Hey, I’m a newbie and not sure if anyone will respond. I took a £500 loan out with, and only recently realised I was still paying it (yes, I know how could I miss this). I calculated all the payments of interest totally £1500 alone. When I signed my agreement it never included the repayment amount that the total cost of credit is based upon. So I contacted to query this as I had thought they would have taken this payment as standard. I was advised that no, they would only take the minimum and that in the new terms (sent 18months after the agreement, which I also never received) the amount of the calculation is quoted as 12 monthly payments of £71.80. I was then advised that they have waived the remaining balance as goodwill and closed the account. I can’t imagine companies like this ever offering to waive balance so am a bit suspicious. My query is – does a loan company legally need to quote the payment amount that their calculation is based upon so that it is clear or does the customer need to work this out for themselves. If it is misleading, do I have a right to complain as they did quote it when they changed the t&c’s?

Hi Guys, I'll apologies in advance if this is in the wrong forum, I couldn't find any that maybe relevant to this post. I have been to my local registrar office to book my wedding and was given a guidance booklet containing details for planning the wedding. We were led to believe that we could book the wedding on the Saturday morning, costing £100, whereas if it was booked in the afternoon, it would cost £260. This would be a great saving and the £160 could be used towards the wedding buffet. Unfortunately, when we gave notice yesterday and finalised all the details, we were informed that the information provided in the guide was incorrect, and it is now £260 for a Saturday (all day) I'm not impressed because we have planned the wedding around the marriage fees information. Do we have grounds to submit a complaint and could anyone give us advice on how to word the complaint correctly Many thanks, Gaz.

Is there something under UK law to prevent an online seller displaying misleading photographs even if there is small print to state the photograph shows something not included? I recently bought what I thought was an A2 picture frame from Amazon. A search on Amazon for "A2 frame" showed this item: (unable to link, please search Amazon for B009RBIZ1O) The item I received was a rolled up poster. On checking Amazon I noticed some small print at the end of the long description. I also noticed other people had left negative reviews because they had also thought they were purchasing a frame. The seller appears to be using an Amazon account to accuse these customers of being stupid. In the meantime they have a much more suitable photograph of a poster they could use as the main image. While it isn't a huge amount of money it annoys me to see they are aware of the confusion from previous customers and leaving comments on their reviews calling customers stupid. All they need to do is swap the photograph but I suspect they know they wouldn't sell as many £10 posters this way. I tried contacting Amazon who just put me in touch with the seller for a refund but I actually want them to change the misleading photo.

I recently purchased a product (from a well known Store). Not in the catalogue so researched and chose online from their website. Put into shopping list, printed and brought into store. Made my purchase. On putting the product together an important item was missing. Told that the sale is different online than in store!! The missing item should have been collected and paid for separately with the rest of the product. I had to return to the store to pay for the missing item that I initially was not aware that I needed! If you buy a product surely it is a complete price for a complete product? Awaiting an appointment with the Branch Manager to take up this issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25984766

I was wondering if anyone has had this before. I asked for an update from FOS on my PPI claim against Robins and Day. I was told that they are objecting to the investigation due to it being outside the 6 months. However, after chasing this up with the FOS I quite clearly am within the time frame. I'm just within the deadline by around 2 weeks but obviously within it. I just wondered what they have to gain from quite clearly lying even though the FOS have the dates with them? I think their argument could be that the FOS didn't contact them until after the date so what is likely to happen?

Currys Advertisements on products, for instance the laptop deals on media channels such as online, newspapers, TV builds attraction to the potential consmer. When you go to store to purchase the product offered for the price advertised you are informed about offers such as add-on software packs, antivirus and insurance. The representatives drill you to purchase the offers umpteen times even after declining the offer. Then you realise even if you opt out from these add-on offers there is still an £30 non-optional charge for what they tell you is a backup that is already on the system it took an unrealistic 6 hours to put it on and will take the same 6 hours to get it off. Even Windows installs faster and a simple backbone backup of the new system which is probably the same on all similar products is imposed on the customer. So the customer actually ends up purchasing the product for £30 extra. Is this right thing to do?

