Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Consequential loss-Good for your defence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5474 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

Heres a very good piece to put in your defence and argue at trial-in particular if you have multiple charges that were applied consecutively.You should use both arguements.

 

 

 

Now that the the OFTs rulings have been universally applied, and them saying they would take legal action against Credit Card Companies levying default charges above £12.00 each,

we are now starting to see Credit Card companies only agreeing to refund the portion of every charge over £12.00. In fact CitiCards supposedly "proved" (I'm using the term very loosely) that this is the amount it costs them per default.

Actually Citi claim that it costs them MORE than this !!!

 

To counter this strategy, it is necessary to use what I call the "consequential charges" arguement. In short what you argue is that but for the bank levying the first X unlawful, or partially unlawful, charges (usually a small number) then you wouldn't of incurred ANY of the other subsequent charges. Accordingly the subsequent charges should be refunded in full.

 

To illustrate this example lets assume that when you first open your account you incur £250.00 of default charges in your first two months of holding the account. Let's further assume that at every subsequent incidence of you incurring a default charge the balance of your account at the time is such that you wouldn't of incurred such a charge but for the PREVIOUS unlawful charges (i.e. you wouldn't of incurred the charge but for the previous £250.00 of charges levied on your account). Under such circumstances according to the BANK'S reasoning you would be entitled to a refund of every one of your "subsequent" charges in FULL and the portion over £12.00 of the initial charges.

 

A second arguement is the "inflation" arguement. Basically, the arguement goes that £12.00 today would be equivalent to £10.00 six years ago. Not much of a difference but the combined effect of this and the above arguement, in some circumstances, can be much more effective than the above one on its own.

 

Both of the above arguements would usually be brought up in a reply to a Defence. It is important to put at the start "the Claimant denies the Defendant's allegation that the Defendant's refunding of the portion of every charge over £12.00 relieves it of its liability to the Claimant".

Edited by MARTIN3030

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very well written article Martin and I am surprised you haven't put it as a stickie ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had though of it-I wanted the Citi claimants to see it first-I think it will also be good for the Egg forums-Citis sister card.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Ok -a stickie it is then.:)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies, Martin3030, it was an unfortunate morning to post it up. I thought you were taking the proverbial. Will slap my own wrist later and look at it properly tomorrow.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

To illustrate this example lets assume that when you first open your account you incur £250.00 of default charges in your first two months of holding the account.

 

This wouldn't have ever happened in the first 2 months - Citi historically applied a maximum of £50 per month charges.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is correct although I did have 3 charges in 1 month-there was £25 applied for return of a cash convenience cheque which was only valued at £15.00.

So potentially if this happened twice in a month over 2 months-you could be landed with £200 in charges.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...