Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,        I really need to start my own thread on this Claim with Overdales/Lowell for a Cap One debt. but have already got to this stage .. My initial question for the moment - until replies come in - is that I figure my main stance is that a purchased debt cannot be claimed, debts can only be claimed by the original issuer of the debt .. but mediation is about coming to an agreement. So would I be acting in bad faith if I enter into mediation yet not seeking to come to a financial agreement? Also, I need to reject the scheduled time slot and ask for another as I'm not going to be free during those hours. The wording of the email gives the impression that I am given this one slot and if I reject it, then I am rejecting mediation - there is no mention of rescheduling, only of freeing up the slot for others .. although, I would have thought it would say so, if there were no possibility to reschedule.. Can I ask for another date without issue?   Anyway, if it's more helpful, I am happy to post up my defence and start a proper thread? I had a lot on at the time and had to do things right away due to the time limits, so didn't feel I had time to come here and go back and forth for info, so put my defence together from reading through relevant threads, late at night. CCA request appears to have been fulfilled (I'm still to check the accuracy of the documents). The other thing, asking solicitors about the particulars of the claim, hasn't .. although I forgot to ask for proof of postage and didn't send recorded post either (whereas the CCA I did), so not sure if I can pursue that easily ..?  
    • There is a plea guilty website...   Screenshot 2024-05-22 144200.pdf
    • Looking for a bit of assistance. I moved into a rented flat on 20th April 2024. I viewed it on the 14th April. Before I moved into the flat, the letting agency provided me with an offer sheet, in said offer sheet I made a number of requests and conditions related to me progressing with assuming the tenancy. These were: 1. A professional clean of the flat prior to move in date. 2. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet be replaced prior to move in date. These were all planned actions by the landlord when I viewed it. I could see the boxes for the hob and other items in the flat. I prepared to move in on the 20th April but none of the work mentioned in the offer sheet had been completed. The standard of the clean was abysmal - mouldy food left in the fridge, nothing wiped down, bathroom mouldy etc. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were also not installed. I decided to not officially move into the flat as it was not in a condition as promised, my partner lives relatively close by so I lived with her initially. It was only on the 24th April that the hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were installed. The cleaners visited again 2 weeks after move in date (3rd April) and attempted another clean of the flat. Again, it was a poor job. I resorted to cleaning the flat myself. I have numerous pictures of the things I identified during my clean and have sent this all to the letting agency. Because of the issues faced, I asked the letting agency that the rent be reduced for the initial month. Exactly halved - to represent the 2 weeks that I was not living at the property. The landlord and letting agency have responded by saying that they will be willing to accept 1 weeks rent as a deduction but not 2. My question is, am I in a strong position to insist on the 2 weeks rent returned or have I been fortunate that they have even offered a weeks rent as a deduction? I would like to insist on the 2 weeks. I have paid the 2 weeks only as my rent collection date passed 2 days ago. Thank you for any assistance. Any further relevant details required let me know and I will provide.
  • 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

Sky & Statements


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6187 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

Hope this is the right section to post this in (am sure mods will move if not) - been getting into a debate with Sky and their statements/invoices and DD charges etc.

 

As I think has been discussed on here before, non-DD customers get a £4 invoice admin charge on their bill, at the top of which is printed "statement". I've had these charges refunded quickly by emailing them, though arrogant CSR on phone stood his ground.

 

If paying by DD, however, Sky do not post anything to you at all - though they have in the past said that monthly statements can be posted out if requested (they reckon they're eco-friendly yet send loads of other letters out unnecessarily, often with a reply envelope too, and then there's that awful magazine they waste our money on, but I digress).

 

As a result of this, when there is a DD on my account the only way to view my bill and thus know how much money they will be taking is to visit their website or use Sky Interactive. Sure, normally it is the same amount, but will vary if we use box office, or if a previous payment bounces (oops).

 

My argument with them is that it should not be my responsibility to contact them in order to ascertain how much money they will be collecting by DD. The CSRs I've spoken to can't grasp the underlying concept in this, and insist that by using interactive I am not contacting them, but my sky box has to dial into their systems (ok, free call but phone not been working so cant in fact do it, but that's not the point) in order to retrieve that information - in effect, therefore, I am having to contact them.

 

Bank have (I think) agreed that Sky have failed to notify me of DD activity, and as such have refunded the charge for last months failed DD on that basis. Sky, however, believe that they are still acting appropriately and within the DD guarantee even though they do not notify me (without me contacting them) of charges and collection date.

 

Before digging a huge hole for myself, has anyone got any thoughts on this? Is it against DD guarantee?

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the DD guarantee, if the amount to be paid changes, they must notify you 10 working days in advance of the payment being debited - so yes, this is against the DD guarantee in my opinion.

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

Sky are a law unto themselves. They only folded on the steps of the Court, so don;t expect any favours from them. They do what they do because they CAN, and folk let them do it. The 'Guarantee' is of very limited use, and if you're going to be close to the wire as that DON'T give access to your bank account. You can have no idea what every DDM access you give out is going to do that month, and if one error impacts on all the others, you're NOT covered for that. Revert to paying them the way you want to, and then claim back all those £4 'Invoice' charges, as they never send one, only a Statement! (So they're charging for a service they've not provided).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! good luck I have been trying to get statements from Sky for Months now, they keep promising to send them but they never do. They make up new figures each time I speak to them and are generally entirely clueless. Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had the opposite got call after call after call sometimes 5/6 times a day asking us to setup a DD when we eventually called them to do so they kept telling us their system was down, then they set it up but didnt take any money and then cut us off again calling 5/6 times a day for their screw up.

 

the only plus side is recently they have scrapped the £10 per month for sky+ if you dont have premium channels so our sub is now only £15 per month so imagine not payingg by DD their non-dd charge is nearly 33% of the total bill talk about disproportionate :(

 

It's also worth emailing [email protected] never hurts to tell the boss what you think ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this space I will post my story on here tomorrow, I ahve been battling with them for a few weeks now and its turning nasty. But I am going all the way with it including media coverage over their non dd charge, bit late to start now but will post full details tomorrow - it really is worth a read.

Simon

 

Please read new thread:

 

Sky TV and their penalty charge - how far will they go?

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

The media don't care about the non-DD charges, as they see this as 'acceptable' (and in much the same way Watchdog used to use 0870 numbers for consumer responses). You're heading down a well trodden litigation path, it's just a shame we've to do it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...