Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I have the Sims 4 on Macbook. Over the last year I have paid for multiple add on packs spending a lot of money on them. I bought them all in good faith as my Mac met all the minimum requirements to play them. I have been playing happily for about a year and bought my latest pack just over a week ago. The games were all working fine yesterday. Then suddenly today EA released a new app to launch the games and this new app requires a MAC OS that my computer cannot use. Now suddenly none of my games are accessible and I am unable to play anything. They did not warn us about this change in requirements and if I had known they would be doing this I wouldn't have bought all these add ons as they are now all totally unusable. The games themselves have not changed, only their app to launch them and I can't afford to buy a brand new mac just to play. So my question is how can they change the minimum requirements after I have paid for a game? I agreed to pay for them based on the fact my mac met their requirements and was not informed when purchasing that this would be an issue in the future. I understand new games (like Sims 5 which is to be released next year) might not be compatible but this is a 10yr old game that they have suddenly made inaccessible due to their new launch app. Does anybody know if I can do anything or anyway to get a partial refund from them? Thanks   Here are their T&C... I can't find anything in there about them being able to do this so not sure what to do https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/
    • OK. Thank you all for the input.  I'll ignore their letters of demand but NEVER ignore a letter of claim. I'm bracing myself for the stress as their demands £££ goes up and the case gets sent to debt collectors. 
    • OK.  It was worth a try. Their case is still pants and they have broken their own Code of Practice numerous times.
    • @BankFodder sorry for the delay and thank you for the lengthy reply. Yes, I agree. It's a small business and the guy is very very decent. I know someone else said my priority shouldn't be worrying whether he gets shafted but I'm not here to try and screw him over because I feel like if someone behaves decently and gets exploited, they might not behave so kindly in the future. I know DX mentioned he thinks I've caused the issue by leaving multiple instructions, but I have already explained why and both instructions were to leave it with a neighbour and there was nothing advising the driver to abandon the parcel on my doorstep. I don't think leaving it there could be considered a safe place.  I am still waiting on the retailer to respond. Ultimately, I wanted to know how he would proceed if DPD's response isn't favourable. I am certainly not looking to cause any problems. I just want my laptop. I will read the other posts for sure. I've been a bit preoccupied with family stuff. I have nothing in writing from DPD as I phoned them, but they did advise it should be the retailer that liaises with them. I tried contacting the driver straight after deliver via Whatsapp, as that's an option, but it said I couldn't send him a message and I have kept that log. We all know who took the parcel on our street, because that person has a history of parcel theft, but I don't have a doorbell camera or cctv. Police are refusing to intervene, despite the fact that I, along with several other people, spotted another's neighbour's parcel in said "suspect's" car and confronted her to get the parcel back. If the police had acted sooner, I might have had a better chance of getting the parcel back, but I suspect the laptop has long been sold on.  When the retailer responds, I will send him the link to this thread. Hopefully, he will benefit from the information on here as well.
    • @dx100uk none of the instructions advised them to leave the parcel on my door step and without such instructions., I'm struggling to see why they think it's ok to just dump it there.
  • 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

Refused boarding by Ryanair - MCOL - sorry it's long!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 498 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

Update

They attended court and their entire defence was based on the fact that it is my (then) 13 year old daughter who should have brought the claim and then I should have litigated on her behalf and I therefore acted unreasonably in bringinb the claim.

 

The judge and the defending barrister both agreed the evidence I presented clearly showed that I was right in my argument and that the timeline was in fact 72 hours but, their argument re my daughter being the claimant was an issue. The judge actually said I was "scrupulous" in my approach to the claim.

 

Based on the point of law they used and the fact that aviation law apparently ousts contractual law, the judge said he had no choice but to  dismiss the case and he immediately refused the defence's request for costs, which they claimed they were entitled to due to my acting unreasonably.

 

In all honesty, we didn't win but we definitely weren't the biggest loser on the day. The judge suggested we might consider bringing the claim again but in my daughters name. 

 

The most ironic part was that the judge was a pilot so there was definitely no throwing technical airline/aviation jargon around to confuse me, he explained everything clearly and kindly!

 

We had kissed goodbye to our £££ last September so we're only worse off by thd hearing fee and it was worth it to see them walk out empty handed!!

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally your call on re-issuing, but:

a) as a self-represented litigant against a large business : will almost certainly be allocated to your local county court, not theirs

b) it is a lot of work, but you’ve done most of it already, so will it be the same amount on a repeat claim?

 

Would a low risk approach be worth sending them a repeat Letter of claim (on your daughter’s behalf) and seeing if they fold based on them having seen the strength of the original claim (with the technicality of the claimant resolved)?

  • Like 2
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Defering responsibility to a child to dodge liability, deliberately keeping their cards close to their chest until the very last minute, shows you what kind of games they play. Disgusting games.

 

Congratulations on holding strong and not losing! :cheer2:Cheering for you if you take it to round 2  :cheer2:

  • Like 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I agree with Bazza and Kyosanto.

 

This is hassle you don't need but really you've already put all the hard work in, your case is complete.

 

In fact they have admitted in open court "the defending barrister agreed the evidence I presented clearly showed that I was right in my argument and that the timeline was in fact 72 hours".

 

I'm surprised the judge didn't disallow the argument about your daughter.  The parties are not supposed to ambush the other side with last-minute arguments.

 

Please post up a draft Letter of Claim/Letter Before Action.  Include the part that they have admitted in open court that you were right in your argument.

 

If they have any sense they will fold and pay up instantly, but never underestimate the arrogance of these companies to have to always be in the right.

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 OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...