veganite
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by veganite
-
The original post imo showed diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibility interpreted to include an abnormal mind. So whilst not relying on diminished responsibility as a defence, lead on from there to show abnormal mind could be a defence. Other than that I am not sure how OP can prove mitigating circumstances.
-
I was tyred and exhausted (sorry!) of kwik fit many years ago. They charged me nearly £200 extra for my tyres. I did have the full 5 replaced thinking they would be at the advertised price, but once job was done I had to pay their inflated price. Perhaps they inflate their price as they are so used to inflating the tyres. I complained to the manager who couldn't care less, also complained to head office on two occasions hoping to get my money back and was ignored. So it seems that they haven't changed their ways.
-
Apologies, i reread my last post and it does sound harsh re diminished responsibility - though I see that as the only possible mitigating circumstances. I didn't mean for my post to sound harsh (which it appears to be) - just criticism there to possibly help with your defence. Good luck!
-
You used the pass for 4 days - depriving its rightful owner and at the same time signifying that you intended to keep it. You write that you are honest and you never try to evade paying for travel tickets, yet if you were honest you would have returned the pass and not used it once, let alone 4 times. I don't wish to sound harsh but I don't hold out much hope for you in the situation you have described. I am not sure if you will receive any helpful advice in this matter because there is also the additional element of theft in that you didn't return the card. You say you had a valid travel card yet you used another card. I can not see any reason why you would do this, it is nonsensical. Perhaps plead a case of diminished responsibility. Perhaps plead a case of diminished responsibility.
-
I am not sure how they are doing two different jobs since the contract system keeps track of usage and the PAYG system also keeps track of usage. The only difference I see is that the contract system updates sporadically, perhaps a few hours delay or a days delay and the PAYG system updates immediately, in real time. Contract system = Slow to update, makes customer liable in event of stolen phone so that the mobile operator can profit from the theft. PAYG system = protects the mobile network operator since no calls can be made when credit is finished. Since mobile network operators have in place a system for PAYG phones which updates itself immediately, I fail to see why they can not use the same system for contract phones. I strongly suspect that in the case of contract phones, they can see this data and it is updated immediately, though they are reliant on the excuse that they can not see such data because the customer is then liable. After all, they can see the data in respect of PAYG phones and yet they claim they can not see this data in the case of contract phones. I can not see any reason why they would use a 'lesser' system for contract phones.
-
So, they use different systems? One system for contract phones which does not make provision to update daily (therefore helping to make network operator a profit in the case of stolen phones) and - a different system for Pay As You Go phones (helping to make the network operator not to suffer a loss in the event of a stolen mobile) since the Pay As You Go system updates? So they use a system on PAYG phones so they don't suffer a loss in event of stolen phone, yet they can't use the same system for contract phones? Using different systems in my opinion is unfair and detrimental to people with contract phones.
-
Above from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Spain Above from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Pakistan Above from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Austria
-
Whilst that is true, I find it extremely hard to believe. My opinion is that this is an excuse used by the networks. For example, if you were to use a pay as you go phone abroad, as soon as it runs out of credit you can't make any further calls. I know this from experience (since I would never have a contract phone). I fail to see the difference between a contract phone updating and a pay as you go phone updating, the networks say that they don't receive the updates - yet if this is correct, how is it that pay as you go phones do not endlessly go on making calls after the credit is expired?
-
Sorry I can't help further. Maybe if you google: assumed rights of tenants or: implied rights of tenants Perhaps this blog will help: http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/tenants-without-a-written-contract/
-
I guess it would depend on what agreements there are. Sorry can't be of any more help. Perhaps if you post further details such as why you want to know this then someone with more knowledge can help you.
-
Can not open basic bank account
veganite replied to Basicbankaccount's topic in Business Bank accounts and charges
No probs... hopefully some other people will also reply so to give you more options. -
Can not open basic bank account
veganite replied to Basicbankaccount's topic in Business Bank accounts and charges
Should be able to open a standard account with the post office (link below). As far as I remember, this account is designed for people with no credit rating or adverse credit rating. http://www.postoffice.co.uk/current-accounts -
i think we will have to agree to disagree re the fraud... although i can see how you think it is fraud, also i can see your concerns and your reasoning, but as the insurance companies are such a big business they have this tied up pretty neatly within their favour. unfortunately, the insurance companies are a business operating purely to make a profit and that is why they more often than not provide a lower settlement figure, but as i've said before - it is up to the customer to negotiate. as negotiations take place then this makes it not fraud.
-
Up their claim? You mean negotiate? In that case, I negotiated with my car insurance and upped the claim. I was not arrested and prosecuted for fraud.
