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

Part 85 the Civil Procedure Rules ..... Discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2505 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

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not sure how I'm being petulant. It seems that between yourself, Bailiff Advice and wonkeydonkey, you claim to be privvy to the details of this case, but then claim you don't have the details as the transcript has yet to be released. As I said, on Sunday Bailiff Advice assured us they would be posting the case details in the next day or two yet nothing has surfaced. However it seems that you three are freely sharing the details amongst yourselves leaving not just me, but everyone else on these boards in the dark. I find it very strange.

 

Work committments permitting, I should hopefully be able to start a new thread about the case later today.

 

As you know, I have a passion for accuracy so I will make a couple of comments. The case itself concluded quite some time ago (17th February to be precise). All parties were in court and Judgment was given. Leave to appeal was REFUSED.

 

Due only to time constraints, the Judge was unable to consider the matter of costs on 17th February. Accordingly, a new hearing date was set for May 10th. At that hearing, he Judge considered representation from all parties and made an order that Mr B must pay £7,000.

 

I will not be making any further comments on this thread about the case. I will start a new discussion thread later on.

 

PS: As mentioned above, Judgment was handed down on 17th February 2017. Once judgment is made, it is a public record and can therefore be referred to and copied (which I have done).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a reliance on someone that attended the court to send emails to interested parties. And it depends on how the case went as to whether they want to share the information or not.

 

Remember when the car was taken on HP and the judge said there was beneficial interest. We saw a burst of excitement feeding its way online and a long thread. Then when further court cases found no beneficial interest existed with the debtor until the finance was paid up and a finance company could not be forced to sell, there was a very loud silence. Trying to get information from the source seemed to be very difficult.

 

People only pay for transcripts if they are really helpful to them given the cost.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a reliance on someone that attended the court to send emails to interested parties. And it depends on how the case went as to whether they want to share the information or not.

 

Remember when the car was taken on HP and the judge said there was beneficial interest. We saw a burst of excitement feeding its way online and a long thread. Then when further court cases found no beneficial interest existed with the debtor until the finance was paid up and a finance company could not be forced to sell, there was a very loud silence. Trying to get information from the source seemed to be very difficult.

 

People only pay for transcripts if they are really helpful to them given the cost.

 

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

also the ones which appear on the public databases of course. All this is a little spurious and just distracts from the issues. IMO. Which is of course what it is designed to do.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that is really what happened with HP UB, but again off topic for this thread.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

 

 

This is just symptom of your long standing vendetta and serves no purpose.

If details are correct i for one do not care where they came from.

 

It is the case that matters in my opinion i am not interested in some fengling regarding costs. The incorrect information which is rife on the web was blown out of the water, and this is what needs to be shown.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and there is no sub judice , the case has been heard.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post unapproved...wondered when it would get personal...normally quicker than 2 days.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

 

Your 'good authority' is superfluous given that I have posted on this matter here on cag and elsewhere, without denial to having seen 'partial copy' of the judgment in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub judice does not apply when you are discussing matters of law even if there is a case to which this is a relavant matter.

Some freemen friend are doubtlessly conducting a case using the Magna Carta, doesn't stop us discussing King Johns faux paux does it.

 

Fengling is a misspelling of the word finagling as i would have thought any intelligent person would have been able to decipher.

 

Now on topic please.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...