Humans are usually powerless against the onslaught of nuisance phone calls from their banks, but one woman has beaten them off with a stick and has been awarded £7500 in a landmark High Court ruling against the Halifax/Bank of Scotland.
Harrassed restaurant worker Amanda Roberts took the bank to task after receiving a staggering 547 phone calls in one year when she fell behind with repayments for a £7300 loan. Despite being off work with stress and telling them that she was already discussing the problem with her local branch, their call centre monkeys phoned from 8am to 9pm – and when they started calling her elderly parents instead, she decided to take legal action.
‘They wouldn’t stop ringing and when I asked for a supervisor they hung up on me. I was absolutely devastated and paralysed, I was angry, shaking and tearful. I couldn’t eat or sleep because of the calls.’ she gibbered.
Five years of bullshit later, the payout won’t even begin to cover Amanda’s £10,000 legal bills, but the Court of Appeal ruling is a very satisfying slap on the wrist for HBOS. The volume of calls was described as ‘intimidatory bullying’ and while Amanda probably won’t see a penny of her damages, it’s one in the eye for the big tossers.
HBOS mumbled: “We are confident that our policies and procedures have been updated, addressing the concerns raised.”
Now all stressed out Amanda needs is a few extra quid for therapy and a long soak in a spa for ooh, about five more years. Maybe HBOS could help her out with another loan?
You see the delivery van pull up and start punching the air because you are within seconds of getting your hands on the bargain of the century. Over at HUKD, HP sold some expensive graphics card valued at £585 for just £12. Before you say it, we know it sounds too good to be true but the course of events that followed led many to believe that they had bagged one of these heavily discounted bits of kit.
HP accepted the orders, processed them from the warehouse, took payment and then shipped these with DPD and confirmed this to their customers. However, quite a few over at HUKD are now saying that once DPD had arrived and scanned the item prior handing it over, HP had placed an alert to state that the item must NOT be delivered and instead retained by DPD before being returned to HP.
When considering your legal position in this situation you must review the Terms of Sale by HP. Commonly, a retailer will state that the contract is not formed when payment is taken but instead when they confirm that the item has been despatched. So, that was exactly what we expected to see when reviewing the Terms on the HP website but instead we found their likely get out clause:
“HP reserves the right to cancel any accepted order prior to delivery, at HP’s discretion (whether or not payment was made), and this in case of any material errors in connection with your order”
So, it seems that they probably CAN recall the product right up to the moment that their delivery company rocks up to shatter your dreams. However, within your Order Confirmation they also state:
”Correct prices and promotions are validated at the time your order is placed”
“We will send you an email with estimated delivery date once your order has been accepted”
By confirming that the item has been despatched they have accepted your order which is an integral part of the formation of a contract. They are also stating that prices are validated by them when your order is placed. We have the offer, the acceptance and they have your money (consideration). So, we have a contract, don’t we?
Quite clearly some confusion not just on our part but also from HP. We are currently waiting on a response from them to clarify their position.
A BBC investigation has learned that that almost 350,000 parking fines (totalling £23m) might have been issued unlawfully to London motorists. The investigation will be screen on Inside Out, on BBC1 London at 7.30pm on Monday, and will be viewable on iPlayer afterwards.
It all hinges on a ticket that was issued in a suspended parking bay in Camden, where the council didn’t have authorization for the signage. The sleuths at the Beeb have learned that 14 councils still have no authorisation for the signage. Which is a bit embarrassing.
In a stunning piece of loopholery, it seems that the Department for Transport (DfT) designs road signs for most situations, which authorities must use, but it has never produced a suspended parking bay sign. If no sign is set out by the DfT, the law says councils must ask the transport secretary to authorise their own creations.
The aforementioned 14 councils have no authorisation for their own versions of the signs while others didn’t get authorisation for years.
The councils with no DfT authorisation for their signs are: Greenwich, Southwark, Westminster, Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Hillingdon, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton, Redbridge, Sutton and Waltham Forest.
The following councils received authorisation in 2010 or after: Camden, Islington, Hackney, Lambeth, Harrow, Wandsworth, Havering, Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Newham, Hounslow, Lewisham and Haringey.
Essentially, if you’ve received a ticket relating to a suspended parking bay from one of those councils, you could have a strong case for challenging it. Find out more on Inside Out or by consulting the forums at PePiPoo.
If you’ve got a (currently useless) HMV gift card and are in the vicinity of Kingston-upon-Thames, you can use it to get 50% off a purchase in local indie Banquet Records – no matter how small the amount is that is pre-loaded on to your card.
A statement on the Banquet site says:
We’re very aware and sad that people are looking at losing their jobs, and we’re concerned about the effect HMV’s possible closure may have on physcial releases in general. However, one gripe many have is the current situation where gift cards are now no longer valid at HMVs. Whatever happened, its certainly no fault of the person who got someone a Christmas gift, and its unfair on someone to not be able to use their credit.
We wanted to find a way to make these gift tokens valid at our store. So this is the idea we could come up with. We’ll offer anyone with a valid HMV gift card 50% off in our store up to and including Sunday 20th January.
