Heinous hi-vis

[David Nutter]

While buying some additional non-cycling waterproofs[1] from
http://www.hivis.net I noticed they have a polo shirt complete with Class 2
reflective bits. Some may prefer such a garment to the hi-vis vests in the
forthcoming WarmRain.

Postage is quite expensive though (6.45 for my order of full jacket +
trousers and prices exclude VAT).

Regards,

[1] I do a fair bit of volunteer conservation work, which involves ratting
around in thorny undergrowth. To avoid ruining my decent waterproofs, I've
bought a full set of contractor's waterproofs which are at least cheap and
durable, albeit visible from orbit.

 

[Tilly]

On 11 May 2005 20:56:56 GMT, David Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:

>While buying some additional non-cycling waterproofs[1] from
>http://www.hivis.net I noticed they have a polo shirt complete with Class 2
>reflective bits. Some may prefer such a garment to the hi-vis vests in the
>forthcoming WarmRain.
>
>Postage is quite expensive though (6.45 for my order of full jacket +
>trousers and prices exclude VAT).
>
>Regards,
>
>[1] I do a fair bit of volunteer conservation work, which involves ratting
>around in thorny undergrowth. To avoid ruining my decent waterproofs, I've
>bought a full set of contractor's waterproofs which are at least cheap and
>durable, albeit visible from orbit.

I've bought 24 children's tabards from them. I'm in dispute over the
VAT. Children's clothing should be zero rated, and they charge VAT.

The tabards are excellent - good value at £3.49 even with the VAT
added on they are only £4.10.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Tilly wrote:
> I've bought 24 children's tabards from them. I'm in dispute over the
> VAT. Children's clothing should be zero rated, and they charge VAT.

That sounds like an interesting dispute. Could you keep us updated?

cheers
~PB

 

[Not Responding]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Tilly wrote:
>
>>I've bought 24 children's tabards from them. I'm in dispute over the
>>VAT. Children's clothing should be zero rated, and they charge VAT.
>
>
> That sounds like an interesting dispute. Could you keep us updated?
>
> cheers
> ~PB
>

Interesting? Sorry? A dispute over VAT? Over £6.10?

 

[Tilly]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:36:32 +0100, Not Responding
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Tilly wrote:
>>
>>>I've bought 24 children's tabards from them. I'm in dispute over the
>>>VAT. Children's clothing should be zero rated, and they charge VAT.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like an interesting dispute. Could you keep us updated?
>>
>> cheers
>> ~PB
>>
>
>Interesting? Sorry? A dispute over VAT? Over £6.10?
>
>

Some of us find *principled* disputes interesting - and will even
raise complaints over a penny if it interests us sufficiently. ;-)

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 12 May, Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some of us find *principled* disputes interesting - and will even
> raise complaints over a penny if it interests us sufficiently. ;-)

On which topic, I've just received my refund cheque (just under 7
pounds) from teh idiot ******* moron pillocks at Demon.

Still no apology for threatening me with a third party credit
collection agency and damage to my creditrating when actually they had
taken more money from me than they were entitled to, not less.
However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance are
currently providing rather more entertainment - they told me their
verbal statements superseded their written ones).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[dkahn400]

Ian Smith wrote:

> However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance
> are currently providing rather more entertainment - they told
> me their verbal statements superseded their written ones).

Did you ask them to put that in writing?

--
Dave...

 

[Ian Smith]

On 12 May 2005 09:02:12 -0700, dkahn400 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance
> > are currently providing rather more entertainment - they told
> > me their verbal statements superseded their written ones).
>
> Did you ask them to put that in writing?

No, I asked them to read out the entire policy to me, so I knew what I
was still insured for, and all teh restrictions. The woman on teh
phone audibly goggled, and transferred me to a supervisor.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[the.Mark]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 09:02:12 -0700, dkahn400 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance
>>> are currently providing rather more entertainment - they told
>>> me their verbal statements superseded their written ones).
>>
>> Did you ask them to put that in writing?
>
> No, I asked them to read out the entire policy to me, so I
> knew what I was still insured for, and all teh restrictions.
> The woman on teh phone audibly goggled, and transferred me to
> a supervisor.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

That's a good one. At my work we have a saying "If it's not written down
it's a lie"
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

 

[Keith Midgley]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:49 +0000 (UTC), "the.Mark"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote:
>> On 12 May 2005 09:02:12 -0700, dkahn400 <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance
>>>> are currently providing rather more entertainment - they told
>>>> me their verbal statements superseded their written ones).
>>>
>>> Did you ask them to put that in writing?
>>
>> No, I asked them to read out the entire policy to me, so I
>> knew what I was still insured for, and all teh restrictions.
>> The woman on teh phone audibly goggled, and transferred me to
>> a supervisor.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
>That's a good one. At my work we have a saying "If it's not written down
>it's a lie"

The late great Sam Goldwyn is ALLEGED to have stated
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on"

K.

 

[Julesh]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May, Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some of us find *principled* disputes interesting - and will even
>> raise complaints over a penny if it interests us sufficiently. ;-)
>
>
> On which topic, I've just received my refund cheque (just under 7
> pounds) from teh idiot ******* moron pillocks at Demon.
>
> Still no apology for threatening me with a third party credit
> collection agency and damage to my creditrating when actually they had
> taken more money from me than they were entitled to, not less.
> However, I'm losing interest now (and Direct Line Insurance are
> currently providing rather more entertainment - they told me their
> verbal statements superseded their written ones).
>
> regards, Ian SMith

OOH - Don't get me started on Demon Internet. That's the company that
didn't take the monthly charges they were authorised to from my credit
card for four years for an dialup account I WAS using while
simultaneously charging the same credit card an identical sum for
another dialup account they were told to close in 1999. As they don't
identify what they are charging for in the credit card transactions or
send you a yearly statement of account none of this showed up until
after the great Demon email disaster (2 weeks - no mail) when the need
for an ISP that could actually deliver email overrode the loyalty I had
showed to Demon for 8 years.

Demon then asked for the "unpaid" fees and also discovered that they had
also "forgotten" to charge me for an ADSL line in 2001. I paid the
latter - as I'd actually used it but refused the pay the former as I'd
never been asked to pay for it and had paid an identical sum for
something I didn't want and hadn't used. To resolve this minor problem
Demon then generated a pile of paper invoices (one for each month
unpaid) sent each of them to me by first class post with each in a
separate A4 envelope and then sent duplicates of the lot as "late
payment reminders" a few days later. As I wasn't paying I was passed
to, and got a letter from, a bunch called First Credit Ltd. I have
explained to both them and Demon in very simple terms the reasons why I
don't believe I owe any money, send another copy of the same letter each
time another computer-generated demand for money arrives from one or
other of them and am still waiting to be summonsed to appear in the
County Court, where I will be delighted to discuss this matter with
them

Julesh

 

[Nick Kew]

Julesh wrote:

> As I wasn't paying I was passed
> to, and got a letter from, a bunch called First Credit Ltd.

Ooh, you too. I got a letter from them re demon 18 months ago.
Haven't heard anything more since replying to it, pointing out
the obvious and Cc: Trading Standards. I guess they get used
to that from demon ex-customers.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Tilly]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:43:00 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<pwrinkledgrape{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>> I've bought 24 children's tabards from them. I'm in dispute over the
>> VAT. Children's clothing should be zero rated, and they charge VAT.
>
>That sounds like an interesting dispute. Could you keep us updated?

I checked with today with admin. The company had made an error in
charging VAT and re-issued the invoice. I've put in an order for a
further 20 children's tabards.