Finally (after 9 months) the financial ombudsman service (FOS) has issued it's decision. My complaint has been upheld. Please mark this thread as a success.

The ombudsman came to a different decision from the investigator and said the information provided by Wise 'could have been clearer during the process'. 

Wise was asked to apologise to me. Wise did take their time doing this, but finally came good. Unfortunately, even the apology is tinged with the same old 'as a regulated financial institution....', as if they are still trying to vindicate themselves for the mistake (of not being clear).

The ombudsman decision said '..carrying out its due diligence checks, are a business decision it is entitled to make. It’s not something we as a service would look to interfere with. What I must consider are the individual circumstances of this case and whether Wise treated Mr N fairly and reasonably.'.

Either the staff member at Wise haven't read the final decision from the ombudsman or still see the need to assert the same old 'as a regulated financial institution' chestnut. I had never contended the need for the checks. 

Here is the ombudsman's final decision:

Quote

 

The complaint
Mr N is unhappy with the information provided by Wise Payments Limited (Wise) when a
transfer he made into his account was delayed.
What happened
Mr N transferred funds from his bank account into his account with Wise. However, there
were delays in crediting his account with the funds. Mr N complained about the information
he was provided with by Wise while due diligence checks were undertaken on the
transaction.

Wise thought it acted fairly and in line with the customer agreement. It said verification and
due diligence checks on payments and transfers were essential. And it said it can take
between two and ten working days to process payments.
Mr N didn’t accept what Wise said and brought his complaint to our service. Our investigator
didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. He said Wise had explained the dates given
were an estimate, but unfortunately the checks needed took longer than it initially estimated.
He didn’t think Wise was in breach of the terms and conditions.
Mr N doesn’t agree with what our investigator said and maintains that his complaint is not
about the checks carried out, but the information Wise gave during the process. As
agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to decide.
I issued my provisional decision on 17 November 2023 in which I said:
“I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

Having done so, I’ve reached a different outcome to our investigator. I’ll explain why.

There is no dispute there were delays in the funds Mr N transferred from his bank account
becoming available in his Wise account. Wise explained this was because of due diligence
checks that were required on the transaction. Wise has said it can take between two and ten
days for a payment to be credited. While I accept the money did become available within
these time limits, I find the information provided to Mr N could have been clearer during the
process.

Firstly, I think its important to explain that the information Wise chooses to provide on its
website, in its online application, and the standard messages or emails it sends while
carrying out its due diligence checks, are a business decision it is entitled to make. It’s not
something we as a service would look to interfere with. What I must consider are the
individual circumstances of this case and whether Wise treated Mr N fairly and reasonably.

The online app indicated the transfer would be processed and the funds made available
firstly on 27 August, and then later an email was sent stating funds should be available on 29
August. However, the money didn’t clear into the account until three days later.
I don’t find its unreasonable for there to be a short delay while checks are completed on a
transaction. But I find sending a further email stating the funds would be available on 29
August, gave the impression Mr N’s money would be available sooner than it was.
Therefore, I’m not satisfied Wise treated Mr N fairly.

When things go wrong, what I must consider is the impact it had on the consumer. To put
things right we expect Wise to ensure the consumer is put back in the position they would
have been in. This means it must ensure Mr N hasn’t lost out financially as a result of what’s
happened. And it should address any practical or emotional impact the error has had on him.
I appreciate the email gives the impression the processing of the payment would have been
completed on a specific day, however when this didn’t happen, I’m satisfied the tracking
system via the app, indicated that there was a delay in the processing of the transaction.
Wise also let Mr N know it would email him once the transaction completed, which meant he
didn’t have to keep checking to see if it was done.
Mr N says that had he been told of the time limits for the transfer to be processed, he could
have made alternative arrangements to pay his rent. But Mr N has also made it clear there
hasn’t been any financial impact here or further consequences as a result of the information
he was given.
Mr N also explained that it would be better for the app to describe the transaction as a
transfer in, rather than stating it was a transfer out of his Wise account. While I accept his
point of view, I can’t see this will have had any impact on Mr N, other than to cause some
added annoyance.

