Didn't the OP say they were checked by a vet for FIP on the day of collection? Surely the VET would have noticed if the kitten had been sick, I can't imagine they have a work only to instructions rule (only checking for what was asked for and ignoring other symptoms) In any case as the seller offered to take the kitten back and the buyer didn't see a vet afterwards doesn't that fulfil her responsibilities?

Hi Tony, I'm dismayed at the delays you're facing here, but glad to hear you're still chasing them. Its odd that the video evidence is missing isn't it? But since it's required to prove their point it's absence doesn't exactly help their defence. Hang in there, you've got them on the run!

I love the response, but why not mention the disability too? Angela Gorrie seems to have taken the art of saying "sod off" to a respectable level and has a nice tone in her response. I think this is typical of companies today where a junior member of staff (the word executive could mean anything here) is given a pile of complaints to respond to, and has a range of stock phrases at their disposal, choosing the ones that fit the situation best. I know, I've worked for companies that do this and the larger they are, the more likely it is to happen.

Its deeply worrying that Arnold Clark now own Harry Fairbairn BMW. The long established family business had a great reputation but no its owned by the great white ghost and no doubt will change its operating methods to bring them into line with the rest of the group. This acquisition does far more for the Arnold Clark brand than AC does for BMW. I wonder how many unsuspecting car buyers will realise they are dealing with AC?

The Chief Exec Stephen Hester announced today that most RBS branches in England and Wales, plus NatWest branches in Scotland are to be sold. He also confirmed that 3,700 Customer Service Staff posts are to go in addition to the branch sales, how do people feel this will affect claims for refunds and cancellation of charges? Given that these are amongst the least well paid employees, does anyone have sympathy for them?

I've come into this late and have absolutely no veterinary knowledge whatsoever but reading through carnation's last post I notice that: The lady called within 2 weeks after purchase of a kitten that had been cleared by a vet on the day of purchase; when she called with her concerns she was advised to call a vet but, or to bring the kitten back but she did neither. As the kitten came with insurance for 4 weeks it's hard to understand why she didn't visit a vet. Then, despite buying a pedigree kitten, she didn't continue the insurance and now the kitten has sadly died- she's angry and wants to take this out on someone. To clarify the situation the breeder has had the other cats checked and they've come up clear, which doesn't surprise me as she sounds like a caring and responsible breeder. I don't see how the breeder could have done any more to give the new owner a good start and certainly can't see how she could possibly be liable so far down the line. I suspect the kitten buyer knows that, hence the pseudo legal "I'm a solicitor" correspondence. Personally I wouldn't continue any further dialogue with this lady.

gezwee - why on earth are you still responding to this muppet? Thanks goodness there's no audio on here - can you imagine? (ps I've told HMRC that he skipped paying duty in 2007 too but don't tell him! Sadly I think he'll get away with it on grounds of diminished responsibility)

My unstated source? the Universal Postal Union Rules (updated Sept 2007) www.upu.int Is this a clear enough source for you? by the way read the factsheet provided by your exalted PostComm - http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/factsheets/Universal_postal_service.pdf no sign of Parcelforce anywhere! It only covers Royal Mail letters;RM standard parcels; RM Special delivery;RM redirection; and RM inbound foreign mail. As you still haven't grasped the difference here's the maths: Send a 2.00kg parcel to any other address within the UK by RM parcels and it'll cost £4.41 Send the same package by Parcelforce and its £10.50 (slowest) to £19.50 (next day) within Scotland, rising to £29.50 if the address is in Hampshire. Now, for the very last time - you tell me who's providing the Universal Postal Service? (here's a clue - the price has to be U N I V E R S A L - i.e. the same everywhere in the country) Drat, I've taken your bait. I'm off to talk to the seagulls outside in the hope of more intelligent conversation.

This is an interesting point and to be honest I don't know the answer, but applying a little bit of logic; if you go to the court after accusing someone of a crime, the accused hears your allegations word for word. He has to in order to defend himself. If you think of the FOS as the investigator wouldn't they also need to put your points to the accused to get their response? As I said, I don't know if they're allowed to communicate your letter directly to the other side, or if they should have paraphrased your words. Perhaps someone else on here may be more knowledgeable.

excellent point, sorry I omitted that from my earlier reply. Thanks for pointing it out, it's a highly relevant and very useful point.