Hi all, Please may i have advise; the following is an email i sent to Phones4u on on the 16/12/2013 Thank you ---------------- Good Morning, My misses visited your Hounslow high street store on 05/12/2013 in order receive advice or a resolution on what appears to be a very common issue with the Samsung SII, the issue began on 03/12/2013, whereby the phone remained permanently in airplane mode. Your store advisor took a brief look and commented as follows (Actual quotes) 1.“It’s finished” 2.“It’s Gone” 3.“Not working” 4.“Gone” 5.“Sorry it’s finished; No warranty left, only 1 year” 6.“If you pay £80 we can try to fix, but not guaranteed, pay us £40 we will try!” 7.“You can buy a new phone, your contract finish in 5 days!” Later that evening she described the conclusion of the store visit: I replied “Warranty has expired… that’s it! We can't do anything!” We visited carphone warehouse (14/12/2013) which happens to be directly opposite the actual Phones4U shop in order to purchase a new phone; we proceeded with the 2 year contracted Samsung Note III. Before we walked out of the store with the new phone we kindly asked the repair individual if he could take a quick look at the Samsung SII, he said “yes no problem” and for no charge he tried to connect the phone, whilst downloading Samsung KIES to his PC he revealed “All Samsung’s have a two year manufacturer’s warranty, you should pop over their!” we were absolutely dismayed as we were told by Phone4U we have no warranty. We promptly walked across the road into Phones4u and explained the situation; they said “yes no problem”, “Take a seat” and immediately dialled tech support which resulted in an authorised warranty repair. We now have a new phone which we can’t return unless faulty; and an existing phone which will be repaired within a week; the original intention was to use the existing phone with a pay as you go sim card. We were intentionally misled by your staff which has resulted in an unwanted new Phone at an unnecessary two year cost of £800. Thank You ***** ******** They have offered a £25 good will gesture. Second email sent 17/12/2013 Forename: **** ***** Surname:****** Address:** ****** Avenue, **** **** Evening Mobile:******* Sim cardNo:************** IMEI No::************** REF::************** Retailer:209 High Street, Hounslow,TW3 1BL Sales Person:Bhavin I would also like to point my wife has highlighted other rather alarming comments mentioned by the advisor. Such as: 1) Its completely gone 2) Nothing anyone can do 3) You have no warranty left 4) Its a very bad problem 5) its finished She was also left without a phone whilst our son contracted a possible case of meningitis, she was not able to call an ambulance, unable to call me, and she was unable to coordinate the collection of out other son from school. Records available. Thank you. They again said thier is nothing they can do and still offered £20 Final email send 18/12/2013 I have no option but to contact trading standards + legal advice + online consumer protection forums. This is a very serious case of misconduct. Cost to us has been huge 1. Overlap line rental £30 2. Unnecessary mobile and contract £800 3. Taxi to take child to hospital £45, couldn't contact me. 4. Unwanted phone and mobile 5. Serious consequences for my sons due to the inability to communicate 6. All contacts deleted by your in store staff 7. Time taken to search for an alternative phone 8. Cost of accessories My wife would like to sue phones4u based on point 5. Please see: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008). Response, they have denied all responsibility andhave stated some phones have a 1 year warranty. There is nothing we can do…. Good bye! That’s it. Please could someone help me with my options, Thank you all.

Ok, I need to go to to London from Nottingham this Thurs/Fri. On East Midlands Trains website it says this: "Return tickets to London for £38 or less" http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/travelling-with-us/our-network/trains-to-london/ Ok, now I have been quoted from Nottm to London £17 one way, return journey I am getting stupid figures around £48-90 one way! The return tickets are coming in at over £120. The above prices are from 2 singles (even with their "best fare finder") - as you can see these figures are way out with their "£38 or less".... What is going on here? I drove to London twice before and back to Nottm on £40 worth of diesel. Moreover, I get my own personal space in the car, and dont have to stand around cramped at peak hours, or listen to some drunk rage at off peak times. I thought public transport was supposed to be cheap?

