Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a chargeback via a paypal account used in an ebay sale doesn't usually result in funds being sucked from your bank account,  just that you attain a paypal negative balance. as you saying the money was taken by paypal from your bank account without you authorising this? or is it directly the buyers name that is shown? regarding the chargeback but either way you bank account HAS been debited? dx  
    • what solicitor is the PAPLOC from? then just search xxxx snotty letter dx  
    • moved to the debt self help forum. plenty of like threads here to read along with the ones you've done so far..good work. last thing you ever want to do is look at any kind of IVO/BK or anything alike concerning consumer debt, never do that, turns unsecured debts into secured ones in many instances. your best bet for now is p'haps looks at  Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) sadly you have to go thru one of the free debt charities to invoke that but DON'T be tempted to also open up a DMP with them, just get the Breathing Space done. get that in place that gives you at leasy 60 days buffer you've also goto to realise you'll probably get a default once breathing space is in place, bit if not it might pay you to withhold payments even after BS then p'haps re start payments once a DN for each debt is issued and registered. at least that way, whatever happens in 6yrs the debt will drop off dx  
    • Hello, I am a private seller and recently sold a pair of trainers on eBay.  Everything seemed fine until just after the eBay 30 day mbg had expired.  The buyer contacted me with photos showing me that both shoes had ripped.  He wanted his money back, and after refusing to refund him, he then left me retaliatory and defamatory feedback on my profile to the effect that I had sold him fake trainers (this was removed by eBay).  He then initiated a chargeback via Paypal.  Invariably, the outcome was in his favour, and I have now been charged for the cost of the trainers.  I would have also been stung for the chargeback fee, but eBay refunded this.  Incidentally, I do have the email receipt of the trainers from when I bought them from a well-established and bona fide online retailer.  The susbequent conversation with eBay followed its predictable course, i.e. the chargeback is out of their hands etc. I have been in contact with citizens advice, and my bank.  Citizens advice told me that as a private seller I'm responsible for the "Title and description" of the goods, but not the performance, or the fitness for purpose.  To me it is clear; if you receive something that's not as described, you don't then use the goods, and more than 30 days later claim 'not as described'.  In my mind, this makes the claim fraudulent.  He's used the 'they're fake' card to give credence to a 'not as described' claim here, obviously, without any evidence.  My understanding is that the chargeback is unlawful, because the trainers were shipped as described.  However, I read something on an eBay forum regarding sellers having no statutory rights, i.e. no right to appeal against a chargeback decision, or to complain to the financial ombudsman.  Does this mean that if my bank disputes the charge on my behalf, it will be to no avail, even if it's recognisably a fraudulent chargeback?  I have reported it via the Action fraud website. Any advice, anyone?  Would be most grateful!
    • Thank you, I have drafted my letters and started to complete the reply form, printed from this site and not using the one they provided.    2 questions, on the forum link it says to tick box D & I, the reason for box D will be given on my thread, what would my answer be to "I dispute the debt"?  Do I send anything for the Vodafone debt they have included?  I've only done 118 loan s. 77 & capital one credit cards so. 78    Thank you  
  • 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...