Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I cannot see many people agreeing to any virtual webcam review of goods to be controlled.     Many people in debt may not even have the facilities to be able to do this.   And the few that agree may try to have a laugh at the enforcement companies expense.  e.g. this painting is by well known local artist Peter Ist, but he signs his paintings as  P Ist and this other painting is by Brian Roke who signs his paintings as B Roke.     Who would agree to this without understanding the consequences ?      
    • Well poss unenforceable cca both lets see
    • Although I will be submitting another request as DVLA haven't stated when they responded to VCS with the information.  18th was a Friday,  VCS say they posted the letter on Mon 21th.  Seeing how this SAR has taken this long, I doubt the DVLA went all out to clear the request over the weekend, but we'll see.
    • Thanks for the heads up, Peterbard  this will potentially open a big can of worms similar to the assumption all goods seized bailiffs used to try to rely on the comments in the Law Gazetter  are quite revealing, as in thety cosdider the judgment very iffy, the comment about the bailiff asking the debtor to move the webcam so they can get the image of the TV and Playstation illustrating the potential silliness, notwithstanding the way some EA's will rely on that Virtual CGA to allow them to force entry as if they had physically entered premises for a Convential physical compliant entry,  That is a dangerous judgment.
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Vodafone Default Query - Default date changed and extended


Recommended Posts

Ta both - 1st March 2021 isnt too far away... ICO hasnt come back to me yet.

Voda issued Deadlock Letter because they dont assume responsibility and say that they have always reported the 1st March 2015 as the DD.

Clearly 3 CRAs say otherwise. 

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...