Received bill for Newspapers that I didn't request but received.

dzug1

The unsolicited goods act was intended to remedy 'inertia selling' whereby you were deliberately sent goods out of the blue and an attempt would be made to force you to pay for them.

It wasn't intended to apply to mistaken delivery which this arguably is. Whether it actually does apply through loose/broad wording - no idea.

Heliflyguy

babyblue2 wrote: »

I have no problem paying at all, I agree I received the goods and I kind of expected a bill at some point, but on the other hand if i'm paying bills that I don't really need to....

I am going to write to them (nicely) and see what happens. If they give up, fine, if not and they threaten court action (which at present they can't cos they haven't got my name), then i'll just be paying them.

Why go to to more trouble for you and the newsagent if you are happy to pay up, sounds like you have got a bargain already, you could have made more effort than 2 visits to sort this out yet you choose to continue to accept the newspapers.
Putting law (if applicable) and peoples rights aside why dont you do the honest thing and pay up.
Is this a money saving site or a money owed but how not to pay even though that would be immoral site.

diggerman123

i am surprised the paper boy hasnt knocked for his christmas tip for the last 2 years !

its sunday tomorrow , get up early , wait for paper boy and tell him to sod off and never darken your doorstep again. he / she should get the message.

oh , and pay for the papers you tight git

stevenhp1987

diggerman123 wrote: »

i am surprised the paper boy hasnt knocked for his christmas tip for the last 2 years !

its sunday tomorrow , get up early , wait for paper boy and tell him to sod off and never darken your doorstep again. he / she should get the message.

oh , and pay for the papers you tight git

Surely, £50 is not going to be the "final bill". Admitting "guilt" in this instance may result in the retailer demanding more funds.

£50 may not be a lot to you, but I know for me it is a lot and I'm sure it is for the OP too.

The op tried twice to stop the delivery of the newspapers, I think this is enough. Why should they go out of their way to stop the retailer from supplying them with products, when they have already attempted to do so... twice!!!

The retailer will not take the op to court over £50. I'd ignore it.

However, the op should have informed the paper boy/girl in the morning, I'm sure there was at least one occasion in the 2 years where the op was up at that time in the morning.

BLT_2

The OP tried to stop the papers twice in 2 years despite getting them delivered every Sunday?

I know who my sympathies are with

Heliflyguy

BLT wrote: »

The OP tried to stop the papers twice in 2 years despite getting them delivered every Sunday?

I know who my sympathies are with

Just the thought of all that effort has made me sleepy, what a joke.