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

nwuser v rbs (represented by Cobbetts) help


nwuser
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6134 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

I am claiming Bank charges from RBS (£2,100) - they entered a defence on the 27th day with MCOL. The same day their solicitors, Cobbetts, sent me a letter and a lot of legal jargon, requesting further information and clarification.

They say

'You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with CPR Part 18 by 17th May 2007' it goes on 'in the event that you do not provide an adequate response to this request by this date then the Defendant can apply to the court for an order you to provide the information requested or an order striking out your claim.

They ask for the following information:

in relation to each charge identify a the date when the charge was charged b the amount of the same and c the reason given for the charging of the same.

 

There is also lots of other legal questions, which I do not understand ie

 

'specify the clause pursuant to which the charges where applied'

I received advice on the above and sent the following letter :

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

Claim No:

 

I Acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of rbs.

I am not prepared at this stage to answer the CPR Part 18 Request. I anticipate that the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a Part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative

Furthermore I consider that the CPR part 18 request is intimidatory and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court. However, for clarity, I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account:

Account Name:

Account number:

Sort Code:

 

Please also find enclosed a breakdown of all charges I am claiming.

 

I also asked them to explain

'specify the clause pursuant to which the charges where applied' because This is a highly ambiguous statement meaning that it is open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations. And asked them for a full explanation stating that the paragraph was ambiguous.

Yours Faithfully"

 

 

I included a breakdown of charges with the letter and I did send it recorded delivery (have got the slip to prove it) in good time.

 

I have now received a copy of the solicitors Allocation questionnaire and in the section for other information they have stated:

Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant serves a Reply to the Request for Further Information which was due on 17th May 2007. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its defence or apply to strike out.

 

I telephoned the Court this morning and they said I cannot do anything about it now because it has been referred to the Judge and we will hear something shortly.

 

Should I write to the court with a copy of the letter I sent to Cobbets along with a copy of the recorded delivery slip.

 

I am very worried now that I may not even get to court with then asking for it to be struck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not help for the last letter, but you may be best sending a copy of any letters you send to Cobbetts to the court as well (obviously not any "without prejudice" letters).

 

Although it's slightly late, I'd recommend you forward a copy of that last letter to the court also. You don't need to supply a covering letter as the court clerks will just add the latter to your case file (make sure the claim number is clearly visible).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...