While the information provided during the checking process could have been clearer, I’m
satisfied once the funds were made available the inconvenience and frustration would have
been alleviated. I understand it would have been somewhat frustrating not to know when the
funds would be in the account, but I’m satisfied this was short lived. Unfortunately, using
financial services won’t always be hassle free and when things have gone wrong, it doesn’t
always follow that we would award compensation for it. Under the circumstances, I’m
satisfied Wise doesn’t need to compensate Mr N, but I find it ought to have acknowledged
the impact this will have had on him and issued an apology...”
Mr N responded to my provisional decision and said he suffered some anxiousness and
upset due to the experience which he feels was preventable. He would like Wise to pay £20
compensation for this. He also said he spent a total of £0.50 on phone calls to our service
and would like to be compensated for these costs.

What I’ve decided – and why
I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
I’ve thought about what Mr N said and it doesn’t change my decision. As I said in my
provisional decision, using financial services won’t always be hassle free, and neither is the
process of making a complaint. I appreciate Mr N phoned our services, but I can’t tell Wise

to compensate him for any costs he incurred in doing so.
All things considered, I find the anxiousness Mr N faced was short lived and the
inconvenience he experienced minimal. Therefore, I won’t ask Wise to compensate him.
My final decision
For the reasons mentioned above, I uphold this complaint, and require Wise Payments
Limited to issue Mr N a letter of apology.
Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or
reject my decision before 8 January 2024.

 

When making a Subject Access Request (SAR), also known as Data Subject Access Request (DSAR), do I need to provide the reason or reasons for making the request?

Is it a requirement by law and regulation? or is it not necessary to give a reason or reasons under the Data Protection Act (2018) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)?

I emailed the team manager handling my service complaint on Friday 26 August. I immediately received an out of office message saying this: 

Quote

 

I'm currently out of the office on leave and return Friday 26 August.

My usual working hours are Monday to Friday 0730am to 1530pm.

If your email is about your case or new service complaint, please contact your case handler in the first instance.

Alternatively you can contact the helpline on 0800 023 4567. Our phone lines are open: 8am – 5pm on Monday to Friday and 9am – 1pm on a Saturday (excluding Bank Holidays)

If you've emailed me & my out of office doesn't say I'm on leave, please allow 48 hours for a response.

Your message has not been forwarded to anyone in my absence and I do not have access to my emails whilst I am away

 

Since it says 'please allow 48 hours for a response', I waited. As Monday was a bank holiday I presumed that 48 hours would carry over to the next working day. So I continued to wait. By Thursday 01 September, I still hadn't heard from her, so emailed her again and said: 

Quote

As you can appreciate, since you returned to work on Friday 26 August, it is now well over 48 hours (even after allowing for the bank holiday Monday on 29 August).

She replies:

Quote

 

I was in the office on Friday and then out of the office on leave Tuesday 30 and Wednesday 31 August, returning today, so please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging your email. 

 

I then told her that I'm not pleased with the communications up to now. She responds with this:

Quote

I'm sorry you're not happy about my out of office message. My leave would not have impacted the progression of your service complaint as I have 15 working days to provide a response. I have noted your comments though. 

Today when I email her, immediately received an out of office message. Here it is:

Quote

If your email is about your case or new service complaint, please contact your case handler in the first instance. If your query is about an existing service complaint I'll respond on my return.

Notice how she has now removed the part about 'on leave and return [date of return].' and kept it vague with 'service complaint I'll respond on my return'.

So, when she said 'I have noted your comments though' she meant noted to become less transparent to look after her own interest.

On 27/08/2022 at 10:14, cjcregg said:

I assisted the complainant in a distressing complaint who was seeking compensation for a claims management company who were chasing her for money that they alleged was for an agreement signed by her husband in 2019. But he had in fact passed away in 2016.

 

FOS changed the status of the complainant to the executor of her late husband's estate and although the complaint was upheld, FOS refused to offer compensation on the basis that their rules prevented them from awarding compensation to an estate. But FOS never disclosed to the complainant the effects the status change would have on the outcome of the complaint. We complained to the Independent Assessor (Dame Gillian Guy) who agreed with us and ordered FOS to pay her the compensation themselves.

