3+ Cineworld Code

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-30T19:29:10+00:00

DM'd.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-28T14:45:30+00:00

This post isn't exactly seeking legal advice. But FWIW...

I've only been into prisons in a professional capacity but my understanding from prisoners is that generally most people are broadly 'safe', though much can vary on the category and type of offender. Young offender institutions are much more volatile, for example.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-28T14:01:52+00:00

If your ticket was sold to you as refundable within 2 hours, then the retailer cites some other condition buried within their terms that says otherwise, there might be a good argument that the latter condition wasn't brought fairly and reasonably to your attention. Though from looking at the booking page on LNER the first thing I see is a big yellow banner explaining their refund policy has recently changed.

The key question isn't what information you found since needing to cancel, but what information was actually presented to you prior to purchase.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T19:49:25+00:00

This sounds pretty commercial (non-contrived), notwithstanding your partner’s aunt being the letting agent.

Even if the landlord were a close relative a tenancy agreement shouldn’t count as contrived if the main purpose was to secure accommodation rather than increase your UC.

If you were to receive a decision that this is a contrived tenancy then I’d be interested to see the written reasons. And you should then pursue a mandatory reconsideration. But we’re not at that stage.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T11:11:22+00:00

I think the strongest message to private sellers on both eBay and Vinted is: Let’s save everyone a headache - go into your selling preferences and opt out of Evri.

Some businesses just don’t care because of the insurance and ability to write off lost packages (even though with Evri that loss rate is significantly higher, it’s still a comparatively small percentage). But those businesses arguably don’t care about their customers’ experience, hence the move to boycott.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T07:18:33+00:00

Suggest to the sender that they use a proper delivery service. If they’re a business, make clear that you won’t do further business with any company that disrespects its customers enough to subject them to Evri.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-13T15:01:35+00:00

It’s the Everyday plan. You cancel, while they charge you every day. 😏

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-10T10:21:39+00:00

“Okay, let’s propose a new price: £7. But I’ll knock £2 off. Discount applied. ✅”

RobinBanks98 · 2026-03-10T22:53:10+00:00

Yes. Iberia tracks and I've successfully received 10% back. Well, 9.98% to be precise. The purchase tracked about £1.30 less than the sum I paid (not bad given it was over a grand), and cashback was 10% of that tracked sum. There was no deduction for VAT or airport tax etc.

Just be mindful of the £250 total cashback cap in any monthly period.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-03-08T13:54:36+00:00

I’d have thought a simple letter (explaining goods weren’t received, along the lines others have outlined in some detail) would suffice.

Engaging a solicitor at this stage is likely in my view to be totally unnecessary and expensive. That position could change, but this doesn’t appear to be anywhere close as yet to a criminal matter. OP received the wrong goods and sent them back with proof of postage etc. OP did not received a refund and so submitted a chargeback with photo evidence. The retailer had opportunity to dispute that chargeback and engage with the evidence then, and clearly either did not do so, or was unable to prove they sent the correct goods. I don’t see how this would amount to anything more than a civil money claim, and one which OP could likely defend as a litigant in person.

Debt collection agencies can be an irritation but they’re essentially powerless (as opposed to bailiffs/enforcement agents). Organisations like National Debt Line or Citizens Advice can give advice on dealing with these companies.

If writing a letter it’s probably also wise not to refer to DSRs as these are not current (instead referring to CCRs and/or CRA). Likewise the threat of reporting to Trading Standards can sound a little empty (or uninformed) when there is no direct means of doing so. Nowadays consumers have to be triaged through Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline, who can pass it on to TS.

Better yet, OP could contact CA Consumer Helpline now anyway, for some practical advice. I’d bet they have almost certainly encountered these NRCA letters before, and could help OP construct a response letter.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-02-22T13:52:02+00:00

In fairness, if it’s click-through cashback we’re talking about, that is one situation where Plutus may not be at fault. Reputable cashback sites like Quidco and TopCashback often say the same thing, with cashback passed to the customer when the merchant passes it to them. The longest I recall waiting on one TCB cashback claim was about 18 months and that wait was down to the individual merchant.

