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

bailiff says he can not issue warrant against royal bank of scotland


iklt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4120 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

Last year i recieved SAR from AA loan i had it was with RBS i sent off letter asking for ppi payments back and recieved rejection letter i pointed out my pre existing medical conditions and the fact i was not asked if i had any and got letter back stating i was affected to some extent by the exclusions of my ppi policy however the extent of the affect means that there was no impact on the suitability of the ppi policy so they would not uphold my complaint.

As this was there final response i decided to file a court action on MCOL i filled in brief description of claim and was surprised to get a defence filed straight away from there legal team stating that the ppi was statute barred under the limitations act of 1980

I filled in my particulars of claim showing evidence of my medical records and sent copy to court and there defence heard nothing until November 2012 when had order from court saying unless defendant files allocation questionnaire by 4 pm on 28/11/2012 defence be struck out and judgement be entered for claimant.

I was duly awarded judgement and heard nothing so contacted there legal team who told me that they disagreed with the judgement and insisted the ppi was out of limitation of six years as that is what it says on the ppi claim adverts on television so being denied my money i served warrant and payed £100 fee to bailiff to recover.

had phone message left of the court telling me to attend on Tuesday for half hour hearing for direction of judge

Phoned bailiff who tells me he can not enforce warrant as royal bank of scotland address is a po box number and he wont get passed security.

There address on money claim on line is Bank of Scotland

PO box 761

Leeds

West yorkshire

LS1 9JF

Is there any case law the defence can produce to prove that the ppi is statute barred i understand the loan and any charges would be but the ppi is a insurance policy and as far as i can see it does not come under the limitations act any thoughts and help and advise would be appreciated thank you in advance iklt

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry brigadier i made mistake it is bank of scotland not rbs just googled there head office BANK OF SCOTLAND,THE MOUND,EDINBURGH,EH1 1YZ will contact bailiff and give him this thanks ian

Edited by iklt
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi yes when i spoke to the bailiff this morning he was very negative because it was a bank and a PO box address different story if it was a flat or terraced house with a struggling couple or old lady who has fell behind with payments on a overpriced piece of furniture or television like all bullies they meet there match his seems to be a bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...