 

Have you considered sending a Subject Access Request to FOS?

 

I did. After the adjudicator refused to allow me to see Amex case file (that she replied upon) a couple of times, I told her to submit a service complaint, then I contacted the Information Rights team at FOS and requested my personal data (Subject Access Request).

The the next day or day after I received the Amex case file data that she relied upon. However, only the first four pages were readable. I told her this. Now she's sent me a readable version. The information rights team has also acknowledged my Subject Access Request (SAR).

With the SAR, FOS has severe delays in processing. Some (most?) SAR's taking months to complete. Case in point, the last SAR that I requested on 19 November 2021 was completed towards the end of March 2022. Information Rights team kept sending me an email every month saying it's been delayed. 

I've also made a SAR to Amex through their website a couple of days ago.

@cjcreggcan I ask what your service complaint was about?

By the way I forgot to mention in the OP, after my adjudicator had spoken to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman told her to release the info from Amex she had relied upon to reach her view, she reverted to me with the following:

Quote

I have spoken to an Ombudsman today regarding your case.
He advised that I can send the information I've relied on to reach my view even though Amex have written strictly confidential and not to be shared.
If you require the information I would be more then happy to look over the file next week and send any information I can. 

That's how come I said to her it's kinda baffling that she had chosen to follow the instructions from Amex instead of the FOS internal procedures and processes about case file access.

Made a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about Amex because they provided me incorrect advice as to how to access a previous statement. They told me previous statements (older statements) can only be sent via post. However, later I discovered that although (older) previous statements aren't available via the app they can be accessed via online banking (via the Amex website).

I contacted Amex via in-app chat and told them I want to make a complaint. Each agent became really defensive and started stonewalling asking the same questions repeatedly. The last agent even said to me 'So the reason to raise a complaint is ONLY** that representative who could not handle your query well regarding Nov 2020 statement but now you have got it sorted'. After explaining to him that they (Amex) would still need to investigate and have systems in place to prevent it in future, he finally agreed to submit a complaint. 

However, we were still not out of the woods yet. The complaint submission entailed 'confirming' my contact number, mailing address and email address, passing the security question again (I had passed the security question in that session previously - this was the second time I was asked the security question in that session), only then the agent confirmed a complaint was submitted. I just checked the screenshots and the chat session on that day had started at 3:25 pm and ended at 5:14 pm. It would've been quicker to type a letter and post it via recorded delivery! Anyone wanting to complaint to Amex may wish to do that as the barrage of questions and stonewalling on in-app chat is just not worth it. It's no way quicker (efficient) by any means, although the whole point of in-app is to make life easier for us (not so when it comes to complaining).

In my complaint I asked Amex to investigate as to how come I wasn't advised about the ability to download past statements via online banking and also asked for £100 in compensation. Amex investigated my complaint and said: 
 

Quote

 

I can confirm that they [the customer services agent] advised you correctly, however the information on our system was not up to date. I have made the relevant department aware that the system needs to be updated, so that the CCP’s are aware and can advise our Cardmembers accordingly. I am sincerely sorry for any inconvenience this matter has caused you. This element of your complaint has been upheld.

At American Express we try to ensure that our products and services are of high quality. Your feedback is much appreciated, as observations such as these are useful to us in any future reviews of our business operation.

 

Amex then credited my account £50. Not the £100 I had claimed. I felt Amex tried to brush aside the problem blaming it on the system not being up to date (and it not being the agent's fault) and the that they ought to have paid the £100 compensation I had claimed (considering the time and resources I had to dedicate to make the complaint). I also thought they should have accepted my complaint a long while ago (without the repeated questions).

