I have started a chargeback / dispute. They have immediately refunded the amount, pending investigation. I used BBB because I already found complaints on there about Canary - similar situations. I'm in the UK. Interesting about the CPA (continuous payment authority) too, I'll look into that. Thanks for the advice all. My gosh do I hate companies like this.

Hi All, I bought some Canary cameras. They're faulty now (1 is dead, 2 keep restarting). £79 / year subscription. I used an email account just for that - on a site which since moved web host (without recreating the email accounts or mailboxes). Few days ago they took £127. I disputed it and they have refused to refund it stating that they "don't refund auto-renewed subscriptions". They claim they sent an email out notifying me of renewal - but they would have had a bounce since the email address didn't exist at all. (Guy on the phone told me clearly that management would even be able to see if it was received and opened or not - BS I know). I didn't get notified. They have my phone number, address and could have notified me another way. They increased the price. The equipment is faulty. They are still refusing a refund: ##- Please type your reply above this line -## Tracy (Canary) Jul 19, 2021, 4:54 PM EDT Hi xxx, My Name is Tracy, and I am part of the Management team. Having reviewed everything in this thread, I can confirm that the information you've been provided is accurate. As mentioned by my colleagues, we sent the email advising of renewal on July 8th. Irrespective of you disabling a mailbox, it is the email address that is on your account for correspondence and for your subscription, it is also same email address you used to sign up with, therefore it is the email address you provided to be contacted on. Per our terms and conditions, we cannot provide a refund on renewed subscriptions. I can cancel your Premium Service as requested and this will take effect at the next renewal date which is July 15th 2022 I am more than happy to troubleshoot the device you are having issue with and get that resolved for you. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Best, Tracy B. Canary Customer Experience help.canary.is I've explained multiple times that the mailbox wasn't "disabled", and that it didn't exist. Pretty clearly too: Lee N Jul 19, 2021, 4:18 PM EDT > As your mailbox was disabled at the time the email may have been sent to your spam/junk folder. NO THE MAILBOX DID NOT EXIST. THE EMAIL ADDRESS DID NOT EXIST. THERE WAS NO JUNK/SPAM FOLDER BECAUSE THE EMAIL ADDRESS DID NOT EXIST. You are lying, just like I said you would to Ryan on the phone when he said he would "escalate" it. ADDITION 1, I DID NOT AGREE TO A PRICE INCREASE ADDITION 2, THE CAMERAS DON'T EVEN WORK CORRECTLY. One is totally faulty and won't turn on. The other 2 keep restarting. Why should I pay for a service for faulty equipment?! I'm starting a merchant dispute now. --------------- As stated above, I have started a merchant dispute. I have filed a complaint with BBB, too. Next step will have to be small claims. Anyone got any other advice?

Just ignore them, they won't do anything apart from send nasty letters. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd are the phoenix company of Parking Control Management Ltd, the bullying clamping company, when clamping wasn't illegal. It would cost them more to take you to court than they would win from you, and you can't claim legal expenses in a small claims court.

Hopefully Thanks for replying.

Hi all So... I've had Internet through a BT line for 2 years now. Started with Virgin Media over a BT line, it was super-slow so I switch to BT Business Broadband. (Business Broadband gets preferntial traffic and a lower contention ratio). It was still super-sh!te. Bad, bad packet loss, line drop outs etc etc. We've filed about 6 faults over the 2 years. BT have sent out technicians who have checked things and said there's no fault. Well, over the past few days the Internet has been worse than ever and we've been onto BT. They said they are sending out a different technician to try everything and if it turns out to be our fault then we would have to pay £130. It's not our fault so we said send him. He turned up today. Lovely chap with 38 years experience. He immediately found a fault outside of our property causing a noise on the line - resulting in massive interference on the line (you could even hear it on the telephone). Now... we've been paying for this BT line & Internet for a long time now, and have complained multiple times about the Internet being awful. Do I have to right to claim at least a partial refund for the service we have (or haven't!) been getting? Or some kind of other compensation from BT? Thanks for reading.

Thanks Nagasis. I was in a rush and will change them as soon as I get back onto my PC.

Thanks Buzby. If there's anything I can help you with then PM me, email me or ring my company. (My profession is computers (repairs inc PCB repairs, laptops, sales, part sourcing, websites, programming, databases, networks, security).)

