Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Channell J in Prudential v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1904] 2 KB 658 gives a broad definition of insurance.  Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1413 confirms that extended warranties are insurance must be regulated. Over 90% certain that the parcel delivery companies parcel protection schemes are "insurance" and that they are unregulated and therefore the parcel delivery companies are committing an offence by selling it. Regulated means that the insurance is authorised but possibly exempted from certain conditions by the FCA. Notice that on all the parcel delivery companies websites, they are at great pains to avoid using the word "insurance". But in all probability that is what it is. A defence to the offence of selling unregulated insurance is that you exercised due diligence and this would mean that the parcel delivery companies would have to show that they had sought and received counsel's opinion that what they were doing is completely lawful. The fact that they are selling unregulated insurance to a certain extent is a sideshow because it still doesn't permit an exemption to section 57 of the consumer rights act. So in other words, even if it was regulated insurance – they would still be contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and also section 72 as it is an attempt to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable care and skill
    • Thank you for the update - at least it's all over now. I'm a bit confused by what you say happened. What did your barrister think? HB
    • Hi everyone! Thanks for all your advice during this stressful journey. Here’s a quick update of what went down today.    The court hearing itself was very quick, lasted about 5 min.  The magistrates got me to pay the amount I owe (the outstanding travel costs), as well as a fine and surcharge. They reduced the court fees from £375 to £200.  The magistrates told me the amount I need to pay but didn’t mention anything about a criminal record. Does this mean they didn’t give me any or is it implied by giving me a fine? Please let me know. Thanks!! TD 
    • Natalie, whom I assume works for Mr Schnur, emailed me to advise that "Please be advised that Parcel2Go.com is not an insurance broker and is not backed by any. We do not offer any kind of insurance policy on any of our services. We give all our customers the opportunity to cover their goods to a preferred value so that if a claim does arise, we are able to compensate them. All our claims are self-certified, and we are not a regulated company." (full copy of her email attached)  I responded:  "Good afternoon Natalie  Have you read my email below? Are you aware of the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘protection’ on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to settle both cases (by then also incurring court costs and interest) in full. This will happen again with this case if I am not recompensed in full (£265 + £9.10 = £274.10) before 1 May 2024.  Tick tock, tick tock……" 22Apr24 - email from P2G responding to my email to Schnur of 19Apr24.pdf
  • 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

Exposed: how British Gas agents break into homes of vulnerable

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 389 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


Its boss expresses "horror" that agents entered customers' homes to fit prepayment meters.


We could do with some help from you.



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

7 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Its boss expresses "horror" that agents entered customers' homes to fit prepayment meters.

Really?  Am I meant to believe that?  This isn't new, it's been going on for years, decades.  It's how energy companies operate and magistrates rubber stamp the warrants without question.  If a boss doesn't know that they're not much of a boss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Avarto are 1000% worse than any previous.

That's the main problem 

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

Nothing has changed in over 10 years, if this is affecting you I suggest reading the case linked to below.

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009)

and let's not forget Shell Energy Retail Limited - previously First Utility.

First Utility - Provisional Order 22 December 2010

Edited by FruitSalad1010
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would find it very strange if all senior people in any company did not understand how their business was operating to maximise income.


Senior people in companies attend regular meetings to discuss all issues affecting their businesses performance.  So it would be odd if the issue of forced prepayment meters was not one of the topics discussed. And of course someone would be responsible for vulnerable customers at a senior level and they would have been asked about protections that were in place.


And if the CEO was not aware, then they should offer to resign, as they would have failed in paying attention to how their business was performing .

We could do with some help from you.



 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

16 hours ago, dx100uk said:

Avarto are 1000% worse than any previous.

In which case I can understand why it's at last attracted attention.  About ten years ago my daughter ended up in a magistrates court on one of those days given over to these mass rubber stampings.  There were a rail company, tv licensing and British Gas.  BG was the longest list by far - I think it was three A4 sheets full of names.


2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Or the CEO wasn't told about the whole story...

It's his job to know what's going on for goodness sake.  Plausible deniability won't fly.

Edited by hightail
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Marina Hyde's take on the situation in the Guardian.



It’s not the only company filling its boots while poor people have to pay more for electricity. Luckily Grant Shapps is on hand to look busy, says Guardian...


Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From the Times today. Ofgem is threatening them with 'fines' if they don't hand over their background information.


For once, I find myself agreeing with Grant Shapps.


'“I expect Ofgem to focus on fixing the problem rather than pursuing journalists doing their jobs,” he said. “The government supports freedom of the press and the right to protect journalistic materials. The Times was highlighting an important issue, which I would encourage Ofgem to resolve.”




Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

More on this from a Times leadier article today.


'It should not have taken a Times investigation to expose the scandal of British Gas employing debt collectors to break into the homes of some of its most vulnerable customers and force-fit prepayment meters. The job of regulating Britain’s dysfunctional energy market instead falls to Ofgem....


Citing obscure powers under the 1989 Electricity Act and the 1986 Gas Act, Ofgem has demanded we hand over all the material amassed over the course of our reporting, which revealed the hitherto hidden human cost of this country’s deeply dysfunctional energy market.'




Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...