That was why I complained to the FOS. The complaint was handled by an adjudicator who gave her view recently. In her view, she said she cannot see anything Amex has done wrong. So, I asked to see the evidence she considered when she came to her view. First I asked for all the evidence I had sent. She sent me some of the evidence I had sent but some were missing (evidence I had sent via royal mail signed for delivery). After repeated emails to her explaining I had sent documents via post she asked the FOS postroom to locate this evidence. I then received an email from her saying that the evidence had been on file all along but she had just 'realised [she] never added all the files' to the email she sent me. However, this doesn't quite add up cause it's clear from her view email that some content I had mentioned in the evidence sent through the post is missing. e.g. With the evidence I sent through the post, I had said I needed to claim printing cost of £9.30 (for printing that evidence). This was not mentioned in her view email- she only mentioned in her view email what I had claimed in my online correspondence. 

The other problem was when I asked to see the documents Amex had sent her that she considered when reaching her view. She resolutely denied me saying 'the case file from Amex is confidential'. She kept saying this even though I told her she should release it after redacting the relevant information, such as staff personnel names, their phone number/email, and commercially sensitive information etc. 

I then asked her to submit a service complaint about her refusal and also about my documents (sent via post not being added to the file/not being considered when she reached her view). Even this took a couple of emails. She then reverted saying she had spoken to an ombudsman about my case and had been advised to release the Amex case file. Today I was sent the case file from Amex but only the first 4 pages are readable, the others (about 18 pages) are not properly formatted and the text is superimposed on top of each other, so it's barely readable. I've emailed her asking to send the file again but in a readable format.

In the meantime, her manager has contacted me to 'introduce herself' (which is usually the procedure with a service complaint) and asked me what aspects do I 'believe' hasn't been taken into consideration when the adjudicator reached her decision and also if there is any specific evidence from AMEX that I wanted to see or did I want to see what the adjudicator had relied on when reaching her opinion. 

Has anyone on these forums (Consumer Action Group) ever actually had a service complaint decided in their favour? The past two service complaints I've made this year have all been turned down saying they were due to 'unavoidable' factors (outcome of service complaints at FOS are based on a 'avoidable' or 'unavoidable' criteria). So, if you complain about delays. The outcome would state the delay was avoidable therefore 'I [the manager] uphold the complaint' or 'delay was unavoidable therefore the complaint is not upheld'. 

I spent so much time and resources on those service complaints only to be told the FOS mistakes were unavoidable and that my complaint is not upheld. So, I'm thinking maybe this service complaint will also be an 'unavoidable' failure on the part of the FOS and be brushed under the carpet. We can complain to the 'independent' assessor but for that I need to wait for the Amex complaint to be finalised at the FOS (unless of course it's to do with something serious, like bias). Which brings me to the next point. Does anyone think the mistake by the adjudicator was a simple case of lack of (or improper) training or is there something more to it? e.g. bias

I told her in an email that I'm kinda baffled that she is acting on the instructions of Amex (re. confidentiality) instead of following the internal procedures and processes at FOS. I didn't receive an answer to this.

** - my emphasis

5 hours ago, dx100uk said:

 

what are you hoping or not to gain by this exercise?

 

dx

My personal data.

Sorry about hitting 'quote' but I need to clearly state this is indeed what I'm replying to.

Quote

why are a couple of emails and a letter so important to what appears to be a mail redirection issue?

The SAR is not solely to do with the redirection issue. I had used the Royal Mail website's 'report a crime' feature. Kept the screenshot where it say 'Thank you. Your submission has been received' . I also requested my personal data about this submission within the SAR. Royal Mail didn't have a record, so, attached to the complaint, I sent them the screenshot, which has the website URL. Date and time are on the screenshot as well.

Royal Mail response was that they conducted a search using my name, address and email address, but no records were identified. Odd since I had provided them my personal details within the report.

Quote

quite honestly i'd inform the ico of their reply and pointout what is still missing.

 I contacted the ICO again earlier this week, they (the case officer at ICO) emailed me yesterday and said [it is]'common practice for an organisation to seek clarification on what information a data subject requires as part of their request when deemed necessary.'"

"...once you have received a final response from the organisation, you still remain unsatisfied, you could forward the correspondence to us so that we could consider the matter."

The Royal Mail letter does not state it's a final response, so I think I'd need to liaise with them until they make that clear or there is a lack of response (again). 

