Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
    • Having looked through the paperwork, I note they have sent 3 seperate LBCs. Two are in the name of FCA Automotive (1st one issued 21 Jan 2020, 2nd one 21 Sept 2022) and the last one (issued 12 Sept 2023) is under CA Auto Finance UK Limited. In the first one, they did send a copy of the default notice, but this was not sent with the 2nd LBC and neither was it sent with the last one either. .  A quick look at the default notice and I see it states the agreement start date was not the same day as the original agreement was signed. It's a day different but do not know if that makes any difference. Also, I note we received a letter on the 16 Nov 2023 which states of a 14 day notice of intention to issue claim form. Heard nothing since that, until this court claim arrived. 
  • 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

Calling Customer Services - the Consumer Rights Directive


BCOMDAVE
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2093 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

Greetings all!

 

I could trawl around the net for the answer to this for a few hrs. However, as you guys are usually clued up on this stuff. I though somebody may like to offer some wisdom for the rest of us.

 

It was my understanding that the the Consumer Rights Directive made using Premium rate numbers a no no for calling "Customer Services" and that these call's should be at no more than "local rate".

 

I can't find the legislation though. Was this just a proposal, or a proper 'unfair business practice' and has anybody got the reference/Act etc.

 

The reason I ask, is that I notice that a number of car hire companies only offer "customer Services" via their reservations numbers which are often premium or service rated e.b. 0870 or 0844.

 

Thanks for your help

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Thanks,

 

I know there are sometimes alternatives, but I'm interested in knowing/confirming that there is legislation so your second link is much more valuable.

 

Companies sometimes 'hide' their Customer Services behind something else such that they make a revenue out of you calling to request your consumer rights. So they win even if/when they loose. Company give bad service, then profits from your complaint.... Doesn't seem quite fair. Probably why those who proposed that part of CRD or Consumer Contracts Regulations thought it was a good idea to make companies offer Customer Services at no more than local rate. I feel a letter to one or two CEOs is required to politely ask them to conform. (and ask for my 7p/min extra back :lol:)

 

Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to answer my own thread as it were, but this may be useful to others who, after complaining about something, find that they have 'lost' out via phone charges. This is a prohibited business practice. Always check the number your calling and bypass the Service and Premium rate numbers where possible.

 

The legislation is:

 

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI:2013/3134)

 

Section 41

 

Help-line charges over basic rate

41. (1) Where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate.

 

(2) If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate.

 

Complaints about this 'practice' can also be directed via Citizens Advice.

 

There are a few business sectors, e.g. gambling, purchases from vending machines, which are exempt (No idea why??), but I think it's worth proper complaints if anyone finds themselves having to 'pay' to report bad service.

 

There are a few organisations who offer Customer Services via 0800 numbers and wouldn't it great if all had to!

 

Hope this helps

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...