with

a harbour,

(whether by specifying, or providing for specifying, the

charges to be made, or fixing, or providing for fixing,

maximum charges, or otherwise) shall apply to the

charges of the Boards.

 

(2) Paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall not be

read as exempting the Boards from any local enactment so

far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or other-

wise prohibits the making of any charge

 

(3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III

mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall

have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their

services and facilities, and to make the use of those services

and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone advise on if these contract terms are in line with the data protection act or any other legislation ?

 

 

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such

as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a

reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be

the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.

 

7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may

exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in

managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with

a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Who is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged

please keep to ONE THREAD

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Let me make the question simpler, the licence is statutory, but the trust are claiming their licence contract can override statute and any breach of this contract permits them to cancel this statutory licence.

 

I don't see how this can possibly be lawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...