Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100. These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.  
    • I think I have to add some clarification to the advice which has been given by my site team colleague above. Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act does not replace the existing law of contract. It simply supplements it and adds some additional solutions such as the short-term right to reject – and the right to reject within six months after giving a single opportunity to repair. These remedies are meant to be solutions but in fact we are finding – especially with car dealers – that the law is simply being ignored and frankly from that point of view the Consumer Rights Act is not a great success. There really ought to be in place a punitive measure for retailers who don't respect the 30 day rule and the six-month rule. But there aren't. So what is left is that even after six months, the item which has been sold to you must be of satisfactory quality and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period of time depends on the reasonable expectations of a reasonable consumer. If the item starts to develop problems early on in its life then I think it can be generally taken beyond doubt that the item has failed the test of "satisfactory quality" because it has not remained that way for a reasonable period of time. Where an item starts to fail towards the end of its reasonable life expectancy, then you have a more difficult problem and that is where as my site team colleague has suggested, that you would ideally have to find some expert evidence to show that the item had failed because there was an existing defect. You could do this by getting an independent inspection or else by finding other examples over the Internet to show that this was a known problem. My site team colleague is right that you would have to demonstrate a defect even if the item fails at an early stage in its life – but I think that if you are taking a cooker with a reasonable life expectancy of probably, say, eight years – then I think the fact that it has developed a serious defect in the first 12 months would be taken by any County Court judge as clear evidence that it had failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act – that it was not satisfactory quality. If the judge accepted that failure as evidence, then it would be up to the retailer to counter the presumption with evidence that there was nothing wrong with it. So what I'm saying is that in the first instance, I think that the defect speaks for itself and the question now is how to proceed. I'm sure that we can help you and I'm sure that we can help you get a result. I have to say now that you've been here since 2015 and I'm extremely disappointed to find that you seem to be unaware of the fact that you enjoy ample statutory rights to deal with this and that you seem to be lamenting the fact that you didn't take out an extended warranty and that furthermore you seem to be prepared to rely on a so-called 12 month guarantee provided by the manufacturer. You are asking how these companies can get away ripping off "innocent people" and I suppose that you are referring to "innocence" in the sense that people don't deserve it. Frankly I tend to see "innocence" in the sense of a certain naïveté – especially when people know about this forum. I don't particularly understand why you have put up with this for a pretty well five months instead of coming here. If you want to take that as a slapped wrist – then please do. Also it's a message to other people who visit this thread. Can you please tell us about the price you paid and any exchange you had with Currys. I understand that they have simply knocked you back to the manufacturer? Are you surprised? You're dealing with Currys. Another example of innocence. Blesséd are the meek. I don't fully understand the fault. Maybe you could put up a picture of the fault – in PDF format please. It will help us get a better idea what we are doing. Also, have you had anybody coming to have a look and see if it is actually repairable?  
    • In regard to the Labour Party, they need to recognise that the Tories have a larger base of support for their flavour of politics.  Brexit has stirred up a nationalistic spirit in many people on the political left and right, with former Labour voters now invested in supporting the Tories in trying to make Brexit a success.   This makes it very difficult for Starmer or any other replacement Labour leader to challenge the Tories, as those on the Brexit bus ride, now have their fingers firmly placed in their ears. This is why the recent sleaze allegations made no difference.    I predict that Labour and the Lib Democrats, plus the Green Party are going to have to form an alliance in the near future, so they offer an alternative to the Tories during the next 5+ years.        
    • Scotland should have a right to hold a referendum on independence, if parties supporting independence have a majority in the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.   Not sure Scottish people would vote for independence, but they should be allowed a vote.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 32 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

  • Recommended Topics

Unplanned Overdraft.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1004 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

I would like anyone with knowledge in banking to tell me who was wrong.


On 22nd November 2013 i sent money by western union online using my debit card.

I sent £400 and with the fee it came to £450.


After waiting 2 hours for authorization, the MTCN was emailed to me confirming it went through and the £400 was picked up in Sweden.


WU only give a MTCN when the cash has been paid to them so the transaction was like all the others I had sent previously.

I had £520 in my current account and the £450 had been held back leaving £70 that I could use.

There was no way I could use the £450 so as far as I was concerned the transaction was over when it was picked up in Sweden.


I continued using my account as usual an after a accident at work I went on incapacity benefit as I was self employed on December 3rd 2013.


On 13th December 2013 I tried to take out £50 from the ATM machine and was denied.

I called Natwest and was told I was overdrawn by £314.


I asked why and was told WU tried to take the £450 that day and it was not all in there so I went OD.

I argued that it was not possible as the transaction was over on 22nd November when the money was held and paid out so they must be charging me again.


She said I used the £450 before they could take it.

I don't have any overdraft facility and can guarantee that in all the time I have tried to withdrawal cash or transfer it,

if it was not in there I could not take it out Even if I tried take out £20 and only had £19.99 it would not give it.

So I want to ask if I was wrong or if Natwest are wrong??


I only bring it up now because at the time I was told I could open repayment account paying £10

every two weeks from benefit and if I made all payments on time it would not affect my credit. I have asked for DD or credit card many times since 2013 and always denied.


i got my credit report last month and yep Natwest reported it and also have me paying late 6 months in a row.

The repayment account was paid in Feb 2015 yet it wont be taken off my report


I have 2 current accounts on there both showing 6 months late paying £10.

Yet a letter I asked them to write say they are reporting correctly and wont change anything.



Link to post
Share on other sites

you'v been [email protected]


go report it to actionfraud

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

You now have your own thread ugo2slo..please continue to post here.





We could do with some help from you.



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


If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Card transactions are not processed in realtime. You said that after the Western Union payment you were expecting to be left with £70. It sounds as though you've spent more than £70 (before the £450 was processed) and that mistake is on you.


You may be able to make a complaint to the bank about being mis-advised about the impacts of a repayment arrangement on your credit report. You wouldn't be able to escalate anything to the FOS until you've complained to the bank and given them the opportunity to investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andy.


Because WU held the £450 there was no way I could touch it.

I have gone through all statements from 2013-2014 and the plot even widens.

If there was a way to post statement here I would do it.


even though I sent the £450 on 22nd and it was paid out on 22nd, only the £50 sending fee was taken out on 22nd and on 29th the £400 was taken. Which means it was taken in 2 transactions then on 13 December the £450 was taken out but I did not go overdrawn.

It was all the transactions done that day that were put down as OD leaving me at £314 OD.


I don't think after seeing that, that I have to ask for advice here as it is clear I have been robbed then also reported on credit for the past 5 years. I had better seek legal advice on this.




Errr...No I had £520 and after sending the £450

I checked balance and only had £70 to spend.


And trust me..

...when cash is sent by WU online, they do not pay out until they are guaranteed they have the cash.


I have looked through statements and found I was charged 3 times instead of the 1.

I have no idea why.


I have asked Natwest to change it many times they fob me off.

now I have proof of being charged 3 times I can seek action and hopefully compensation

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Sorry i have not updated what is happening with this case.

I thank you all for your advice or comment.


I had to go through a long process with Western Union in getting the transaction from 1st November 2013 to 1st July 2014 that I asked for because I found 2 more errors with sending by WU and it leaving my current account at separate times instead of once.

I did not notice the other 2 because they did not put me overdrawn.

A financial expert is looking at it all to make sure I have a solid case.


I cannot really comment about it to much as it may be fraud in the bank or in wu.

I can only say if any of you have used western union around 2013 to 2014 you may want to check how payment went out.

If you find a debit card charge made in 2 or 3 payments then you may be in the same boat as me.

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...