Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
    • urm......exactly what you filed .....read it carefully... it puts them to strict proof to prove the debt is enforceable, so thus 'holds' their claim till they coughup or not and discontinue. you need to get readingthose threads i posted so you understand. then you'll know whats maybe next how to react or not and whats after that. 5-10 threads a day INHO. dont ever do anything without checking here 1st.
    • I've done a new version including LFI's suggestions.  I've also change the order to put your strongest arguments first.  Where possible the changes are in red.  The numbering is obviously knackered.  Methinks stuff about the consideration period could be added but I'm too tired now.  See what you think. Background  1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.  Unfair PCN  4.1  On XXXXX the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will  be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue). 4.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).  4.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.   4.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. No Locus Standi 2.1  I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-  (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or  (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  2.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract. Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.  No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention the parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  The notice must -  (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim. 5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable. No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows a different post code, the PCN shows HA4 0EY while the contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.  Interest 6.2  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for Double Recovery  7.1  The claim is littered with made-up charges. 7.2  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100. 7.3  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 29. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.” 30. In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' 31. In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case. 7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  In Conclusion  8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 
    • Scottish time bar: Scottish appeal court re-affirms the “harsh” rule (cms-lawnow.com)  
    • I suppose I felt my defence would be that it was an honest mistake and even the initial £60 charges seemed unjust, let alone the now two £170's he is now demanding. There is no Justpark code for 'Sea View' on the signs in the car park and the first/nearest car park that comes up when you're in the Sea View car park is the 'Polzeath beach car park'. If I have to accept that I need to pay £340 to avoid the stress of him maybe taking me to court, then so be it. If people here advise me I don't have a case then I will just have to pay.
  • 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

Ebay / PayPal dispute and chargeback pain


cartti1000
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1841 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

I sold an eVoucher via Ebay.

This was a John Lewis discount voucher worth £75 (sold for £70).

 

I get contacted by PayPal a couple of weeks later stating the account holder was raising a dispute because his “account was hacked” and was victim to fraud.

I replied to the dispute and gave evidence the transaction was completed in good faith including the voucher had been spent.

 

During the waiting period before PayPal makes a decision, the “buyer” got his bank to issue a chargeback.

PayPal added a £14 chargeback fee to my account and now claim they are helping me to dispute the chargeback with the account holder’s bank.

 

My PayPal balance is negative ~£85 where PayPal are asking I add funds to bring it to £0 at least.

They state there is no seller protection for digital goods or services.

 

Any good advice is appreciated.

 

thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore them 

nothing they can do to you.

 

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

I called. They wouldn’t give any docs to me because chargeback is still being decided by bank. I asked why the fee and they agreed to refund fee as good will gesture (I hate that term!) but explained it was a fee they charge as soon as an attempt to chargeback is made irrespective of bank’s decision. Will have to wait till bank decision I guess. 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

just open a new a new account with slightly differing details

they cant hurt you at all

 

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

You probably got the buyer name and address from ebay when they bought the vouchers.

Write to them and let them know that you will file a report of fraud if they don't explain how your vouchers got spent by them and then refunded by paypal at your expenses. 

Send the same via email a couple of days later.

I bet they'll start panicking saying that the uncle/wife/child/dog/cat/hamster used the account and they didn't know. 

Happened to me a few years ago.

All sorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the fraud was not done by the account holder as his account laid dormant for 6 months until happened.

Previously, it was quite active according to feedback.

i received a thinly veiled threatening email from PayPal stating

 

It's very important that you address the balance on your account today to ensure continued availability of your PayPal account and to avoid additional collection efforts.

 

for those suggesting they can’t do anything,

can you assure me by stating your reasons?

What’s to stop debt collectors, small claims court etc happening?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCA's are NOT BAILIFFS

they have

ZERO LEGAL POWERS

and PP don't do court in the UK or anywhere

 

these types of things are built in to their business model

as they purposefully allow them to happen.

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Got wescot on my case. Have taken heed of advice to ignore. However I got unusual email from PayPal 

 

“PayPal has made a transfer between the balances in your account for the following reason:

Our policy of converting all negative balances to E after 4 days”

 

Now, I’ve told my bank to cancel CPA. Guy on phone was hesitant (possibly not knowing what I was talking about or under instructions not to carry out request, who knows). Anyway, he cancelled the direct debit I have and assured me no payments can come out from PayPal. I got txt msg from them:

 

“Your Direct Debit to JPMC RE PAYPAL INTL LTD has been cancelled. Cancel it with the company as well to make sure they stop taking payments.”

 

The cynic in me is unsure this has been sufficient action. Advice on that and anything else I’ve mentioned in this post much appreciated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no harm in phoning the bank again

here are a few worthy notes to read if you debit card is still a payment method pp can use [have you tried to remove the card info as a payment method on pp 1st?]

 

GENERAL NOTES ON CHARGEBACK & Continuous Payment Authority & BACS 
 .....
 We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them 
not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companies
 .
http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works!
usually this should be done using the number on your debit card
 .
 banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers !
.
CANCELLING YOUR DEBIT CARD DOES NOT STOP CPA'S
 .
 This fsa guide has now been updated:
 .
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf
http://www.fca.org.uk/news/continuous-payment-authorities-your-right-to-cancel
https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account
 .
 Here's the text:
 .
 Cancelling a regular
 card payment:
 .
 When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account, 
 such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,
 it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.
 .
These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.
 .
 In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments. 
 .
 However, 
 you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments. 
 Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.
 .
 Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe.
and that CANCELLING YOUR CARD WILL NOT STOP THE CPA
 .
 ..
 .
 New june 2013
 .
 Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.
 .
 Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement 
 by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
 .
 The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs) 
 due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.
 .
 CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments, 
 are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.
 .
 Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when 
 a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by 
 mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.
 .
 In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-
 cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints 
 since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.
 .
 Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today 
 customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily. 
 .
“We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue. 
 From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.”
.
 .
 Also mentioned your displeasure that as whomever took your money had obviously attempted this many times 
 probably activating your banks own anti fraud software - nobody had the decency to inform my you this was going on.?

.
 .In the FSA's own words:
 .
 ..
 What should I do about a payment from my account that I didn’t authorise?
 .
 Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction. 
 Money can only be taken from your account if you have authorised the transaction 
 or if your bank can prove you were at fault – 
.
see below.
 Contact your bank immediately if you notice an unauthorised payment from your account.
.
 If you are sure you did not authorise the payment, you can claim a refund. 
.
 However, your bank does not have to refund you if you do not tell it about the payment until 13 months
 or more after the date it left your account.
 .
 Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction
 .
 ------------------
 .
 Your bank may only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if:
 .
 ? it can prove you authorised the transaction 
– though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password, 
 card and PIN proves you authorised a payment; or
.
 ? it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently, 
 or because you deliberately, 
 or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction
 .
 -----------------------
 .
 How quickly must my bank refund me for an unauthorised transaction?
 .
 The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies. 

 Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened, 
 but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.

 If the bank has evidence that one of the above reasons for refusing a refund applies, 
 it may investigate before making a refund 
 but must look into it as quickly as possible. 

 If your bank rejects your claim for a refund it should explain why.
 If the transaction was on a credit card, the refund may not happen immediately. 

 But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay
 



…………..

 

there are plenty of paypal ebay topics here use our search and read up.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...