Gee, I guess that's the end of Parcelforce charging for customs clearance then, except that you are just plain wrong! I phoned Parcelforce and they confirmed that they are not a mail carrier and actually use Royal Mail themselves as an agent for some their deliveries on a contract basis, but Parcelforce do not deliver letters! The linkage to Royal Mail you suggest is as tenuous as telling hospital contract cleaners that they are part of the NHS. I notice that you do not mention the unequivocal proof that lies in the UPU rules, which are what governs each member county's postal administration. Is this because it destroys your ill-founded points? I can't make my mind up whether you're ignorant, unintelligent or just plain argumentative. Whichever is true, I won't be wasting any more time with you. Please feel free to continue your pointless and misguided postings without me. And thanks for lumping me into the same "troll" category as buzby and gezwee, I feel truly honoured to be elevated to their ranks. PS you might like to re-visit the meaning of troll and then take a look in the mirror! If your definition of "troll" puts me in the same category as buzby and gezwee, I'll take that as a compliment. Fortunately I have a thick skin so I'm not easily offended.

That's an interesting link and whilst I approve of your efforts I do wonder about your interpretation as your premise fails on two counts; 1 the act specifically describes a service with a universal cost base throughout the UK - Parcelforce have some variations for regional pricing; specifically it costs the same to post a letter to the Outer Hebrides as to Birmingham but parcel costs can vary with distance. 2 to quote the act " (i) at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom or to such identifiable points for the delivery of relevant postal packets as the Commission may approve, and (ii) at least one collection of relevant postal packets is made every working day from each access point, which is clearly not the case. Parcelforce is a separate company within the Royal Mail Group and therefore it is not not classified as a universal carrier per se, unlike the Royal Mail letters service. There's also the question of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) rules, as shown below:- Article 18 Customs control. Customs duty and other fees 1 The postal administrations of the countries of origin and destination shall be authorized to submit items to customs control, according to the legislation of those countries. 2 Items submitted to customs control may be subjected to a presenta- tion-to-Customs charge, the guideline amount of which is set in the Regula- tions. This charge shall only be collected for the submission to Customs and customs clearance of items which have attracted customs charges or any other similar charge. 3 Postal administrations which are authorized to clear items through the Customs on behalf of customers may charge customers a customs clearance fee based on the actual costs. 4 Postal administrations shall be authorized to collect from the senders or addressees of items, as the case may be, the customs duty and all other fees which may be due. Letter Post – Conv Art 18 Update 2 September 2007 So not exactly breaking the law, more like following the international postal rules! So, the real question isn't whether they are allowed to levy a charge, but if the charge is the correct one based on their actual costs.

It seems pretty clear to me that the statement "Please be careful when selecting your appliances to ensure they are the ones you require as we charge £99.99 for collection.". meana you don't need to return them, they will arrange to have them uplifted.

Is this correct? Reading his thread I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that in both cases Parcelforce had settled out of court? If they did there is still no legal case to base future claims on. I certainly don't remember seeing a headline saying "parcelforce charges ruled illegal" anywhere.

You demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding or knowledge of buzby's input to this forum. Gezwee also has imparted much wisdom on here whereas you seem to have appeared from nowhere via the moneysupermarket.com forum and cast aspertions around like confetti. If you don't agree with the advice offered, that's fine. Please don't go impuning those who have helped countless others just because you disagree with them. Out of interest how are you getting on with the action you began in 2007?