-
Offers. Negotiation. Not fraud. As for the 9 years it is uninhabitable, IMO you should be seeking an additional compensatory payment in respect of the 9 years in respect of further financial losses you have incurred due to the unnecessary delay. Such losses would be perhaps your mortgage payments, any additional expenses if you have lived elsewhere etc. I believe that most insurance companies are highly unfair to their customer, but it is in the name of business. It is unfortunate that most companies / businesses seem to be unfair to their customer, but it is all in the game of making money. Such unfairness as a low settlement offer or an unreasonable time delay should result in a complaint to the insurance company and if not rectified possibly followed with legal action. My recent experience with an insurance company (for a car) has taken 6 / 7 years to settle - I am still waiting as they require a letter of authorisation for payment (something which I can not arrange at this moment due to my location). Insurance companies? Unfair yes, fraud no. I think the insurance companies are not guilty of fraud from your original post since there is always the route of negotiation (which it appears you have successfully done on two occasions) and if negotiation fails, then it is possible for legal action although the onus would be on the customer to provide evidence as to why they believe their claim to be higher than what the insurance company offers.
-
Sad sam, if an insurance company deceives you in order for the insurance company to make a gain, then yes it is fraud. But from your original post, I can not see how fraud has occurred in the examples you have given.
-
Your entitlement to council tax help applies to any house you are living in, whether it be rented or mortgaged. Your entitlement to housing benefit also applies to rented or mortgaged house. I think that if you claimed housing benefit for your mortgaged house then you would be entitled to the interest payment only. I don't understand what advantages you would have in letting your home get repossessed and then renting another home and I feel it has something to do with benefits? Perhaps it may help you if you post in benefits section of forum as there seems to be a lot of help within that section?
-
Calling someone who has nearly 30,000 posts (most of which I presume is to help others) a sad individual enjoying the pain and sorrow of another is... well, it's just sad, Sad sam. Your first post saying that there is fraud from insurance companies - I can not see the fraud. The insurance companies make you an offer and it is up to you to negotiate on that offer and offer any evidence that would back up your negotiations. At the end of your post you state that the only option available to UK consumers is to take legal action at their own cost. The same option available to insurance companies should there be a fraudulent claim.
-
You should be entitled to claim council tax help on the house you are paying the mortgage. You are also entitled to housing benefit for the house with the mortgage - providing you meet the criteria for housing benefit. Either scenario has its advantages and disadvantages which are dependant upon your financial circumstances and your requirements for the future.
-
hi fletch, i am living in an ex communist country, (Russia) and most people here who have experienced communist era would much prefer it to their present capitalism! peopod - i've found a link whilst closing many browser windows, it's here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298750/Recruitment-worker-23-left-21-000-phone-thief-uses-stolen-mobile-premium-rate-spending-spree.html In the article, a Vodafone spokesman states: Your phone / sons phone was also used for fraud - calling premium rate phone numbers. Vodafone did insist that the person is liable for the bill, but I guess they backed down when the media took on the story.
-
Only 15 minutes of music? Hastings state that the charges are made so that quotes are kept competitive. Although I would agree with you concerning your money making exercise beliefs!
-
hello, The link is here: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/aug/05/vodafone-stolen-sim-cards In that article, it states that the Ombudsman will not deal with any complaints where a mobile network operator has met its contractual obligations. The problem OP has is that Vodafone are failing to engage in any further discussion in this matter. Also, Vodafone have informed OP that they need to contact the Ombudsman. Whilst Vodafone have not failed in their contractual obligations - this means that the Ombudsman can not intervene or investigate as shown in the article link above. I find this situation appalling and a bad reflection on Vodafone. Not only are they failing to discuss this matter further with their customer, it can also be seen that they are 100% intent on making a profit from the stolen phone calls. With all the tax dodges vodafone has got away with, it seems a company hell bent on making a profit under any circumstance. https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&q=vodafone+tax+dodge+uk
-
One of my links above shows that the Ombudsman will not deal in this matter. As for forcibly being removed from a Vodafone store? Possibly! If someone stood outside a Vodafone store giving out factual leaflets showing how Vodafone deals with complaints (as above), then there is absolutely nothing Vodafone staff, security staff or even the police can do to remove you.
-
fletch... to clarify things further - If the first post in this thread did not state: then IMO Vodafone would not be negligent in their duty of care since the duty of care doesn't cover economic loss. Duty of care in this instance applies because of the statement / lack of statement in the Terms and Conditions which is then followed by numerous examples of how Vodafone could have followed a course of action in order to protect its customer from financial loss. Though, as my forum signature says below - I could be wrong, since this is just my thoughts / opinions!
-
I am unsure as to why you believe that Vodafone do not owe its customer a duty of care. Generally, no duty of care is needed to avoid causing a person a financial loss - Duty of care does cover things like property and health. The reason why I suggested to the OP that they could possibly tackle this problem using the angle of Duty Of Care and that Vodafone is negligent under the Duty Of Care is that in the OPs first post, the following was stated: So, whilst the duty of care does not apply to financial loss, - since there is no duty of care to ensure another person does not suffer financially, there is a duty of care for financial loss if it is caused by a negligent mis-statement. This can be seen from the OPs first post which I have partly quoted above. Above quoted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/pure-economic-loss-negligence-law-essay.php#ixzz37CEhloCf The above quote shows IMO that vodafone owe a duty of care since there was no reasonable care and skill in stopping the calls and also the nature of the advice given - in the OPs first post concerning terms and conditions. Also above quote shows that you are unable to sue the tobacco companies since they have provided a disclaimer.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS