Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

RBS - I got a refund but.......


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6604 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

I recently wrote to RBS using the letter template on the Govan Law website and they have written back to me agreeing to refund £84 worth of charges for me going over my agreed overdraft limit.

 

BUT THIS WAS THEIR EXACT REPLY

 

Thank you for your letter dated 20/02/06 and I apologise for any disatisfaction caused by the application of charges to your account.

 

We believe that our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider the amounts debited to your account have been apllied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, whihc we are satisfied, complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our products.

 

Against that background, we must differ to the views expressed in you letter.

 

However, we have tajken the opportunity to review the charges applied to your account and as an exceptional matter we are prepared to refund £84 as a gesture of goodwill. Acceptance by you of this payment in full and final settlement of all claims you may have relating to our charges and strictly on the basis that you agree nto to disclise to any third party the fact of, or any details relating to this payment

 

Yes I want the money back but are the bank allowed to make clauses and is it lawful? Obviously I have breached one of them by showing the letter on here but from what I understand, I will not be able to dispute charges in the future. Has anyone had a similar letter and what did they do about this? Any advice on the matter and what I should do next would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

£84 I think - at least that is what it says at the beginning of the post...

Status:

 

Halifax - DPA sent 03/03/06.

Prelim Letter - Sent 27/03/06 ignored.

LBA sent 10/04/06 - Ignored

Moneyclaim filed - 26.04.06

Acknowledgement received 3rd May. Halifax state they intend to defend.

Halifax Settled in Full - 17 May 2006

 

If you've found this post helpful, I would be grateful if you could click on the 'Scales of Justice' button in the top right corner of this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are allowed. It is upto you to accept or reject the offer.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6604 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...