Several of our more experienced contributors have already answered each of these points, in detail with great clarity, but for avoidance of doubt:- When any freight forwarder, courier company or postal delivery agent handles customs clearance they are not acting on behalf of HMRC, but on behalf of the client who requested their services. It has always been perfectly possible to do our own clearance, but personally I would much rather pay an experienced operator £14 than to traipse around with sheaves of paperwork and make my payment at an HMRC office, then go back to the depot with the clearance papers to collect the parcel. My time is worth more than that and I, like countless others have better things to do. If you or I did our own clearance would we be acting on behalf of HMRC? Of course not, we would be acting for ourselves. In this instance Parcelforce is employed by the client and is conveying the duty payable from them to HMRC. this is an additional service and they are entitled to charge extra for it. Where no duty is payable, no extra work is invloved and no charge is made. The ability to hold onto the parcel is just common sense, as Parcelforce will have paid the duty on behalf of the client, why would anyone expect them to release it until they had been recompensed? I cannot believe we're having such a long discussion over £14. This is nothing to do with stopping people having an opinion, but my post was about the obvious lack of understanding of a principle that several experienced forum members had clearly explained. Why they should be subjected to a barrage of insults is beyond me. The points about the union may have been exagerated, but the ramifications of Parcelforce's customs clearance activities being declared illegal are massive. Cutting off another stream of income from a company already knee deep in disputes would hardly help the future job prospects for those currently employed. As for paying a massive fine - what do you think? Fortunately this won't happen as there is nothing sinister going on here as time will no doubt prove and before you make the assumption, I don't work for Parcelforce, HMRC or the Treasury. I don't really think he should shut up and stop posting because I think he is wrong, but I do think he should digest the accumulated wisdom he can find on here and not make rude comments about those who provide it.

That's great news! I wish you well with your pursuit of Welcome. Remember to keep us in the picture!

Gee, I guess they'll be closed down soon then! Of course they're not breaking the law, they are running a commercial business for profit and any business involved in freight export/import has a right to charge for the extra work this requires. If you don't like their charges, you should choose somebody else. The problem is that Parcelforce has one of the cheapest handling charges around so instead of bleating, you ought to be grateful you didn't use UPS or TNT. Your recent posts suggest that you think that the rules of commerce shouldn't apply here and that they should do the extra work for free - get real! As for attacking Buzby, it's clear you're new to CAG. As one of our most valued members, most people have the decency to read what he has to say and calling him a Troll only proves your lack of understanding of his experience and wisdom. Gezwee has also tried unsuccessfully to explain this for you but you seem hell bent on twisting the facts to prove your case. If you strip this back to basics there are are only three components to (so why is it so difficult to understand?) 1 You contract for a parcel to be delivered for which there is a carriage charge. 2 If it is an international delivery there may be duty to be paid in line with HMRC's charges 3 If the carrier to completes the clearance work on behalf of the customer and collects and pays the duty to HMRC they levy a charge for this work Now which bit should they be doing for free? Why don't you go to court? If you're proved wrong, Parcelforce will continue doing what they do and millions of international packets will be handled each year without any problem. If you're proved right, the CWU will come knocking on your door over the thousands of redundancies caused by the loss of business; Parcelforce will face the biggest fine in history; Lord Mandleson will be really unhappy with you and the carriers still in the game will be able to increase their prices due to lack of competition. On the upside, you may be able to sell your story to the tabloids, the fee may come in handy in paying for the new identity you might need. So, as Dirty Harry famously said " are you feeling lucky?"

quite right! It had been a long day.....

