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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4729 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

..... in your choice of words when posting on the site.

 

I have just seen another posting in one of the bank threads that has been edited by a mod for the use of the word "stolen"

 

The word stolen implies that the banks have comitted a criminal act in taking the charges and this is not the case. The issue is one of civil and not criminal law and use of words that suggest criminal activity could result in a claim for libel against the owners of this site. Not a nice thought. Bankfodder and Dave have taken a lot upon themselves to get this thing going, not to mention the mods and site helpers who have enough to do without dealing with stupid comments, even if they are made out of ignorance.

 

Sorry for the rant but it would be a shame to see the site go pear shaped because of the misguided activities of a few people. We are all disgruntled bank customers so lets work together without giving them any ammunition to fire back.

 

Paul

  • Haha 5

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said!! :oops::razz::);):-o:D

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add that it is my personal belief that some of the banks have committed offences under the theft act. The problem is is we would have to prove it to be able to defend a libel action. Unfortunately this would be virtually impossible.

 

We don't seem to be very popular with the banks (I wonder why) and the banks are likely to try and use any method possible to shut us down. This is likely to take the form of either bribery (Won't work), or litigation against the site for something.

 

Please please please do not use the words theft, thief, thieve, stole, stolen, robbing, robbed, robbers in any posts on the forum. If you see any such posts can you please PM a moderator.

BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add that it is my personal belief that some of the banks have committed offences under the theft act. The problem is is we would have to prove it to be able to defend a libel action. Unfortunately this would be virtually impossible.

 

Indeed. The good faith belief we all share that the bank are "stealing" is not a defence. Even truth is not an absolute defence to libel if what is said is still defamatory.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Scarletrose

Thanx guys this has been really informative especially for a newbie like me, i'm glad i spotted this thread and read thru it, i just hope other newbies will do the same, i will endeavour not to make any mistakes, you never know who could be reading thru these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... in your choice of words when posting on the site.

 

I have just seen another posting in one of the bank threads that has been edited by a mod for the use of the word "stolen"

 

The word stolen implies that the banks have comitted a criminal act in taking the charges and this is not the case. The issue is one of civil and not criminal law and use of words that suggest criminal activity could result in a claim for libel against the owners of this site. Not a nice thought. Bankfodder and Dave have taken a lot upon themselves to get this thing going, not to mention the mods and site helpers who have enough to do without dealing with stupid comments, even if they are made out of ignorance.

 

Sorry for the rant but it would be a shame to see the site go pear shaped because of the misguided activities of a few people. We are all disgruntled bank customers so lets work together without giving them any ammunition to fire back.

 

Paul

I agree that people should be careful about what they type, but that is true in everything we say. However, the forum owners are not liable, under the law they are not considered as publishers, they are a neutral party and are not responsible for the posts of their users.

 

The very worst that can happen is they can receive a request to remove the "dubious" content, which they have the choice of whether or not to comply.

 

Just to clarify.

 

Paladine

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that people should be careful about what they type, but that is true in everything we say. However, the forum owners are not liable, under the law they are not considered as publishers, they are a neutral party and are not responsible for the posts of their users.

 

Care to back that one up? Just that the precedent so far is that if you write an article in a magazine and someone cries libel, the victim is clear to sue you, your editor, your publisher, their distributors, and the retailers who sell that month's edition of the magazine. Successfully, I might add. As I recall, Demon Internet lost their case, filed a bogus appeal and settled.

 

The only way CAG might escape such a claim was if there were a notice somewhere saying almost no effort is made as to moderation, thereby denying editorial control, and liability. Even this is not a guaranteed defence.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forum owners are, indeed liable for the content on the forum as they are publishers. The little amount of statute law and all of the common law on libel were formed before internet publishing started. There has been relatively little testing of the issue in court as many have been settled before court but many lawyers agree that libel could be used.

 

Whether it would be provable in court or not, the owners of this site have decided to protect the interests of Reclaim The Right (the sites legal entity) by moderating potentially libellous comment.

BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forum owners are, indeed liable for the content on the forum as they are publishers. The little amount of statute law and all of the common law on libel were formed before internet publishing started. There has been relatively little testing of the issue in court as many have been settled before court but many lawyers agree that libel could be used.

 

Whether it would be provable in court or not, the owners of this site have decided to protect the interests of Reclaim The Right (the sites legal entity) by moderating potentially libellous comment.

 

I have to disagree. ISPs and internet services are not classed as publishers, it is covered under ammendments to the telecommunications act and was specifically revised to prevent embarrassing and highly consequential losses in cases of child abuse/child pornography (an area I am somewhat of an expert in after working for many years with law enforcement around the globe tracking down and prosecuting child pornography traffickers who used the internet for moving their "wares").

 

Internet services and ISPs fall under a "Good Faith" clause. They are required to remove offending data from their networks if it is reported to them, if they fail to do so, they may be held liable, but no action may be taken until after a take down notice has been served and the "defendent" has failed to act.

 

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service. It is this single ruling which still protects ISPs to this day for not filtering illegal content off their usenet servers.

 

Paladine

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service.

 

That's copyright. We're referring to libel. You're looking for the Laurence Godfrey case.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. ISPs and internet services are not classed as publishers, it is covered under ammendments to the telecommunications act and was specifically revised to prevent embarrassing and highly consequential losses in cases of child abuse/child pornography (an area I am somewhat of an expert in after working for many years with law enforcement around the globe tracking down and prosecuting child pornography traffickers who used the internet for moving their "wares").

