Well, Digital Direct have in fact refunded me the original cost of the blu-ray player and the £35 court fees.
They then filed the paperwork with the court, and it is almost a shame we did not go to court as they clearly have no clue what they are doing.
For a start, they marked all three boxes: "I intend to defend the claim", and "I intend to defend part of the claim", and "I intend to contest the jurisdiction" !!!
They then admitted the £35, not the whole claim, and put the date they paid that amount. Odd they did not admit the whole claim and say they paid the whole amount.
They then have a rant themselves in the defence saying I cancelled on the 24th Dec and they refunded on 25th Jan, but going on to say they refund within 30 days. They totally miss the point that they are required to refund "as soon as possible". Even I know that 24th Dec to 25th Jan is 32 days not 30, so they contradict themselves. They go on to say that the email on 24th Dec was not read by them until the 28th which is in fact a lie. I have a reply from them on the 24th Dec replying to my cancellation and quoting it as well.
Basically they claim they do not owe the £35 but have "relucatantly" agreed to pay it to avoid the costs of going to court to argue.
Anyway, case closed. My letter to the court, copied to them, stating I do not wish to proceed does have an explanation of the contradition and the lie on there defence "for the record", though.
Warehouse 22? Picking a CCTV management system CCTV has moved on a lot these days, and there are a lot of cameras now. Some use proprietary ...
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...