Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

BMW not replacing brake pads


zack007
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2213 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 all,

 

I hope someone can help me with the following issue

 

jan 2017 I purchased a BMW X5 from cooper Durham,

before purchasing the vehicle I was sent a video of the car.

The on screen display showed 37000 miles for the front brake pads as they were new.

 

Last week I took my car for an MOT to Sytner BMW Coventry

they said the front pads and discs need replacing as they are 3.5mm.

I was pretty surprised as i would expect them to last longer as I had done under 6000 miles.

 

Cooper Durham want to inspect the car as they think there must be an issue.

I'm around 200 miles away from them.

Sytner BMW Coventry are saying there's no issue and its just worn

 

I still have around a week warrantly left in the car but the pads and discs are not covered as part of that.

 

I'm trying to get Cooper Durham to replace the parts as they should not have worn out in 6000 miles but they are not going to do it until they inspect it in Durham

 

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I wouldn't trust BMW any longer on these servicing issues. I was told I had to have new discs and pads on mine (not an X5) because they were - wait for it - Rusty!

 

Having built a car myself I know a tiny thing or two about cars and having just had the car MOT'd and passed I took the car back to the MOT centre and asked them to inspect them again. The only 'rust' on the disc was that 1/4" around the outer rim where the pads don't touch so of course that bit was rusty being exposed to the elements.

 

I took it up with BMW and they just said they have to be 100% sure the braking system is 100% efficient - yeah right! - If they'd have had their way and I not as wise this would have been a near £1200 bill I'd have had to pay for all discs and pads to be replaced by them.

 

I think you'll need to go back to Durham, but I'd make sure they repay your costs if you do first.

 

Good luck. Oh, and don't forget there are more things than Warranties to fall back on in consumer protection laws that others I'm sure will point you in the direction of - I'm a bit 'rusty' on the current laws, but they used to be covered by the old Sales of Goods Act.....take a look.

 

A1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cra

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

I'm not sure about the X5, but my 5 series showed 70,000 on a new set of pads.

 

The problem with the computer estimates us that they rely on the driver history to generate the future use.

So if the previous owner was very light on the brakes the estimate would be high, even although the discs were fairly worn.

What milage is on the car and has it had a recent mot

 

But as above I would not trust BMW, ask them to show you the pads.

 

Also they do have a habit of changing the discs and pads at the same time, when pads would do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input so far

 

The thing with the consumer protection is that I may have to take the car to Durham and its a 400 mile round trip and not worth the hassle

 

Last week my first point of contact was the chap who sold the vehicle to me but I couldn't get through to him and then I tried his manager who promised to call me back and that didn't happen. I eventually found this manager's manager contact number and he's the head of a department so currently speaking to him

 

There's definitely a problem with the car as both front and rear pads were showing around 37000 miles and the rear ones still have 9mm left whereas the front have 3.5mm.

 

Cooper Durham do not trust the inspection done by Sytner Coventry

 

At this moment in time I just want them to replace the pads although i'm not sure whether they should/would need to do discs as well

 

They did show me a video of the front pads and it looked worn out

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm ok but its a massive difference between 37000 miles and giving only around 5000-6000 miles. If there pads were worn out after around 10000-15000 i still would have been ok with it but i don't think this is acceptable.

 

Cooper Durham are now avoiding my emails

Link to post
Share on other sites

BMW's have 'menu based servicing' which i have always found to be a little complicated.

One can have quite a few service reminders

(brakes, both front and rear, brake fluid, coolant, engine oil etc) all running at the same time.

 

The system relies on being reset when parts are replaced or inspections carried out.

The brake distance indicator is just that and of course relies on the fact that no one has reset the counter early either by accident or wilfully.

 

I would image that this issue stems from the indicator not being in line with the material left on the pads.

I would much rather believe a visual check rather than the servicing counter on the screen.

To summise i think your 'issue' will be down to the computer not being in sync with the physical state of your brakes.

 

I would just change the pads locally,

reset the front brake pad counter and move on.

 

Warranties are not there to cover consumables after all,

if the pads were legal and good when you took delivery then im not sure how the dealer is at fault?

Not unless you had a case that the counter had been reset to benefit the supplying dealer,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

irrelevant and unnecessary posts removed

 

dx

siteteam

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

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...