Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

~~## New template POCs available##~~


zootscoot
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6169 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

The new template POCs drafted by a QC are now available for the following banks:

 

Abbey

Alliance & Leicester

Barclays

HSBC

Lloyds

Yorkshire

 

Please note these may be subject to changes and updates in the future.

 

POCs for other banks will be available shortly.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/

Link to post
Share on other sites

zootscoot

 

Thanks for this. Is it conceivable you might, as and when you have a moment, provide us with a brief rationale for these new particulars of claim?

 

Speaking as someone who's done a lot of reading and tried to keep abreast of all the issues, it's a little disconcerting to suddenly encounter some new POC.

 

Of course, I don't doubt for one minute that CAG wouldn't be advocating them if they weren't an improvement on what went before. Be that as it may, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it if you - or one of your colleagues - could provide us with a brief resume of how they're different and why.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new template POCs were produced by a QC in preparation for the recent strike out hearings in Hull.

 

After taking advice following the defeat in Berwick v Lloyds and the subsequent action of the court in Hull threatening to strike out claims we decided that it would be best to have POCs specific to each bank. The old POCs served their purpose and helped many successfully recover their charges, however, we felt that in light of recent events and more and more judges getting pedantic about POCs that a change was needed.

 

These differ from the old POCs in that they include reference to the actual T & Cs of each bank (a reason for the defeat in Berwick) and also they are more in depth and professionally written.

 

The judge in Hull was most impressed with them and commented how they would narrow down the issues of contention making any hearing run more smoothly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. All your endeavours are much appreciated.

 

Can I just clarify, these new POCs have nothing whatsoever to do with yesterday's announcement of a test case - as I had mistakenly assumed - and the timing is mere coincidence?!

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...