Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
    • you are not being consistent here....   when did you last reply to any of them using email please
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Should Dealer's Website contain detail of complaint procedure and any ADR?

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 969 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

Greetings All.


First post (hopefully of not too many, but think there may be a few in the pipe).


If a Dealer's Website says:


"Complaint Procedure"

- Awaiting Content"


of course there's nothing about any trade bodies or ADR channels.


is this a breach of law and if so which legislation/ASA code etc?


Is it worthy of an additional 'complaint' :-) ?


Thanks for your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not against the law. No obligation to publish your complaints procedure – but it shows a shoddy attitude and hardly acts as a recommendation to buying from the dealer.


On the other hand, if they are selling online then it amounts to an online/off premises sale in which case the contract is not complete until they have provided you with written details of the cancellation procedure and cancellation rights – and failure to do that means that the 14 day cooling off period has not even begun and in any event, failure to provide you with details of your cancellation rights is an offence.


Check the Consumer Protection Regulations 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites



Thanks for the amazingly prompt answer. I'll start to review the reference you've mentioned.


So, "....in which case the contract is not complete ...." I presume that the trader can still be in breach for failure under the CRA even if this offence pre-dates the failure of the goods?


As you may guess I am currently 'in dispute' but I'll post that properly in another thread when I get the time. It's a steep and time consuming learning curve at the moment. Still ploughing through the CRA.


I think that my case and experience could provide some useful info, but I'd like to be a bit more sure of things before I go posting details.


Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing you can do is to post up your story and let people come and advise you or ask further questions.


Also, I notice that you are referring to a failure of the goods. In that event, your cancellation rights have nothing to do with it. If the goods have failed within 30 days of the date of the contract then you have a right to reject them out of hand or insist on a repair – at your choice. If the goods fail within six months of the contract then they are entitled to be given one opportunity to repair – after which you can insist on a refund.


You really should sit down and tell us the story

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Thanks. I've worked that bit out and formally rejected using Short-term right to reject first 30 days and requested full refund in 14 Days by same method as payment I've also started a Section 75 via my bank as I paid the deposit on a credit card.


Please stand by it might take a little while to draft the whole story and I'll post as a separate thread.


Thanks again for the support.


Sorry, "Failure of the goods" is not the right terminology.


Should be not of "satisfactory quality" and "not fit for purpose". (I'm sure some may want to pick this apart later but we will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you take it for a test drive of did you rely solely on the web site and then slap down a deposit over the phone for example? Distance selling gives you extra rights within a limited time so if there is a problem with the vehicle and you are now out of time the it isnt an argument that will hold water to claim that a month ago some bloke didnt tell me I had a fortnight to bring it back. Use the law regarding quality and purpose as they will stand up regardless if there is a problem with the vehicle

Link to post
Share on other sites



Already exercised Short-term Right to reject as above. I will, (honest gov) post the story, but enmeshed in a raft of other stuff at the moment - just found out Post Office have 'lost' the V5C that they should have delivered to DVLA - so this really is a lucky car.


Let's pick it up in the proper thread,




Kind Regards,

Edited by Andyorch
Link to other thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...