The FOS as in the Financial Ombudsman Service?

Don't they deal with financial institutions like banks, building societies, Fintech's etc.

Pretty sure  they won't handle Data protection matters even if it's to do with consumer rights. 

I lodged a Subject Access Request with Royal Mail on 06 September 2021.

They responded to it on 30 September 2021. However, they didn't provide all the information that I requested.

I lodged a compliant (as per the guidance on the ICO website). 

They (Royal Mail) replied on the same day:

Quote

 

In regards to your concerns around the information missing from the information disclosed to you, specifically e-mails, reports, letters and call recordings;

 

this will be progressed as a complaint, we endeavour to respond to all complaints within 1 month of receipt but depending on the amount of data to be reviewed and any additional searches required it may take longer.

 

Please be assured the concerns you have raised are being looked into, and we will respond as soon as possible.

 

I didn't hear back.,

I complained to the ICO. ICO didn't reply within 3 months,  I lodged an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal.

Then ICO contacted Royal Mail by letter. Still no reply to the complaint.

again ICO contacted Royal Mail. Only then I received a reply just a few days ago.

On the reply Royal Mail have said they need the reference number in order to try and locate the two emails I requested. they've told me they've not been able to locate a letter.

They've apologised and said 'whilst there is no statutory set time scale for responding to complaints, we endeavour to respond to all complaints as soon as possible within one calendar month of receipt.'.

Suffice to say, it has taken well over 9 months, nevermind one calendar month.

Is there really no statutory (legal) timeframe?.

I remember there used to be.

Perhaps changed with GDPR?

3 hours ago, Hernandez11 said:

Hello guys, I have some worries about harlands and there requests for money and now telling me they will send debt collectors to my house if i do not pay!!

 

I had missed an original payment which I was willing to pay as it was a fault on my behalf and when this was due, they had taken it, put it back in and had the cheek to demand more! 

I am super worried as I am in a very bad financial state at the moment and was wondering if any of you guys could help me! 

the chances of them 'sending' debt collectors are slim to none. Even if they do, debt collector's can't actually take anything from your home, like a bailiff can. Debt collector's can only ask, not force. See:

https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/debt-collection/bailiffs-and-debt-collectors-differences.aspx

Quote

 

What's a debt collector?

A debt collector works on behalf of a creditor or debt collection agency. They can also be called a doorstep collector or a field agent.

Sometimes a creditor letter will mention having a debt collector visit your home. But the likelihood of this happening is actually quite small.

This could be because collection agents can’t actually take anything from your property like a bailiff can. The most they can do is ask you to make a payment arrangement on the debt. The key word here is ask, not force.

 

I need to lodge a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Natwest and ask for information they hold about any previous accounts. Remember having an account with them around 2006-2007 but it was closed a few years (two or three years) later. 

There is no longer any record of the account in any of my credit agency files. Chances are that Natwest won't have either. 

Anyhow, it seems Natwest have automated the SAR process and are using HooYu for the identity verification (the same ID verification system they use for account opening, I believe):

https://personal.natwest.com/personal/gdpr-triage-page.html#continue

Has anyone lodged a SAR to Natwest using this system? Is it straightforward?

The reviews on Trustpilot about HooYu isn't great. 87% of 1 star reviews from a total of 39 reviews. None of the reviews have been responded to by HooYu. They have a facebook fanpage, however, no review section and comments by customers are not responded to. 
 

Turns out she's put:

Customer Service Centre
Customer Service Advisor
FREEPOST
P O Box 740
Stoke on Trent
ST1 5XZ

Pretty sure it's not conventional to put the person/job title of the person it's addressed to after the team/department, but I can't see it causing too much confusion.

The FREEPOST soon afterwards makes sense. From what I've seen on the RoyalMail twitter account that's the usual practice. See tweet attached:

royal mail tweet with customer service centre address previously based in Plymouth

The tweet is from 2012 with the same P.O.Box number but Customer Service Centre was then in Plymouth then, not Stoke on Trent. Can't see the convention changing though.