We want people to come and experience our record shop. To see it’s not all doom and gloom for music retail nor for the high street in general. To come and re-embrace physical releases and the experience of buying them. Pop into our store at 52 Eden St, Kingston and we look forward to welcoming you.
A nice gesture and one that’s well worth taking up if you’re in the vicinity and have an HMV gift card burning a hole in your pocket. There’s a few T&Cs as well, so check out the Banquet website before you start spending.
Now that all that yuletide kerfuffle is over, you might be thinking about getting rid of some of the crap you received in the spirit of goodwill. We gave you a quick rundown of your consumer rights of return last month, but what happens if your gift is faulty.
New figures released by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) show that, between April and November the consumer service in England and Wales dealt with over 400,000 complaints year about products and services worth a total of £3 billion. Over half of these cases concerned faulty goods and sub-standard services with an average cost of over £2,800.
This suggests that there are a lot of retailers out there selling a lot of crap. However, bearing in mind your consumer rights that a product must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, surely these people in possession of rubbish goods or services can just go back to the retailer for a refund, right?
In theory, yes, under consumer law retailers must give you either a refund, part refund, repair or replacement for faulty products. However in a CAB survey, 9 out of 10 people were not fully successful when they had complained, attempted to get a refund or get the problem put right.
The top ten most complained about faulty goods were:
Second hand cars bought from an independent dealer (you don’t say)
Mobile phone handsets
Lap-tops, notebooks and tablet PCs
Used cars bought from a franchise dealer
Beds and mattresses
Fridges and freezers
Citizens Advice Chief Executive Gillian Guy said:
“Many people will be disappointed by broken gifts this Christmas. But it’s even more frustrating and expensive when you can’t get your money back. By law retailers must offer refunds, repairs or replacements for faulty products but all too often this is not happening. Household budgets are tight meaning many people don’t have the money to buy a new item if its broken and the seller has refused to sort it out.”
She continued: “Stronger, clearer consumer rights will help protect squeezed spenders from expensive purchases that go wrong, and will give businesses a boost as shoppers feel more confident parting with their hard-earned cash.”
CAB are now campaigning for better and more transparent consumer laws to:
A clear 30 day time-limit for retailers to give refunds so consumers know where they stand.
An option for class action, which would allow groups of consumers to take businesses to court. This would give customers greater confidence, and would make it more worthwhile to take up smaller claims.
Clear information to be displayed when goods are bought. Some businesses try to apply their own returns policy to faulty goods when consumers should be protected under the law.
Greater powers for the Trading Standards services to get customers compensation without having to take businesses through the courts.
All good stuff. And if it all ties in with the Government consultation on the same subject, which closed on 31 December, 2013 could be a shining new horizon for consumer rights. Maybe.
As ever, don’t forget your ’Section 75’ rights, which mean that if you buy goods costing more than £100 on a credit card, the credit card company has the same responsibilities as the trader, so you can get your compensation from them directly should anything go wrong. Your quibble is always with the seller, not the manufacturer (unless you bought direct from the manufacturer).
WHOOPS! Looks like E.On have either been using a malfunctioning calculator or have been putting the decimal point in the wrong place. That’s because it turns out that they’ve overcharged 94,000 customers and now have to pay them back £1.4m, with another £300,000 going in the coffers of charity Age UK.
E.On cocked up by overcharging on exit fees, making an error during a 30-day window that allows customers to switch supplier before a price rise. The rules state that customers who are on fixed-rate deals shouldn’t have to pay an exit fee if they switch, but E.On seemingly got a bit muddled about that.
Also, losing 94,000 customers to a rival must sting a bit, eh? Although, to be fair, it does cover a three year period from 2008 to 2011. If you were overcharged, you should receive a rebate from E.On by the end of January and you do not need to contact the company yourself. So watch out for that post-Christmas windfall (£14.83) flopping on to your doormat.
David Bird of E.On chirped: ‘We are very sorry to have let down some of our former customers and have made clear that we will refund the money plus interest. Our systems are being updated. We have been open in our failure with the energy regulator, Ofgem, and are pleased to have agreed with them how we can put this right and have identified all customers who are due to receive payment from us in January.’
Nice one Bird. Now go and ‘update’ those ‘systems’.
Imagine if someone came round to your house, stormed in, took all of your books off your shelves and set fire to them in front of your very eyes. You’d think you were living in some kind of dictatorship, right?
According to a blog (yes, sigh, we know) that’s kind of what has happened to avid reader Linn (no surname), except in a digital sense as opposed to a physical one.
The other day, as if by crap magic, Amazon closed her account and wiped her Kindle. All the e-books that she’d bought from them in the past – gone. Linn was concerned by this and emailed Amazon, asking them what the flipping heck was going in. Starting with their initial reply, here is the frustrating game of email tennis that ensued…
Dear Linn [last name],
My name is Michael Murphy and I represent Executive Customer Relations within Amazon.co.uk. One of our mandates is to address the most acute account and order problems, and in this capacity your account and orders have been brought to my attention.
We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.
Per our Conditions of Use which state in part: Amazon.co.uk and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders at their sole discretion.
Please know that any attempt to open a new account will meet with the same action.