During one of my many boredom moments, I checked out the OFT CCA search on many payday lenders and whilst checking out QuickQuid, I came upon this site which is part of CashEuronet (the registered company of quickquid) http://thepaydaycomparison.co.uk/index.html? On closer inspection, of the 5 names 'compared' only 1 has nothing to do with Cash Euronet and that 1 had the most expensive APR. If my suspicions are correct, this is misleading advertising as isn't a comparison site supposed to offer a few more choices than their own?

ASA Adjudication on We Buy Any Car Ltd We Buy Any Car Ltd Pennine House Zebra Court White Moss View Middleton Manchester M24 1UN Ad A radio ad, for We Buy Any Car, a car buying service, included the claim "86% of people said they were well happy and got a really fair price with us". Issue A listener challenged whether the claim was misleading and could be substantiated. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.23.9 Response We Buy Any Car said they surveyed all customers who had sold vehicles to them and 86% of those who responded said they were happy with the price given. They said all customers were also sent an e-mail or SMS message. They asked how likely customers were to recommend We Buy Any Car to friends and family, on a scale of one to ten. We Buy Any Car said the average score of customers who thought the price they received was fair was 9.1, which meant those customers also recommended them. They believed it was logical that a customer who would recommend the company was happy. Based on that score, they were comfortable with the claim that 86% were happy and got a fair price. They submitted the results of the relevant survey questions and said they proposed to amend the ad to state "of people asked". The RACC said at script clearance stage they asked for the ad to make clear the satisfaction rating did not represent the whole customer base. The final version did not include that qualification, which they saw as an oversight. They said future ads with the claim had been qualified to stated "86% of people asked". Assessment Upheld The ASA acknowledged the ad had been amended to make clear the claim related only to those who had been surveyed. We noted that, while a small number of participants had skipped the question "How do you feel about the price that you got from webuyanycar.com for your car? Was it fair or unfair?" and we considered those participants should have been taken into account, the proportion of those asked who said the price was fair nevertheless amounted to 86%. However, we noted that the question included in the e-mail and SMS survey did not relate specifically to price and considered results that related to whether customers would recommend the company to friends and family on a general basis did not constitute sufficient evidence that 86% of customers were "well happy", or similar. We considered "well happy", in the context in which it appeared, was not likely to be understood as a separate claim related to the willingness of those customers' who believed they had received a fair price to recommend We Buy Any Car to others. Rather, we considered the overall impression of the ad, in particular given the references to people being "well happy" and having received a "really fair" price, was that customers of We Buy Any Car were very satisfied with the price they had received, whereas the relevant survey questions asked only whether the price was "fair" or "unfair" and whether customers would recommend the company to friends more generally. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading. The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Substantiation). Action The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told We Buy Any Car to ensure they were in a position to adequately substantiate objective claims before they made them in future.

