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
      • 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

Telephone Harassment Letters Not Respected.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4276 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'm currently one of the lucky ones as I'm not getting many calls at the moment, but after installing a line card into my home PBX, I can record calls on both my VOIP and my landline number.

 

I'm thinking of recording a message along these lines, which will be played to any caller added to a blacklist:

 

Hello, and thank you for calling. If you are hearing this message for the first time, then congratulations on becoming a member of an exclusive but increasingly popular club.

 

This is not a live service, and calls from your company have been blacklisted.

 

Despite repeated requests for your company to conact me in writing only, your representatives have continued to call my telephone number. Please note that I find these actions to be in contravention to the Administration of Justice Act 1970, the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003. Your call has been logged, and may be given in evidence.

 

If you continue to call this number, I will find it necessary to report your company's actions to OFCOM, OTELO, Trading Standards, the OFT, the FOS and possible legal action to seek an injuction plus compensation and costs.

 

This call will now terminate. Goodbye.

They call back, and it just plays the message again and again. :-D
  • Haha 1

ftolad v. Lowell - Statute Barred letter - * WON *

ftolad v. Scotcall - CCA'd, no agreement - * WON *

ftolad v. Mac Hall:

Still ongoing, official complaints procedure requested - 14 days to comply before TS, OFT and FOS.

 

All thanks to advice from CAG. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just a further point to my last post above, I referred to OTELO, the Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman.

 

It appears that OTELO will investigate complaints from customers of any member companies signmed up to their service... I would imagine that very few would, but you never know.

 

Member companies can be found at the following link:

 

Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman - Membership

 

They work in a similar way to the FOS, and make judgements after investigating both sides of the complaint. I would suggest that complaints should initially be raised with OFCOM first before getting help from OTELO, as their mandate is clearly defined in the Communications Act 2003.

 

:)

ftolad v. Lowell - Statute Barred letter - * WON *

ftolad v. Scotcall - CCA'd, no agreement - * WON *

ftolad v. Mac Hall:

Still ongoing, official complaints procedure requested - 14 days to comply before TS, OFT and FOS.

 

All thanks to advice from CAG. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...