You may direct any questions to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Executive Customer Relations
Dear Michael Murphy,
I am very surprised to read your email. What do you mean by “directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies”. I can only remember ever having this one account, and I use it quite regularly to buy books for my Kindle, as you probably can see by my purchase history. How can there suddenly be a problem now? I use amazon.com and not co.uk for my Kindle, does that make any difference?
I sincerely hope you can help me solve this matter, because I would very much like to have my account reopened. And please let me know if there is any action I can take to help.
Linn [last name]
[Linn's phone number]
Dear Linn [last name],
As previously advised, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed, as it has come to our attention that this account is related to a previously blocked account. While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened.
Please understand that the closure of an account is a permanent action. Any subsequent accounts that are opened will be closed as well. Thank you for your understanding with our decision.
I appreciate this is not the outcome you hoped for and apologise for any disappointment this may cause.
Executive Customer Relations
Dear Michael Murphy,
Is it correct that you cannot give me any information about
1. How my account is linked to the blocked account
2. The name/id of the related blocked account
3. What policy that was violated
I have no knowledge about any other account that could be related to mine, and cannot understand how I could have violated your policies in any way.
Linn [last name]
Dear Linn [last name],
We regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
We wish you luck in locating a retailer better able to meet your needs and will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Executive Customer Relations
Linn is now massively confused and is unaware of violating any of Amazon’s terms. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t. Either way, she’s been stonewalled by them and is completely baffled as to what has happened.
Oh, and all of her e-books have vanished. NOW WHAT?
If you’re a Toyota driver, you need to sit up and pay attention RIGHT NOW. If you’re having this read to you as you drive your Toyota, you need to pull over RIGHT NOW – you could be behind the wheel of a DEATH TRAP.
Toyota are recalling a whopping 7.4 million of their cars, and it’s all because of a faulty electric window switch. 138,000 of the cars are in the UK – could YOU be sitting behind the wheel of one of them?
The Japanese car giants have revealed that more than a dozen models produced between 2005 and 2010 were affected by a faulty power-window switch. Grease had not been applied evenly during production, causing a fire risk.
In the UK, certain RAV4, Auris, Yaris and Corolla models built between September 2006 and December 2008 are said to be affected and owners will be contacted by Toyota in the next six weeks. Don’t panic though, as no crashes or injuries have been reported in connection with the problem.
Bad news: the rules have changed regarding the issuing of parking tickets on private land, meaning that unpaid charges can be claimed from the keeper of the vehicle in addition to the driver at the time of the ‘offence’.
Additionally, there will be a new independent appeals service, which will be funded by the British Parking Association (BPA) – but where THEY get their money from is anyone’s guess.
The idea of the new appeal scheme is to allow motorists to be protected against rogue wheel-clampers and car-towers. It will allow them to appeal against fines issued by companies belonging to the BPA. Having said that, it occurs to us that the aforementioned rogue wheel-clampers and car-towers won’t sign up for BPA membership and will carry on as before, operating on the wrong side of the law. We could be completely wrong of course – it’s happened before.
Local Transport Minister Norman Baker said: “These new parking arrangements deliver a fairer legal framework for motorists and landowners, while getting rid of the indiscriminate clamping and towing by private companies for good.”
It was only late last year that Comet had some advertisements banned by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) for misleading customers over alleged discounts and in particular listing retail prices which were not genuine.
So, less than a year on, what have Comet learnt? Well, nothing, it would seem. Just under a week ago they listed the Asus Nexus 7 on their site at the price of £199.99 which appears to be the current price for this new release. However, this item on the Comet website was listed as being part of their “Price Crash” promotion and it also informed potential customers that this product was previously on sale for £449.99 between 24/02/2012 and 16/05/2012. Paying particular attention here to the fact that the item was released in mid-July and £449.99 is almost double what many retailers are charging for this product.
Contact was made with Comet to ask why was there such a misleading price reduction and errors in their information. Their reply was simply:
Thank you for your e-mail, having checked the link you have provided I can confirm that we are selling this item at present for £199.99. I’m sorry if you have found the price and our site not to your satisfaction.
Customer Care Advisor
So it seems that they didn’t feel the need to respond to the points raised in the email but they did find the time to remove the misleading information from the product page.
By not responding with an apology and blaming it on an “admin error” (as many retailers do with price glitches and data entry mistakes) makes me wonder whether it is time for the ASA to take another look at their advertising activity.
The liquidators of the company, which collapsed in 2006 with 114,000 creditors, most of whom were savers, have said that those unlucky savers will be getting 32p for every pound that they had pumped into Farepak.
There will also be an £8m ex-gratia payment to customers and agents courtesy of Lloyds Banking Group, which will be sent out in August. That will take the final payout to 50p in the pound.
Suzy Hall, the national campaign co-ordinator of victim group Unfairpak, is happy with the final payout, saying: “This is a much better outcome than we expected – to get 50p overall when we started with nothing in the pot, and then [were offered] just 4p for every £1. I’m extremely happy.”
If you think you might be a Farepak creditor but haven’t yet registered, you’ve still got 21 days to come forward, and you can find out more at Unfairpak’s site…