Getting My Money Back. HELP!

pinkshoes

sce wrote: »

It's meant to be a punishment for withholding payment of an established debt. The Act primarily exists to encourage payments on time rather than provide a remedy to an injured party.

That's fair enough, but in this case they weren't withholding payment deliberately, as the mistake was made by the OP when he paid twice, then didn't notice.

sce

pinkshoes wrote: »

That's fair enough, but in this case they weren't withholding payment deliberately, as the mistake was made by the OP when he paid twice, then didn't notice.

That's a fair point pinkshoes and it's similar to the concept of contributary negligence in common law claims whereby if your own actions somehow contributed to your loss, the amount you recover is reduced accordingly.

However, there is no such concept in the Act and the only way to avoid its provisions is either that both parties agree an alternative interest amount or by way of a contractual term that provides a "substantial" remedy.

It appears to be irrelevent whether the money was withheld deliberatly or not; otherwise it may be possible to avoid the provisions of the Act simply by pleading that you had not deliberatly not paid.

Tozer

sce wrote: »

That's a fair point pinkshoes and it's similar to the concept of contributary negligence in common law claims whereby if your own actions somehow contributed to your loss, the amount you recover is reduced accordingly.

However, there is no such concept in the Act and the only way to avoid its provisions is either that both parties agree an alternative interest amount or by way of a contractual term that provides a "substantial" remedy.

It appears to be irrelevent whether the money was withheld deliberatly or not; otherwise it may be possible to avoid the provisions of the Act simply by pleading that you had not deliberatly not paid.

The Act does not apply.

1. The Act applies to purchasing contracts - for goods or services. It does not apply in this circumstance which arises out of a repayment. It is invoked by suppliers not purchasers.

2. The OP would not be a business for the purposes of the Act. Come on, we are talking about a personal cheque in Homebase!!!!

sce

Tozer wrote: »

The Act does not apply.

1. The Act applies to purchasing contracts - for goods or services. It does not apply in this circumstance which arises out of a repayment. It is invoked by suppliers not purchasers.

2. The OP would not be a business for the purposes of the Act. Come on, we are talking about a personal cheque in Homebase!!!!

There is nothing in the OP posts to indicate it was a personal cheque, in fact he/she confirms it was in the course of his business.

Tozer

sce wrote: »

There is nothing in the OP posts to indicate it was a personal cheque, in fact he/she confirms it was in the course of his business.

No - and absolutely nothing to suggest a business cheque either.

2 renovations is not a course of dealings...

Besides, you miss the other (fatal) aspects as to why the Act does not apply.

BillTrac

Yep, really ironic that in 2005 the OP doesnt notice he has paid twice for a 3k purchase( good business head there then!) but when he does notice in 2009 he wants compen-bloody-sation!!

Move on nothing worth seeing here really is ther?

kazzah

also PLEASE remember it is considered fraud to issue a cheque which is NOT postdated when you KNOW there are insufficient funds to cover the cheque.
With large retail companies it is impossible NOT to bank the cheque the day it is written - to "hold back" the cheque would have resulted in a shortfall in the till of £3,000
which the till operators would have to account for