Hi Buzby, Thanks for your reply, especially so fast! They (Medic Care's Solicitors) are the defendants. So basically and categorically, they cannot get £1,800 of us. (We've been very civil). If the court orders us to pay legal fees, such legal fees will be capped at a maximum of £100? In that case, it's definately worth us still going ahead with the trial! Out of curiousity, what counts as vexatious or unreasonble? Threats, violence, aggressiveness, other illegal/immorale things?

Hi all, This is following this thread posted last year: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/229256-threatened-solicitors-without-prejudice.html (Thanks for everyones input there. Bookworm's letter was fantastic.) I am taking a company, Medic Care, to a court for a small claims track because they mis-sold me advertising which is completely ineffective etc. I am claiming £700. In the above thread, the defendants solicitors tried to intimidate me into backing down. I didn't. Now I've received a letter stating again that they will "Make an application for costs" to the court, to order me to pay their costs. Their claimed costs come to over £1,800. I have scanned the letter: Cover letter Page 2 (Costs) Page 3 (Costs) Page 4 (Costs) As I currently understand it: They shouldn't have really sent me this letter. This is an attempt at legal bedazzledment (as I don't have a solicitor). They can't even claim these costs back unless I've acted unreasonably or vexaciously. Even if the judge does award them with an order for me to pay legal costs, there is a maximum cost, MUCH lower than £1,800? Any input will be greately appreciated!

It's called thread hi-jacking :-P Just an update for everyone, I've complained to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) about their solicitors. They've responded to me, saying that the LCS (Legal Complaints Service) are going to be in contact with me regarding the specifics of the complaint. Thanks again everyone!

Thanks for your reply! My lips are parted, my mouth is wide and my teeth are fully baring! I guess you're not called Bookworm for nothing!

Thank you everyone for your input! Bookworm, thank you for taking the time to construct that letter for me - it's much appreciated. I thought this much. I have already replied but wish I had saved it to incorporate some of bookworms input! In fact, I think I shall get our other director to reply to their letter when it actaully arrived as I only replied to the email containing the letter. From collaboration with other people having similar problems to me in my area, we have also discovered that the client has 7 previous judgements against them. We have also confirmed that the solicitors should not address me how they did - it's obvious, I know, but there's actually a code of conduct against it: Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: Rule 10 I am, of course, referring to how they are trying to threaten and confuse me with legal jargon as I have no representation - quoted cases that I blatantly will have never have heard of. Thanks again everyone, I really do appreciate it and if I find anything useful then I will be sure to post any updates here so as to help anyone else that may be in the same situation.

I'm currently taking a company, Medic Care, to court for £680 inc charge to file claim. I am claiming in a small claims court via the moneyclaims online service. There's no need to go into details about Medic Care or the case, but I'd like to think I will win. Firstly, and obviously, I do not have legal representation as that's the idea of going to a small claims court. I've been told that even if you do use legal representation and win your side of the case, you can't (or it's VERY unlikely you will be able to) claim back your legal expenses from the losing side. That all seemed OK until I received the letter (which I have pasted at the end of this post). The letter references the Calderbank vs Calderbank case whereby an offer was made by the defendant without prejudice save as to costs and if the offer were rejected then legal expenses post dating that of the letter would become payable by the claimant if the claimant were to lose the case. However in the letter (at the end of the post), I can't actually see an offer. Just a threat, a threat that doesn't even make proper sense (convert it to basic english and explain it out loud to someone, you'll see what I mean). What does everyone think? WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS Dear Sirs, Re: Our Client: Medic Care Ltd As you know, we act for Medic Care Ltd and are instructed to continue with the defence of the claim. You should be under no illusion that our client feels very strongly about defending this claim and firmly believes in the merits of its defence. However, in the interests of compromise and to avoid use of valuable court time, we are instructed to make a proposal. If you withdraw the claim within the next fourteen days then our client will not pursue an order for costs against you should it be successful in defending the claim. We do, however, put you on notice that should you persist with this claim and should our client’s defence succeed then it will be our intention to make an application for costs against you. Although this proposal is made on a without prejudice basis, it is made in accordance with the principles of Calderbank v Calderbank. As such, we reserve the right to refer the contents of this letter to the court on any issue as to payment of costs. Yours faithfully, BYRNE FRODSHAM & CO.