Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would also take this opportunity to add that I don't really understand why you purchased an insurance policy for this watch – unless it offered you something like new for old, accidental damage or that the policy was transferable to a new owner in the event you decided to sell the watch. If there is not the features that interested you then you are perfectly adequately covered by your consumer rights contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and of course it would be unlawful for John Lewis to attempt to exclude or limit liability in case something happened to the watch and it ceased to be of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period of time. By and large these extended warranties are a waste of money
    • Sunak to new MPs at the Kings Speech debate. Rishi Sunak, in the king's speech debate, tells new MPs that "life comes at you fast" on the government benches. "Before you know it you end up with a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44," he adds.
    • Properly declared means that you declared the exact value of the item that you sent and by and large you are limited in the value that you can claim to that declared value.  It seems that you didn't declare the value of the accompanying insurance and so if you want, you can go ahead and claim it and we will help you but by and large although your chances of recovering the value of the watch are much better than 95%, The chances of you claiming the value of the lost insurance are much less.  It's up to you if you want to try . Please do the reading that we have advised and start preparing your letter of claim and post the draft here. I suggest that you think about posting up a draft letter of claim on about Sunday which will give you lots of time to do necessary reading  
    • The dealership is not the issue, the technician who I have known for a long time explained where the fault lies, the other garage for lack of a better word did a p**s  poor job of putting the brake pad on where the piston was not lined up correctly which caused uneven pressure on inner pad, the peg on rear of pad not sat ingrove of piston.
    • I Received a writ today from the sherif court there is form form 07 if intention to defend the solicitors are shoosmiths llp for Lowell portfolio    thanks please let me know your thoughts also much appreciated 
  • 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
      • 162 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

Broadband provider took too much money


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6401 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

Hi all,

 

I wrote to my broadband provider at the beginning of 2006 cancelling service with them. As this was a month to month contract i was within my rights to do so. To cut a long story short in December i decided to start back up with eclipse so I rang them to get password and sign in details because it had been 12 months and I had lost them. The guy that I spoke to was very helpful and gave me all the info I needed. I then successfully signed back on to eclipse. About a week later I received a demand notice asking for 190 pounds or they would disconnect service. I rang them up and explained and after a lot of arguing they agreed that it was their mistake and the service was never disconnected in Jan 2006. They agreed that it had been an oversight in their accounts dept. As I wanted to conclude the matter it was agreed by both parties that I would pay 50% of the bill and that Decembers would be included in this payment.

I gave them my Debit card details, but as it was the Friday before christmas they said the could not process the payment but agreed to take 95.00 from my debit card on Wed 27th dec. I accepted this and finished the call.

After checking my account I found they had actually taken 225.00 instead. Sorry this has been so long winded but can anyone tell me if they can do this. Is this not theft? I didn't authorise them to take this amount, so they either took it by mistake or unlawfully. I have called them but their offices were closed. They may be very reasonable when I call on monday but if not it would be nice to have some answers to their possible arguments. Thank you very much for reading my babble and any advise would be great.

 

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call them back and say the amount taken was not that agreed, and ask for it to be refunded immewdiately. If they do not agree, contact you back and tell them of the problem, this isn't covered by the Direct Debit guarantee, so it may not be an automatic reversal (unless it is a Visa Debit card), but call your ISP in the first instance. Next time, it might be more putend to send them a cheque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if they admitted it was their mistake, why did you agree to pay 50%? If it's their mistake and they have charged you for service you have not received then you should not have to pay them a penny.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds stupid I know, but I only agreed to pay 50% because they said the service had not been switched off when I asked for it to be as supposedly 'they had not received my letter' cancelling the service. They admitted that it was their fault that they had taken 12 months to chase up any payment from myself and said because of this they would reduce the bill by 50%. I probably could have stood my ground and insisted I pay nothing. The only reason I agreed to pay was that we had bought my son a new PC for christmas and obviously needed the broadband service to be on and did not want my son to be disappointed. My thoughts were just pay it then change providers after new year, as 23.95 per month was not cheap anyway. I am going to ask them for a full refund as the extra money they helped themselves to was to cover 2 direct debits, which did not get paid and therefore cost me 78.00. I really just wondered who I would go to next if they do not pay the money back, do I threaten them with the financial onbudsman or even the police because they took that money without my permission. I am grateful for any advise. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly the police and FO wouldn;t get you anywhere. As you cancelled by letter, do you still have a copy of it you can send them, this time by Recorded Delivery? You could then say that after serious consideration, you reject the 50% offer as you terminated correctly and whilst you are happy to reconnect, this will NOT be the case if your are expected (by them) to pay for services not received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...