Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Does this sound OK?


matthews mum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6333 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I am just about to do the preliminary approach for payment. They now owe me much more money than I'd previously thought - I've had the best part of £200 deducted in charges over the past week alone :eek: I am fizzing.

 

Anyway, there is also a DP Act issue with my claim - not only have they had an apparent disregard for the 40 day limit, but the statements came to my parents house, where I haven't lived for 6 and a half years, in a raggedy envelope, and then another copy of MY OWN statements was sent to my house but in the joint names of my husband and I - I am raging at this blatant disregard of my personal data.

 

I digress...I was going to include an additional para along the lines of the following - does it sound OK?

 

"Further, I am seriously concerned with the way in which the Bank have handled my personal data. Not only did you fail to send the documentation timeously, but you sent 2 copies of the statements to me - however one was sent in my maiden name, which I have not used for over three years, and to an address where I have not lived for over six years, and the other was sent to my current address, but addressed jointly to both myself and my husband. This contained details of my own personal bank account. In addition, BOTH copies of the statements were posted in envelopes which were quite evidently not strong enough to support the weight of the documentation inside, with the result that the envelopes had become ragged and torn in transit, and the contents were visible from the outside. I have retained the envelopes and also have photographs taken of them before I opened them.

 

You will note the terms of my original letter to you (copy attached for ease of reference) in which I stated that I would be prepared to collect the statements from my branch. If you were going to be unable to send me the documentation in a secure and lawful manner you could have asked me to do so. There is no justification for the appalling manner in which you have handled my personal data, and quite frankly, in the current environment where banks' handling of personal customer information is subject to widespread public scrutiny and media attention, your actions here are quite incomprehensible.

 

I look forward to the reimbursement of my charges as per the attached schedule within 14 days of the date shown on this letter, failing which I will take further action including contacting the Information Commissioner to obtain an adjudication that the Data Protection Act has been breached. You should be aware that if my charges are not reimbursed forthwith, I will also be seeking damages in respect of your breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

This letter is written entirely without prejudice to my rights and pleas and may not be founded on except with my express permission."

 

Any views? Please?

 

Thanks

 

MM x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...