Quote

but put freepost as the 1st line

I think the Freepost at the top comes only if it's accompanied by a code or a name. As mentioned in this website. See (5) below (note that the webpage is not from the royal mail website):

Quote

Royal Mail Customer Service
Those who wish to get in touch with the Royal Mail Customer Service can make use of the following ways;
1. These users and customers can make use of the online tools like the “Help Centre” to find instant help online
2. They can call on the number 03457 740 740 to get in touch with the advisors
3. These customers and users can also fill out the online forms uploaded on the website
4. The users can also choose to get in touch with the customer service department of the company through the text-phone 03456 000 606
5. To write to the company about the queries and the problems the postal address is;
Freepost RLZL-LHZH-JZHT, Royal Mail Customer Services, PO Box 740, PLYMOUTH, PL9 7YB

I wouldn't use that address these days though, for the simple reason mentioned before. i.e. customer Service centre seems to be now based in Stoke on Trent. 

BTW, just discovered from the Royal Mail Website, it seems businesses/charities can buy a licence for a Freepost name. we (customer/donor) only need to put 'Freepost [NAME OF BUSINESS/Charity]
when writing to business/charity. 

Wonder how come Royal Mail don't have a similar Freepost name for Customer Service Centre. Something like...'Freepost Royal Mail Customer Service Centre'. Just one line.

Could it be to prevent customers complaining about trivial matters, such as postie not closing the gate after delivering mail or postie walking across the grass lawn.

At the moment, only select few customers are aware of the Customer Service Centre freepost address, and we have to write a few lines for the address, not a single line.

Seems there is a Royal Mail Customer Services in Plymouth, as opposed to Customer Service Centre (in Stoke on trent). Address is listed as: 

But that is talking about making a claim for loss, damage, delay. it seems depending on the query/issue we may have to contact one or the other address. i.e. Plymouth or stoke.

Not sure if they are other customer services related addresses depending on the area of expertise. i.e. loss/damage/delay, redirection of mail etc.

Apparently, royal mail does have one line freepost addresses. i.e. 'Freepost Royal Mail International':

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_address_for_freepost_royal_m

However, according to that customer, they (one line addresses') such as those are frowned upon by royal mail staff.

I made a complaint about my redirection to Royal Mail via phone. Royal mail send me a letter saying if I had any more issues I can contact them via the address on the top of the letter. That address was/is:

Customer Service Centre,
P O Box 740,
Stoke on Trent,
ST1 5XZ

Within the letter the staff member said the address is a freepost address. 

I found the need to contact the customer service centre again. 

I wrote a letter to the Customer Service Centre. As I'm unable to post the letter myself, I asked a colleague to post it to the address above. I also told her that it was a freepost address. As 'freepost' was missing from the address she had decided to write the address on the envelope as: 

FREEPOST
P O Box 740
Stoke on Trent
ST1 5XZ
 

Any ideas if the letter will make to to the recipient?

I think she may have felt that as the address did not have 'freepost', sorting office may delay or not deliver the item as they may not be aware the address is freepost Is it common knowledge (among postal staff) that the address is freepost and do we not need to specify this on the address?

I'm attaching the letter from Royal Mail that said the address is freepost:

letter from Royal Mail with Customer Service address that says it's freepost

On 16/08/2021 at 22:24, tobyjugg2 said:

an interesting and very American perspective - not wrong though

 

Trump followers are now trying to throw the blame on Biden and the democrats when it was clearly Trump that emboldened and re-empowered the Taliban:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-removes-page-hailing-trump-taliban-deal-2021-8

 

Broader perspective:

 

China moves swiftly to exploit the void in Afghanistan

ASIA.NIKKEI.COM

---

US military exit is likely to become Beijing's strategic gain

 

a bit of depth on the 'mechanisms' worth a peruse:

 

Searching for the Next War: What Happens When Contractors Leave Afghanistan? – The Diplomat

THEDIPLOMAT.COM

---

As U.S. troops withdraw, many contract employees – most of them from poor countries, including Nepal – are leaving Afghanistan and fanning out...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any idea why the U.S. suddenly withdrew?. How come no gradual approach? or am I missing somethings and it has been a gradual approach. If there was a deadline set and a more gradual approach then maybe planes wouldn't have to leave half empty?