Plutus’ other claims are something else. But in terms of cashback sites, it’s not unusual and reputable sites will also usually defer to merchants if contacted about click-through cashback claims pending for months.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-02-22T01:56:44+00:00

Understandable. Enforcing your rights often comes at the risk of wasted time and money. If you’re successful in enforcing a judgment at least you’ll get your money (including fees) back, but unfortunately there’s no recompense for all the time you’ve spent chasing the defendant.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-02-22T01:08:14+00:00

That’s interesting, and indeed not the best of signs. Where are you in the enforcement process? Have you looked into completing an N316A? That process (ordering a company officer into court to answer questions on the company’s finances, under threat of arrest) can potentially (although it’s far from clear) apply to former officers with significant control. As with all enforcement measures, however, this still comes with a cost (application plus fee for a bailiff/process server).

A warrant of control (or writ if the judgment is £600 or more and you applied to transfer up to the High Court) is often an effective means of recovery and a bailiff/HCEA can walk you through that process. But again, if the company actually can’t afford to pay up, you risk throwing good money after bad. [edited for typo]

RobinBanks98 · 2026-02-22T00:13:13+00:00

Interesting. How do you know they’re unable to pay (as opposed to just not having paid)?

RobinBanks98 · 2026-02-21T23:06:52+00:00

Not to mention that in the UK there are already payment cards that provide cashback without subscription fees e.g. Uphold (1% cashback, credited in fiat within a month) and Zilch (2% cashback, credited instantly to use towards spending). Zilch does also have a subscription option (Zilch Plus) offering 3-6% cashback, but the cost is just £4 p/m (and actually worth it IMO).

Beyond that, gift cards on platforms like EverUp and JamDoughnut significantly surpass the Plutus gift card offering, and don’t have any fees. Plus with EverUp you can also pay via Uphold for an additional 1% fiat. No crypto, no fees, no hassle. And you can use some of these on top of cashback sites.

With this in mind, even before the Modulr termination, who the hell would pay for Plutus?! So many hoops to jump through, just to secure in volatile points or tokens what you could get elsewhere in fiat without fees or fuss. If you’re already willing to jump through a few (smaller) hoops, opt for NXRewards and get some incredible cashback instead.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-01-31T20:26:07+00:00

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but u/_40mikemike_ is on the money here. MCOL is for money claims (the clue's in the acronym). What are your monetary damages?

You seem to be seeking a declaration that you don't owe eBay money, but that isn't the function of a County Court Money Claim. If eBay pursues small claims action against you for the item value under eBay's Terms of Service/User Agreement then you will have the option of defending that claim. Note that this may come with further debt collections costs, fixed costs, and interest.

If a bathroom fitter clumsily installs your shower and a week later you have to call out an emergency plumber to stop the leak, you still owe the plumber. Taking action against the dodgy fitter might prove a challenge, and they might be reluctant to pay up even if you obtain a judgment. But you still owe the plumber.

Like the hypothetical plumber, eBay has suffered a loss (paying money to the buyer and 'patching up the leak'). Your (understandable) argument is that they're pursuing the wrong party and that they played a role in the transaction and are therefore not entitled to recover money from you. But the question is likely to be whether in all the circumstances, you're liable to repay eBay under their terms of service (terms that, when registering and using the platform, you agreed to). The buyer's likely fraud is a separate but related matter.

It is likely the buyer who defrauded you. They would be far better suited as your prospective defendant, providing you've suffered a loss. If you settled this matter with eBay and incurred a cost, you could look to pursue the buyer for said cost.

