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
      • 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

FOS adjudicator not sharing evidence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2680 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 have a number of current complaints lodged with FOS against payday loan companies.

All but one adjudicator has happily shared the responses/evidence from the payday loan companies

but one in particular has stated the company must give their consent to share the evidence they have provided.

 

 

This seems contrary to how any typical arbitration or court process

- only seems natural that both sides get to see the evidence.

 

 

I appreciate that anything commercially confidential should be excluded but I very much doubt that is the case.

The adjudicator has told me that I am aware of "salient points of the case" Before kicking up a fuss and possibly getting a vindicative reaction from the adjudicator,

 

 

I am just looking to see if anyone else has had this experience?

And what are the rights and wrongs of it

 

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is in the disclaimer at the bottom of the consumer complaint form:

 

 

§ I understand that you will need some personal details about me, that you might need to share information I give you – including sensitive or personal information – with the business involved and other relevant organisations, and that you might need to ask them for information that’s relevant to my case.

 

Ask the adjudicator if there is an equivalent disclaimer on the firm's side. If so, then it appears that the adjudicator themselves is deciding what the firm wants to share or not.

You may be aware of the salient points of the case, but without seeing what the firm has submitted, you don't know if it's a downright lie or not! Seems like a one sided skewed approach if you ask me. Correlates with how the FOS are funded I guess!!

Good luck with the complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

You are entitled to case file used to produce an outcome bar commercial, security, underwriting details etc.

This is a direct quote from the Independent Assessor. Caveat is the IA says different things all the time, none of which is actual FOS practice despite the FOS accepting all of her opinions & recommendations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
You are entitled to case file used to produce an outcome bar commercial, security, underwriting details etc.

This is a direct quote from the Independent Assessor....

 

I've also been told this by the IA as well.

 

Had similar experience to OP on many occasions. First time blanket refusal about giving me a copy of a swift message sent between banks. I told the adjudicator to send me a redacted copy (redacting all commercially sensitive details). She then contacted the bank, bank send her a redacted copy, which she forwarded on to me. See it here.

 

On another complaint, an adjudicator, (incorrectly) refused to send me bank account transaction history (which were not commercially sensitive at all). I complained to her manager, and the manager sent me the transaction screenshot immediately.

 

Another complaint - adjudicator issues decision, without ever contacting me or seeing all my evidence. I ask to see specific evidence he relied on to come to his conclusions. I spell out the conclusions and the evidence I need to see. he then tries a fast one by saying in order to ensure "completeness" he would like to see MY EVIDENCE that I had intended to send at the outset. Only then he can send me the case file evidence. Emailed his manager straightaway. Manager arranged case file evidence to be sent to me immediately.

 

No surprises. Adjudicator had relied on what the bank "said" (hearsay evidence), before coming to his conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprises. Adjudicator had relied on what the bank "said" (hearsay evidence), before coming to his conclusions.

same.

had to ask for the file. it was duly sent, and showed inconsistencies.

always ask the fos for what they have been given by the cruditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be better to start a new thread ponytail

rather than going around old threads

and posting several months after the OP started it.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...