 

Internet services and ISPs fall under a "Good Faith" clause. They are required to remove offending data from their networks if it is reported to them, if they fail to do so, they may be held liable, but no action may be taken until after a take down notice has been served and the "defendent" has failed to act.

 

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service. It is this single ruling which still protects ISPs to this day for not filtering illegal content off their usenet servers.

 

Paladine

 

 

This may or may not be true, however, even to defend a libel case would put us out of business. We simply couldn't afford to defend and we'd have to go bankrupt - and that means the site would be out of operation for an indefinite period. It's simply not worth taking any risk with.

 

We were threatened about 1 month ago, and we duly amended the offending post and the complainant seemed happy with that - for the time being. It may seem like we're stifling 'free speech', although free speach does not truly exist in the UK (I did consider using a US hosting company which would have *fixed* the problem of libel/defamation etc...).

 

Incidently (and very off topic) how did you get into chasing down the **** that peddle child porn? I'd love to track them down and make sure they got what they deserved - although I'd probably be too emotionally involved and lose my rag with them if I ever met one!

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may or may not be true, however, even to defend a libel case would put us out of business. We simply couldn't afford to defend and we'd have to go bankrupt - and that means the site would be out of operation for an indefinite period. It's simply not worth taking any risk with.

 

We were threatened about 1 month ago, and we duly amended the offending post and the complainant seemed happy with that - for the time being. It may seem like we're stifling 'free speech', although free speach does not truly exist in the UK (I did consider using a US hosting company which would have *fixed* the problem of libel/defamation etc...).

 

Incidently (and very off topic) how did you get into chasing down the **** that peddle child porn? I'd love to track them down and make sure they got what they deserved - although I'd probably be too emotionally involved and lose my rag with them if I ever met one!

 

I am not disputing your entitlement to moderate and certainly don't see it as censorship, this board is your property you can do with it as you wish. We are given the priveledge to use it, nothing more. I was merely trying to point out that internet services and ISP are covered under "Good Faith" so long as they act on offending material once it has been brought to their attention. I agree, the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of time dealing with written complaints, you offer much more to the community here on other fronts, and having to divert attention to such matters would inevitably effect the quality of this community.

 

As for my work against child pornography, its a long and very personal story and probably not appropriate for these boards. It is incredibly difficult to remain objective in such endeavours, but at the same time, it is incredibly important. The second you allow it to become subjective, you are unable to do your job effectively and it can cause severe damage emotionally, as you can probably imagine.

 

I eventually moved away from it as my objectivity was starting to get shakey and the risks involved, had I let it become a persona crusade, to me, and my family, would have been very high.

 

Paladine

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are getting away from the original point that I was making and debating the legal issues isn't really necessary.

 

If all forum users refrain from using any language that could be construed in any way as libellous, the legal arguments don't arise and the site owners will never have to be tested in court.

 

It's that simple really!

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

well I just came across a post which made a libellous comment about the bank, and reported it, however I decided afterwards to do a search on the word 'thieving' and, as it is so often misspelt - 'theiving'. Numerous posts came up and I wondered why the mods aren't doing searches such as this themselves to delete the offending words?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also use the word censor for more obviously libelous words like thieving etc..probably not on stolen though as it may be used in a different context in some threads...

25/06/08 - NatWest - Prelim letter

09/03/06 - Halifax - Settled 27/4

22/03/06 - Capital One - Settled 24/6

17/04/06 - Nationwide - Settled 8/9

 

 

Hit the DONATE BUTTON and give 5% back to support this site!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered why the mods aren't doing searches such as this themselves to delete the offending words?

 

Site Helpers do a lot of searching for liable wording, as well as welcome newbies, as well as give guidance on the site, the wording you found is more than lately what has been written after an approx 50 that could have been edited in any 24 hours, the links you have viewed may well be on a list now waiting on editing tomorrow.

 

This is an on going job it doesnt stop, as long as there are posts there are checks being made. have you stood back an looked at the size of this site lately its massive....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also use the word censor for more obviously libelous words like thieving etc..probably not on stolen though as it may be used in a different context in some threads...

 

Robbing , Robbed, thieving, stolen.

All come under. Insurance threads, car threads, jokes. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Site Helpers do a lot of searching for liable wording, as well as welcome newbies, as well as give guidance on the site, the wording you found is more than lately what has been written after an approx 50 that could have been edited in any 24 hours, the links you have viewed may well be on a list now waiting on editing tomorrow.

 

This is an on going job it doesnt stop, as long as there are posts there are checks being made. have you stood back an looked at the size of this site lately its massive....

 

hi breadline, this wasn't an attack on the mods or site helpers, or saying that they don't help in the other ways you've pointed out, and I can't see why you jumped on it as such. I was merely wondering if this kind of search went on already and attempting to offer some constructive help with the situation. The posts I saw were not that recent but I have reported them anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong if that was a jump on you hun you would be flat right now, and it would of contained many of these!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and many of these ABCDEFG and many of these:mad: :-x so im confussed :confused: where is the post inany way as you discribe, i may of omitted one of these :):D:p so there have 3 and a chill pill

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4729 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...