Unbelievable. Logged in to my Paypal account on the off chance (on 5 August 2021). The transaction was there clear as day. Couldn't believe it. 

I reckon the reason is because the card I used when making payment was linked to my PayPal account. PayPal automatically linked transaction to my PayPal account. That's how come  when making payment I didn't see any login screen to paypal (or invitation to create account). I definitely wasn't logged in to PayPal on the browser either. If anyone can suggest another theory please feel free.

I immediately raised a 'item not received' claim. It took a few attempts as every time I attached the evidence (screenshots), filled the 'add more details about the issue' and clicked submit an error would pop-up. So, if you have lots of details to add, I recommend typing it in notepad or word and copy and paste to PayPal.  

Finally was able to submit claim successfully and message pops up saying 'we'll review your information and get back to you by 04 September 2021 at 16:02...'

On Sunday (15 August 2021) I receive email from paypal saying 'Case closed in your favour' and that they've issued a refund for 29.99 USD. Yesterday £22.48 has been credited to my Monese bank account. 

Please mark the thread as won.
 

Bought an old computer that was on special offer online. URL of website: 

https://www.informationwind.com/

When it came to payment, website showed paypal as an option. I selected it. It then asked if I wanted to add debit/credit card. Added my monese virtual debit card. It then said 'we have received payment successfully' and showed payment method 'Paypal2 WPS EC'. On monese app feed I can see transaction description 'Paypal *Dehuishizha De' and amount £22.48. 

After about a week or two I emailed their customer support to ask  when I will receive order. No response. Checked their website and it's down even today. 

When I completed the purchase it never offered an option to create a paypal account, so I'm unable to login to Paypal to raise a dispute. 

In this scenario, is my best (and only) option to raise a chargeback with Monese?

On 25/01/2021 at 01:58, Its WAR said:

I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.

you do realise that the BBC will now have to serve their presenters SPAM instead of sirloin steak.

Please mark this thread as won. Received cheque for £61.54. Cleared yesterday. So I will be updating claim status on MCOL site today as 'paid'.

Just some background for others in similar situ.

If I hadn't received payment, I would have heeded your advice and approached the Financial Ombudsman while having the 'request warrant' option in the backburner (for later use) if ombudsman don't uphold the complaint.

The reason I didn't go to the ombudsman to begin with was because i've had a few unfavourable decisions from ombudsman lately (only a handful were favourable and they were very strong cases). The ombudsman complaints also take ages to be decided and it's pretty much luck of the draw when it comes to the adjudicator's competence.

I wanted to try the MCOL for first time, because it is similar to a Court and cases are not decided on 'what is fair' but according to law. I took a case against Paypal to the ombudsman once and quoted the specific terms of the agreement. Adjudicator responded with:
 

First, please allow me to explain the role of this service. The Financial Ombudsman Service is an alternative to the court system and, as an alternative, we make our decisions on a fair and reasonable basis. This is in accordance with section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which defines how we can decide on complaints. The arguments you’ve presented may be better suited to a court of law as it’s primarily courts who have the power to interpret legislation and EU regulations. So, there’s nothing to stop you from pursuing your complaint through other means.
 
Notwithstanding the points you’ve put forward, I still don’t think it’d be fair or reasonable to uphold your complaint....

Rather than pussy footing around with endless emails to and fro with the adjudicator (and maybe even have to complain ABOUT the adjudicator), I figured MCOL was more certain because of the time limits in place - so no cases dragging on for months/years.

Also, the final response from Curve I received telling me about the right of appeal to ombudsman seemed they were sure how it was gonna turn out with the Ombudsman (may be this is conjecture - but it's just how I feel).

If I did go to Ombudsman and they did not uphold complaint, I would have paid the 75 quid and gone ahead with requesting warrant. Hopefully, the bailiffs would have visited Curve offices while there were some clients/customers there at the reception. How embarrassing.

