It's 5.30, it's tuesday evening, it must be ... Conference Call Showdown! Last time, we put head to head, and the winner was ... well, can't be spoiling the surprise now, can we? There's quite a few such incidents to be found on the intertubes - but who would you put head-to-head in an unwitting conference call? My vote goes for National Rail Enquiries vs. Traveline. A close second is to face off two DCAs against each other.

All you need to do is serve them due notice of an impending change to the T&C, and if they don't cut you off they are bound to it. This is precisely the procedure laid down in the T&C for a change, and since it's not a "core term" (core terms are "you give us money, we give you cable") it must apply both ways - that is how contracts work.

Can someone please explain why CAG has allowed itself to be trolled for a whole year, and why the blatant troll (who has not posted in any other thread in most of that time) behind it is still here? Filed under: "ha ha only serious"

They couldn't do this, since as I understand it the fine from a private prosecution still goes to the court rather than the prosecutor. In any case, if they weren't dealing with a serial offender, the police would likely turn up, give a stern telling off and take an offer of payment if goods were actually taken. If you are ever approached by a security company saying they'll drop the charges in return for payment, ask them to put it in writing and report it to the police as a blackmail attempt.

The whole point is that penalty charges are unlawful, and that you would be no more entitled to enforce an arbitrary penalty than they. The point of liquidated damages is just that - a liquidation (i.e. cash value) of the actual damages caused to you. Since they would summarily ignore any invoice you were to send them for this, they would defend in court on the same basis as we pursue them now - that if you want to bill them £100 you must prove it has cost you £100.

A report by the British Retail Consortium demonstrates that the average cost to a large business of processing a cash payment is 4p, and that even making a credit card payment of £20 costs 17p. Clicky

Hence the less-than-sensible-but-still-awesomely-true example used

Can we get clrification on point 3, and precisely which entries were not regarded to be related to a breach of contract?

A great way to respond to your point would be to punch you in the face. Many people would agree that you deserve it, and that after all you said something stupid and should face the consequences. However, whether or not you deserve a punch in the face would not change fact that it would be contrary to the law.

If you go MCOL, the case will be transferred to your local court anyway, and that will take time, so you might as well use the local court in the first place.

It is made clear that upon termination all equipment of theirs is to be returned. Of course, you have to take the rough with the smooth - if they believe the agreement is regulated by CCA, you get two reasons for getting defaults removed, as inclusion of any penalty will invalidate the default notice.

If they caught her before leaving the store, then security should have treated it as a case of lesson learned or called the police. Forget the banks, this one is a flagrant breach of the Bill of Rights.

I've had an offer (need your help now!), and you are welcome to review my original PoC, though it would be fair to note that there were late fees included meaning the claim as a whole was more likely to succeed.

Can someone cast their eyes over this, please? To clarify, I have received an offer, and need some pointers on how best to keep some options open. Thanks

Proposed response: Note the clever use of assent-by-silence.

Cheque received in the post this morning. Contains the original value of the cash parts of the claim. Does not include any interest for the time since the case began. "Purely commercial decision...", "no liability inferred..." etc. It does not make any mention of rectification to credit records. If I accept the cash at this stage, can I still make a complaint via the ICO to have my records wiped? Would it also be worth seeking wasted costs?

Ta muchly.

FFR:

Having done another search, it seems that s.5(4) may be useful - even in civil actions it may be useful to argue that an offence has been committed. In general, if you have been suckered into any form of penalty (banks, telcos, private parking) it can be argued they came into your payment by way of mistake.

While browsing through here, I came across something that may have been a reference to an offence for failing to return upon demand money or other goods where there is a belief that they are or might have been gained by deception. Several months later, I can't seem to find it, and scanning over the Theft Act 19[6|7]8 hasn't thrown it up. Have I missed it, looked in the wrong place, or have I hit upon a false memory? Thanks in advance. Would also be grateful if someone could clear up the legal basis for a company being responsible for the actions of DCAs (so I can offload the 12 identically-worded letters from Moorcroft onto the original creditor for bonus points).

Quick refresher needed: What is the basis for one company being legally responsible for the actions of another, particularly in the case of DCAs? I'm thinking that the ability of the original creditor to recall the account may have something to do with it, but I may be wrong. Thanks,

May be too late, but strictly speaking you shouldn't have to pay. You will find buried in the contract a clause which will probably be headed "force majeure". If either party's ability to perform is affected by circumstances beyond their direct influence, they are not liable for the results. The idea is that BT are not responsible for the telephone pole falling over in a storm, etc. - and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the magistrates (or, $DEITY-forbid, the judge) has the option of whether or not to imprison you, you are not liable for their decision. Of course, if in sending you down they say "You leave me no choice ..." your case in this respect is rather weaker ... Note that ending a contract as a result of force majeure is just that - ending. You'd need to arrange the return of anything BT have given you under the contract. I believe this can be achieved by inviting them to collect by appointment, but ICBW.

This charge probably in fact exceeds their costs. Of course, if you challenge this, it is for BT to prove that it does approximately cover their costs. Can you provide a source for this? Would be useful to enter into evidence in support of claims that are proceeding.

On why they act quickly: If you are sued for libel, the burden is on you to prove you were telling the truth. Even if you can do this, you can still lose. See here for the basics.

IIRC, "Metropolitan Collection Services" and "D G Solicitors" are both HSBC in-house operations. As for proving harassment, it should be fairly trivial to demonstrate this - if a written order to cease telephone contact has been made, then the required number of telephone calls to constitute telephone harassment is two (allow one to verbally inform them). I wrote to Aktiv almost two months ago - it took them over a month to respond. My last letter to HSBC was to their D G Solicitors alias back in March, instructing them to stop this very sort of thing, so I could argue that they have had plenty of notice of this issue, and that if Aktiv weren't keeping them informed about this correspondence then it would be a failing between HSBC and Aktiv, not me.