When I received my phone call telling me they'd be sending me the ESA50 form a few months ago now, as I stated in the thread at the time, the guy on the phone from DWP told me that "I wouldn't get put into the Support Group because only 3% of people are put in Support, and they are the terminally ill." That of course I found to be rubbish once I came on this great site. He also told me that when the DLA is switched to PIP, there would remain 2 levels of mobility, but an increase to 12 levels of care, suggesting that if I were in the top level now, I may end up in about 7 or 8 once re-assessed. Yesterday I spoke to Welfare Rights who informed me that he was, once again talking complete ******** as there was actually a reduction from the 3 levels of DLA to only 2 for care with PIP. I'm seriously wondering if the DWP are deliberately misinforming people before they even get to the Atos stage in order to frighten them off claiming? It was certainly that phone call which made me so depressed I was ready to give in...thankfully I came here and I'm now in the Support group without even having attended a medical.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43907[/ATTACH] It was 11am on a Saturday at which time it is ok to park on single yellows. So I parked on a single yellow with my two front tires over the edge of a disabled parking bay. In the bay was another car (without a blue badge for what it's worth). I knew I had two wheels over the bay, but I'd checked the sign above the disabled bay and saw that it wasn't in effect. There were plenty of other clear single yellow lines around so I could have moved had it been. I returned to my car two hours later to find a PCN had been stuck on it for "parked in a designated disabled persons’ parking place without displaying a validdisabled person’s badge in the prescribed matter" . I want to appeal the fine on the basis that the contravention did not occur as per the sign the bay way not in effect. I know they will counter with the timings only applied to the 4 hour maximum bit, but my argument is that it just isn't clear (obviously otherwise I wouldn't have parked there!). Any advice / thoughts / my odds? Many thanks

I got a PCN from Westminster and I have already filed an informal appeal. There were 2 signs one above the other right beside where I parked (photo attached). One said "Disabled badge holders only. At any time". The one below said "Mon-Fri 8:30am - 6.30pm. Maximum stay 4 hours, no return within 1 hour". I figured that the top one applied to the bay in front, which was clearly marked disabled and the other applied to the bay in which I was parked (photo attached). It was raining really heavily that day so I couldn't get pictures but I used google maps streetview to get photos and used that for my informal appeal. In the rejection letter, they stated that I was in a residents' bay and there was a sign 12 metres behind my car. I remember reading somewhere that where one restriction meets another, there should be a sign 5metres from either end and there definitely was not. If this 5 metre rule is accurate, could somebody please point me in the direction of the official wording I can use to make a formal representation? Thanks!

We bought a tablet computer for our daughter at Christmas through Amazon. This item has now stopped working (not charging up). We asked Amazon to replace or mend the item but as we are outside their 14 day period, we were directed to the seller. The seller refuse to respond. Amazon refuse to get involved further as they claim they are not the retailer. However, we paid Amazon so surely they are under the Sale of Goods Act and are obliged to organise refund or repair. Can anyone help us here, please?

I bought a subscription to 'The Spectator' magazine as a christmas present, including their offer of a christmas gift of a half-bottle of champagne, pocket diary, and money-off voucher. This was clearly stated on their website before Christmas. However, on confirmation of the subscription, the gift of champagne and a diary (worth £30-40) have been replaced by the gift of a previously unrequested paperback book (worth about £10). It seems that they can do this because the 'gift' is subject to availability. Anyone else have any experience like this, and suggest what further action I can take? Are the promises made about gifts worth anything at all? Thanks in advance!

I recently ordered a collect and connect service for a dishwasher from Argos. It wasn't until the point of booking the driver, four weeks after taking my order did they say I need to disconnect and drain the pipes for the existing dishwasher... strikes me that if I can do that why do I need them to connect it .... They never mentioned the need to disconnect up until this point Shoddy service in my mind and a problem of disconnecting a dishwasher in the bargain for me now

Hi Can anyone give me some much needed advice... I have an unresolved car accident that happened 1 year ago- im with sheilas wheels...they have been saying over the last 6 months that after legal opinion they are supporting me being 100% non-fault and are going to pursue court action but out of the blue have written saying they are dropping it and want me to accept full liability! The accident - I was turing left at T junction onto main road. There was a heavy flow of traffic that i was wanting to join that was coming around a parked rubbish truck that was blocking my view. I edged forward bit by bit to get better view and was stationary, waiting for gap in traffic... the bin lorry has started moving -without joining traffic (or indicating) and run into my car. I was stationary at the time and it hit the back bumper of my car. Can anyone advise on what action or rights i have with regard to me disagreeing with Shelia's wheels dropping this case? I have been consistently disappointed by Sheila's wheels poor customer service, misinformation and never speak to the same person each time which is very frustrating. Any help would be appreciated.. Thanks