Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • fkofilee
      Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

      By fkofilee · Posted

      Its okay - It happens. And this is why DCAs  user every trick in the book to try and make you crack.  Now its time to come back.    Im not sure how to proceed if Im honest if they have issued a Letter Of Claim.  Only as You could complain to Oakbrook and they still proceed with Legal Proceedings, but I dont know if that would help or hinder the legal proceedings if they began down that avenue.  I know a FOS complaint wouldnt stop Legal Action and probably run along side it.  But I guess a judge would view a disputed balance with the original creditor as cause for concern whether the DCA's claim is valid?    A bit of a muddle.     
    • FTMDave
      Excel/DCBL ANPR PCN - Appealed - 5minutes overstay - iceland gravesend

      By FTMDave · Posted

      That is superb. To answer your question - Dear Mr Dhaliwal Change the sentence - As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us ... To - As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Iceland have always been useless, not only in your case but in others, but I think if they realise they are breaking the law it will encourage them to act. I also think the letter is overlong and you could lose the paragraph - I cannot afford any unfair charges of this kind as I am severely struggling financially. I cannot work and am a carer for my disabled Son who also has a mental and mobility disability. I obviously do not have any disposable income and am in debt with my bills. So its an absolute impossibility for me to pay this incorrect charge - as the main points are made elsewhere.  
    • catscratch
      Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

      By catscratch · Posted

      Hands up in the fact that i have probably F***** *P!!
    • NewsBot
      Car Finance Awards celebrates best of the industry

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Car Finance Awards celebrates best of the industryView the full article
    • fkofilee
      Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

      By fkofilee · Posted

      I want to add my 2 cents here...  The purchase of this debt, Perch Group dont absolve themselves of liabilities from the Original Creditor. They should be responsible for dealing with this complaint in response to an Irresponsible Lending dispute.  If the balance is disputed as such in that way - Then they should be referring to the Original Creditor where applicable.    Also if your complaint was written in a way where a template wasnt used or it was rewritten to a similar effect where it wasnt recognisable - Then you probably would have stood a better opportunity at it not getting rebuffed.  To be honest those - Perch and TM Legal are a waste of Oxygen and will say anything to get you to pay.    Ditto on the template. Where did you find it?  Please keep in mind we have to unravel what you have done till now and help build a formal response.     

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

credit card dispute

manchesterbloke

By manchesterbloke
in High Street Stores

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6337 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

manchesterbloke

manchesterbloke

Posted
Posted

i bought a mobile phone for a christmas gift for my daughter... on christmas morning she informed me that it had the wrong bits in the box.. charger ect... i took the phone back to the shop two days later.. only to be refused a refund on the grounds it was taken out of the shop..???

is he for real... i was offered plug in adaptors to try and make it work,to which i refused.. sticking to my rights .i returned the goods on the grounds of "not fit for purpose.".and left it in the shop.

i paid for the phone using my credit card..£140.. thinking they would refund me.. letter arrived this morning saying no refund on the grounds .. i should have checked the bits before leaving the shop...

it is not possible to assemble and charge a mobile phone over a shop counter to ensure they have suppiled all the parts..if it was a large screen tv would they expect me to drag it to a plug socket to switch it on before buying... ???

i want to go after the credit card company.. feeling they have let me down...25 years i have been with them.. grrrr

Link to post
Share on other sites
colbee

colbee

Posted
Posted

Hmmm. It seems to me that you were supplied with the wrong goods (i.e. if all parts are not the right parts, they are therefore all the wrong parts).

In 2005, via the internet and telephone, and using my Goldfish Mastercard I bought a used car part costing less than £40 from a company 90 miles away.

They sent the wrong part. I returned it at their request and at my expense (£4.90). Despite several phone calls the parts company failed to supply the right goods.

I wrote to Goldfish, explained the circumstances, and my account was credited with the amount originally debited.

I appreciate this was buying at a distance rather than personal shopping but their is a certain similarity.

Until you got it home and set things up, I don't see how you could be expected to know they had given you the wrong parts. They are supposed to be the professionals who know what they are doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
blacksheep1979

blacksheep1979

Posted
Posted
Hmmm. It seems to me that you were supplied with the wrong goods (i.e. if all parts are not the right parts, they are therefore all the wrong parts).

In 2005, via the internet and telephone, and using my Goldfish Mastercard I bought a used car part costing less than £40 from a company 90 miles away.

They sent the wrong part. I returned it at their request and at my expense (£4.90). Despite several phone calls the parts company failed to supply the right goods.

I wrote to Goldfish, explained the circumstances, and my account was credited with the amount originally debited.

I appreciate this was buying at a distance rather than personal shopping but their is a certain similarity.

Until you got it home and set things up, I don't see how you could be expected to know they had given you the wrong parts. They are supposed to be the professionals who know what they are doing.

 

Quite a bit different though as you were covered by distance selling regs and not sure, but by the sounds of it they didn't supply any part? (am i right)

 

Anyway to the op - phone up your cc company ask to speak to a manager (tell the minions that its regarding you taking them to court). Once through to a manager tell them you are covered by the consumer credit act and will be naming them as a joint defendant in a claim for the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
colbee

colbee

Posted
Posted

As with manchesterbloke, the company supplied the wrong part, which I returned. There was no outright refusal to supply the right part - in fact they promised to send the right part; but they simply did not do it. Even if part of my order had been right (it wasn't) the missing parts would have made it useless.

Manchesterbloke expected to get a pukka phone complete with accessories to enable its intended purpose - a package; he didn't get what he paid for. It seems to me that the retailer and the card company have not fulfilled their obligations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
manchesterbloke

manchesterbloke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

this is all new to me guys....

never thought i would have to threaten my card company with court action to reclaim the funds ...

 

they are always banging on about how safe it is to use you cards giving extra protection when things go wrong...

i feel very let down by them...

 

thanks for the comments ... keep them coming

Link to post
Share on other sites
manchesterbloke

manchesterbloke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

just got off the phone to the credit card company... been told they have sent me the wrong letter by mistake... i now have to write to their consumer rights dept... with all the details so they can investigate..

 

i should think so too!!!

 

 

many thanks guys

 

i will keep you posted over the next few weeks

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...