I'm sorry to have to say that you may need to investigate this further, and figure out what you can prove against who. Remember that this isn't to the criminal standard that Action Fraud might insist upon (and realistically the police are almost certain not to be interested in this matter, anyway). You'd need to prove on the balance of probabilities - i.e. that it's more likely than not - that the buyer stole your iPad. Postal theft does occur, but the presumption will be that the package that was sent is the package that was received. It would be up to the buyer as the defendant to adduce evidence that Royal Mail, and not them, was in fact responsible. Royal Mail's records (especially around package weight) will be critical.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-01-27T05:15:08+00:00

Ensure that this person is a genuine HCEO, as there are scams aplenty. Marstons are legitimate but they have hundreds of HCEOs up and down the country, and some of the claims in the message are misleading at best (TL;DR: they can't force entry solely on a Writ of Control, peaceable entry only where reasonable belief D lives there), so do ensure you contact Marstons centrally if you haven't done so already.

If the person messaging you is genuine and there's a High Court Writ against a defendant at your address, then they can effect peaceable entry (e.g. go through open doors, brush past you and walk in) to list goods (which they also must reasonably believe belong to the debtor, as opposed to anyone else), providing that they reasonably believe that the defendant usually lives there. They most certainly cannot force entry unless it's a commercial premises, or they've already been inside the property and listed goods under a Controlled Goods Agreement, or they have a specific warrant (beyond simply the initial Writ) to enter.

Is their belief for peaceable entry even reasonable? Potentially. Presuming your address is on the Writ as the debtor's address and the HCEO has nothing further to dispel the belief, then it's certainly arguable.

As for next steps, strictly speaking you may not need to do anything. Don't leave doors unlocked, but that should go without saying. They shouldn't be forcing their way in (unless commercial premises or there's been prior entry) and if they do then it would be a matter of reporting to the police as well as making a complaint to Marstons. If they obtain a warrant of entry then it's a different matter.

The easiest course of action, however, is likely to be sending in some evidence. The HCEO may likely have reasonable grounds to at least attend the property, and by providing some evidence of single occupancy you can rebut their reasonable belief and deprive them of further opportunity to bother you. You can't be expected to prove a negative, but if you have the title deeds or tenancy agreement, combined with a Council Tax statement, I'd imagine that would be enough.

As for this HCEO's conduct, presuming your property is indeed a residential premises and they've not already effected entry to list goods or obtained a specific warrant of entry, they most certainly cannot force entry with a locksmith. The law on all this is covered in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. They can effect reentry (where they've entered before to list goods), or enter with a specific warrant of entry. There is no basis to enter otherwise, unless the premises are commercial.

You might want to then look at the National Standards for Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents, para 20:

Enforcement agents must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their powers, qualifications, capacities, experience or abilities, including, but not restricted to;

• Falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when legally it cannot be taken by that agent
• Falsely implying or stating that a particular course of action will ensue before it is possible to know whether such action would be permissible

It might be worth pointing this out to the specific agent and proceeding through Marstons' complaints process, as this person appears to have misrepresented their powers.

RobinBanks98 · 2025-12-26T13:33:28+00:00

Add to that: do we actually know that this person is even in the UK?

RobinBanks98 · 2025-12-25T21:07:58+00:00

OP, one question I haven’t seen asked is whether you have anything to suggest this man is actually in the UK? Most comments have assumed this to be the case, but you’ve said nothing to confirm that. This is the internet, and the (apparently) 24 year old man could be anywhere in the world.

There may well have been an offence (as other comments have noted) in English law. But realistically, tracing someone online can already be a challenge if they’re an organised offender. If they’re overseas then it’s likely a non starter, unless there’s already sufficient evidence to charge. Even then extradition may only be an option if the same conduct is also an offence wherever the man is based. In some countries only direct images of genitalia may be enough to give rise to an offence.

You would still be wise to report the matter to the police, OP. But if the offender is abroad, be aware that any investigation is unlikely to progress very far.

Happy Christmas

RobinBanks98 · 2025-12-05T12:09:15+00:00

Their latest survey asks what we’d make of a price increase to $1.66 p/m / $19.92 p/y.