I found this in the Distance Selling Regulations - 3.55 If you want the consumer to return the goods and to pay for that return, you must make it clear in the contract and as part of the required written information – see paragraph 3.10. If the consumer then fails to return the goods, or sends them at your expense, you can charge them the direct cost to you of the return, even if you have already refunded the consumer’s money. You are not allowed to make any further charges, such as a restocking charge or an administration charge. There's aslo another entry regarding refunds - 3.48 The DSRs require you to refund any money paid by or on behalf of the consumer in relation to the contract to the person who made the payment. This means the full price of the goods, or deposit or prepayment made, including the cost of delivery. The essence of distance selling is that consumers buy from home and receive goods at home. In these circumstances, almost every case of home shopping will involve delivery of the goods ordered and so delivery forms an essential part of the contract. The rules governing refunds are pretty clear too - When do I have to refund a consumer’s money if they cancel an order? 3.46 As soon as possible after the consumer cancels, and in any case within 30 days at the latest. You must refund the consumer’s money even if you have not yet collected the goods or had them returned to you by the consumer. You cannot insist on the goods being received by you before you make a refund. See also paragraph 3.64. If you're pragmatic about this, take the £20 charged up front off the £99.99 return fee and the deal starts to lok a little easier to swallow. Given that it was originally your error that's probably not a bad result, but if you follow gezwee's advice and sweeten the deal with the purchase of the right item, you could return the first fridge when they deliver the second one and may not pay anything. On a slightly frivolous note - it states on their website that they will take goods away for recycling and disposal for only £9.99. If can they deliver any amount of items for £19.99 and charge £9.99 for collection and disposal, I think they'd have a difficult job convincing a judge that is costs them £99.99 to collect items returned by customers. Remember they are not permitted to charge for re-stocking. They can only charge the direct cost of collection. As DSRs do not permit them to withhold any of your funds from a refund, whether or not they have the returned items, they would have to make a seperate charge for the collection. Why not ask them to scrap the fridge, expecially as the employee said it would be unsaleable and happily pay the £9.99 instead (since you due to get the £19.99 delivery charge back)?

did you pay by credit card? If so, the card company have a part to play in this as they are jointly liable with the supplier. If you didn't, follow my_real_name's advice above and let the company know you're keeping it safe for them to collect. The fact that there's no packaging isn't your fault. Keep on at them, don't let them think that's the end of it.

Eh? How confused are they? "if you withdraw the claim........should it be successful in defending the claim" How can they be successful in defending a withdrawn claim? I don't think they're firing on all cylinders here. I'm no legal expert but my command of English is pretty good and this is a total contradiction. If it's meant to intimidate they could have least have read through it before sending it to you. As one wonderful line in the Michael Caine film "Pulp" so eloquently put it, "I'm not a physical man, but if I was to engage in a fight with you the weapon I should choose would be grammar". I think these guys are letting excitement get the better of them and as solicitors they show a remarkably feeble grasp of the principle tool of their trade - English! In light of this, the letter is as intimidating as a chocolate teddy bear. Bare your teeth back at them!

surely the missives (contracts in England) of sale will list all the additional items to be included? If it is on this list, there's no question about it, if it isn't it's technically your fault for not spotting it and bringing it up sooner, and especially before you signed acceptance of the contract. The estate agent is guaranteed to have a million escape clauses "we are not liable etc" to overcome typos in sale particulars done by the office junior so its probably pointless chasing them. At the end of the day they are acting as agents for the seller, not you. The only person on your side is your solicitor, use him/her to resolve this or put it down to experience and move on. There's one other thought - its a bit ungentlemanly but if you haven't signed the contract you could try bluffing with the seller. "I thought the cooker was included, if it isn't I'm not sure I want to complete this sale" It's a very risky strategy and not too nice, but it might work. There have been reports of "guzundering" where the buyer turns up on moving day and says reduces their offer. With a new house bought and the removal van loaded, some sellers have caved in to get the sale through. This isn't as nasty but its morally questionable. I guess it all depends how much you want that cooker?

You didn't say where you live but the DVLA office in Glasgow did my tax on a printed off certificate of insurance. They had to as my insurer works on a paper-free system. You can obtain pre-printed docs but you need to pay extra for them. The clerk I spoke to said it's becoming the norm these days and said if it did turn out to be a forgery, their systems would show this within a couple of weeks, the tax disk would be cancelled and the purchaser would be pursued for fraud. Or you could tax online, if the insurance and MOT haven't been uploaded the website will advise you to go to a licensing office anyway.

Agree with big_brother, the bank will have no trouble closing the account once they have seen the correct paperwork, in fact you'll be doing them a favour. Check to see if the account has been suspended or if it is still "live". Given the time that has elapsed it may have been moved away from the branch to free up capacity, this is normal and not suspicious. The bank has an "estates department" who are expert in these things. Once they have the death certificate they can authorise the release of funds and closure of the account. It every branch there will be someone who understands how the system works so just ask for them.