Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Letter from FSA not to put a stay on claims


bruce47

Recommended Posts

Just a thought i am sure crfx250, alecmac18 and all the other top posters will have a view on this.

 

If a credit card, benifit, bussiness claim has a stay put on the case when obviously it shouldn't then what if we write to the FSA and ask for them to confirm in writing that the claim is not covered by the waiver and hence any stay should be lifted and not put on in the first place.

 

I am sure it would be useful for people applying to have a stay liffted if there was a letter from the FSA stating the claims are not covered by the waiver and should not be stayed. Then surely the judges would have to lift the stays.

 

Or do you think the FSA would not or would not want to put this on paper?

 

At the end of the day they have imposed the waiver and if its being used wrongly then surley they would have the duty to correct the matter.

 

Poss all credit card claims etc get a letter from the FSA before submitting the claim with the courts so in theory no claims should ever get stayed again.

 

Also causing more work for our faithfull team at the FSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that a letter from the FSA (or some form of clarification) would be great for people claims back credit card charges and business accounts.

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Current credit card default charges unfair

 

The trouble is that it was the OFT who ruled on credit cards (see above). They don't seem to want to clarify their ruling. And the FSA will say that it is the OFT responsibility.

 

Divide and conquer.............muddy the waters......pull the wool over the eyes of the sheep......this is the way of our regulators.

 

I think the good news about this situation is that the OFT ruling on credit cards has not been properly tested in a court yet. This means that if you apply to the FOS or the Courts for a claim - you will probably win. You might actually be better going to FOS over credit card charges - they have still not made a ruling - and claims continue to be paid in full. I have noticed some credit card firms getting a bit nasty with litigation though - e.g making things more complicated - filing long defences etc.........man... bet the courts are loving it.

 

Note:If you go to FOS over a credit card claim - try and mark your application as clearly as possible so the staff know that it is not an ordinary bank charge claim - otherwise it gets lost in the forest of paper that is apparently flowing into their office evry day. A big red marker on a covering letter with the app should do the trick.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...