If anyone is interested this is what I said in the MCOL 'Particulars of claim':

1. The Claimant's claim is partly for the sum of £34.03 being monies owed by the defendant
for fees levied contrary to the agreement between them.

2. In accordance with the relevant pre-action protocol, the Claimant has asked the defendant to rectify the matter by refunding the fees of £34.03 and pay postage costs of £2.06, but has not received a response.

3. The sum of £36.09 remains due and outstanding.

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 04/08/2020 to 11/09/2020 on £36.37 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier
payment at a daily rate of £0.01.

Thanks to everyone on this forum for their advice and support. 

The value of final judgment is £61.54.

Are you sure that I shouldn't contact Curve by email or letter (they  only have a phone number to report a lost/stolen card) and give them 7 days to pay-up before enforcing judgment?

Maybe I can attach a copy of the judgment to the email.

If I do enforce judgement and Court sends bailiffs to the Curve office, what are the chances of them recovering the money?

I made an MCOL against Curve card (see previous thread).

Judgement was issued just over 30 days ago. Curve hasn't responded. So now I want to request warrant. 

Happen to read on this newspaper website that when we request warrant we need to ensure that the defendant's address is correct and that in the case of a company we should be careful when putting the company's "registered office" address, as there may be nothing there for bailiffs to seize. 

The address for Curve OS I put on the form is the one on the Companies House website: 

15-19 Bloomsbury Way
London
WC1A 2TH

I've also checked the Curve community forum and this is definitely where staff come to work. Seems they were based in Shoreditch before and they moved to Bloomsbury way in 2018.

They happen to mention that the name of the building is Labs House. 

I noticed that when we go through the MCOL request warrant, it asks 'Use the address for the defendant that was originally entered with the Judgment' or 'Enter a new address for the defendant'.

Was wondering if I should enter a 'new' address with the 'Labs House' part. So: 

Labs House
15-19 Bloomsbury Way
London
WC1A 2TH

If Curve don't settle and the Bailiffs visit, it may be useful having the building name so they can locate the place easily. Or should I stick with the address on the Companies House website?

BTW: With MCOL, can claimant apply for a 'third party debt order' instead of requesting warrant? or is 'request warrant' the only available option?

On 29/09/2020 at 23:06, dave466 said:

Hope that's ok for you I always struggle with this as only have my phone. 

 

Regards.

22dbf61f_443d_4dcb_bd7c_aba647476df9.pdf 3.79 MB · 3 downloads

433.45% APR. Is that legal?
 

Not sure which post you mean.

Anyway, re. complexity afterwards - can always hire a lawyer if it becomes that complicated.

On 09/09/2020 at 13:16, Andyorch said:

Then put the 11th...its irrelevant really...the defendant will have 19 days to acknowledge service 

I submitted claim on 09/09/2020 and put 11/09/2020 for issue date. 

Just logged in to MCOL site to check claim overview. It says issued on: 10/09/2020. So, as you say it doesn't seem to matter, except it's used when we calculate the interest (presumably we can't put a date way ahead and claim interest until that date )

BTW, I found a good post on this site, which suggest keeping a calendar with all the dates/deadlines marked. Sounds good advice. 

An important paragraph from MCOL user guide: 

If you are claiming interest under the County Court Act you will need to complete some extra
fields for step 5, including the daily rate of interest. You need to add this amount of interest
to the total claim amount and enter it in the box for ‘amount claimed’ as shown at the
bottom of the example. This ensures that any interest due prior to issuing the claim is
included in the total amount claimed. This cannot be added to the claim at a later date
without making an application for permission from a District Judge which incurs a fee.

On 09/09/2020 at 11:49, Andyorch said:

The link is above.......3rd to last post means 3 posts from the end.

The example claim form is below "  dpd claim form pdf. "

 

 

You didn't tick the box '...send detailed particulars direct to the defendant...', no? Looking at the dpd_claim_form.pdf file above it seems you didn't, because that adds the following line automatically to your statement:

Quote

I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

Your form doesn't have the above line, so I'm guessing it wasn't necessary to send detailed particulars.

 I cannot put 10/09/2020, because date of issuing the claim has to be at least 2 working days from now?