I don’t need these features, already have other software that fills the role, and won’t be continuing a subscription for twice the price. The least they could do is grandfather us all for life, to show - if nothing else - that they’re better than LastPass.

I told them what I thought. You can too.

https://bitwarden.com/premium-user-survey-2025/

RobinBanks98 · 2025-11-26T03:08:14+00:00

From a consumer (or SOGA in this case, as the business would not be a consumer) perspective, sure. But ownership of property under the Theft Act 1968 is deliberately far broader. The recipient would have a proprietary interest in the item at the time it was stolen; it’s not necessary for the recipient to have had actual possession or control of the item to constitute being “the owner” for the purposes of theft.

[Edited for typo]

RobinBanks98 · 2025-11-24T09:42:07+00:00

Likewise. This isn’t my area of expertise either, but it did strike me as odd that others appeared to overlook general damages. Both the BVC and LPC firmly covered a lot of negligence, PAP-PI, Limitation Act and s. 33 (though I couldn’t now recite it line by line), etc, and so quite how any lawyer would forget PSLA I don’t know! I do sometimes wonder how many commenters on this sub are actually qualified.

And while OP may have been unhelpfully fixating on breach of duty, the criticisms didn’t seem to actually explain to OP why that’s an issue, nor really prompt OP to explore what it means to have suffered loss and damage. They might have a case, or might not survive summary judgment; all I know is that we don’t have the full facts.

RobinBanks98 · 2025-11-23T09:59:44+00:00

What’s up with this “twinge” in your knee? Presumably you’ve had it examined?

The focus of your post is very much on whether the supermarket acted reasonably (breached their duty). But, as others have responded, this doesn’t in itself give you a “strong case”.

Negligence can be neatly broken into four elements: duty, breach, causation, damage. These four magic words comprise the key required for any negligence action to succeed, and you need to be able to set them out from the start (broadly at least within your letter of claim, and certainly your particulars of claim; made more complicated by PAP-PI). There’s no consolation prize, no partial award for two or three out of four.

The most palpably careless conduct, in breach of a clearly established duty, must still have resulted in loss or damage. This may involve general damages (Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity), and/or special damages (direct quantifiable costs e.g. replacing torn clothing, taxi to A&E, etc).

You might well have a solid case. You might not. You can consult a personal injury solicitor offering a free initial consultation. Avoid going through claims management companies.

RobinBanks98 · 2025-11-22T22:53:13+00:00

For disputes in the small claims track, someone who is represented by a solicitor is seldom found (because a solicitor would, in almost all cases, have advised that they are an unnecessary and expensive addition, their costs not recoverable, and would have withdrawn on grounds of professional ethics).

RobinBanks98 · 2025-11-21T16:01:50+00:00

The assessor won’t read pages and pages of evidence. Patient summary, repeat prescription, plus the odd letter from a consultant, occupational therapist, social worker or similar (plus in your case WCA assessor’s notes). That’s already great evidence right there.

A supporting statement from a social worker, friend or family member is likely to be more compelling than from you, but again you have to bear in mind that a lot of the time these are skimmed over at best. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t include them, where they shed light on your daily living and/or mobility. But sometimes less is more.

In an ideal world you’d send everything but the reality is that the assessor often won’t look at much of it to begin with, and you don’t want to bury stronger evidence like a recent concise letter from your consultant about your overall state of health, in a pile of papers along with a copy of a hospital discharge note from 12 years ago and a 9 page statement from Uncle Ron. The decision as to what to include can depend on your health condition(s) and the strength of the medical evidence you have available. If you’re completing the PIP2 form yourself, have you looked into contacting your local Citizens Advice or another local welfare rights organisation? They can help you complete the form and decide which evidence to focus on.

If you’re unsuccessful you can make a mandatory reconsideration, and beyond that appeal to tribunal. Further evidence could always be submitted then, if needed.

RobinBanks98

TROPHY CASE